White people are more likely to be more intelligent than black people
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 6/14/10
Race and Intelligence: The Evidence
Scientific data show that the races differ in intelligence — dogma holds otherwise.

by Samuel Taylor



here is probably no greater intellectual crime than to point out that the average intelligence of blacks is significantly lower than that of other races. American society punishes those who publicly state this view almost as vigorously as Islamic republics punish anyone who defames the Prophet.



Indeed, in an increasingly secular America, the dogma of racial equality has become virtually a religion. Like early Christians under the Romans, or Russian dissidents under the Soviets, Americans who question the dogma keep their forbidden opinions to themselves or exchange them only in private.

Despite its strength, one of the most remarkable things about the racial dogma is how new it is. Until only a few decades ago, hardly anyone thought the races were equal. Kipling wrote of “lesser breeds without the law,” and the Encyclopedia Britannica noted matter-of-factly in its 1914 edition that “The Negro is intellectually inferior to the Caucasian.” Until only a generation or two ago, this was the view of virtually all Americans: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Harry Truman, to cite only Presidents.

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

The 1914 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica noted that “The Negro is intellectually inferior to the caucasian.”

The egalitarian position is therefore not based on evidence — for there is no evidence for that position — but on excuse-making. It consists purely in excusing blacks from the conclusion to which all the evidence points.

-----------------------------------------------------

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biased test maybe?- my title

At this point, the egalitarian defense claims that IQ tests are somehow biased against blacks. Common as this charge is, it is nothing more than an ex post facto explanation for results that displease the egalitarians, for no one can look through a well-designed intelligence test and explain what the bias is and where it is to be found.

In fact, many modern IQ tests, such as Raven’s Progressive Matrices, have no verbal or cultural content at all. They test a person’s understanding of shapes and patterns, and are routinely given to people who do not even speak English. Other varieties of IQ test do involve language and inevitably have some cultural content — and these are the very tests on which the black/white gap in scores is narrowest. The more culturally specific an intelligence test is, the narrower the black/white gap becomes. The most abstract, culture-free tests show the largest gap.

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

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

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


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

"Blacks may have gotten as far in American society as their natural limitations permit."

"Average IQ’s may be as low as 80 in Uganda, 75 in Nigeria, and 65 in Zaire."

Race and Crime- JJT's title

Few people in America write more fearlessly and incisively about race than Professor Michael Levin of the City College of New York. His recent paper, “Responses to Race Differences in Crime,” published in the Journal of Social Philosophy, is a rigorous analysis of a question that most academics would not even think to raise: Should society draw conclusions about individuals based on race? Prof. Levin is writing specifically about crime, but his reasoning could be applied to education, employment, or any other area in which average behavior differs consistently by race.

Prof. Levin begins with the cold statistical facts: Blacks account for two-thirds of all arrests for robbery, and a young black is five times more likely than a young white to be a felon. Are individual whites therefore justified in avoiding young blacks and are police officers justified in keeping them under close scrutiny? The common sense answer is “of course,” but common sense is rare when the subject is race. Prof. Levin systematically refutes every standard (and some non-standard) objections to different treatment based on race.



Prof. Levin teaches philosophy at City College, and his arguments are subtle, thorough, and logical. For example, he launches a brilliant attack on the idea that categorization by race “stereotypes” blacks and causes yet more black deviance. Then he applies this argument to the kind of real-life decision real-life people must make. Imagine, he says, that you have just been mugged on the street by a black man. A policeman arrives just too late to prevent the attack and says this:

“I saw the black approach you and suspected he might attack, but I didn’t intercede even to the minimal extent of showing myself to discourage him because my belief that he might attack was race-based. I would have felt no impulse to intercede had your attacker been white. But I shouldn’t act on thoughts I shouldn’t think, and I shouldn’t think that way. I shouldn’t think that way because your attacker’s turn to crime was the result of his great-grandfather’s enslavement, his father’s inferior education and his own constricted opportunities, circumstances based on racial thinking. Doing anything because of his race is just the sort of thinking that caused him to attack you.”
Ridiculous as such a speech sounds, it is exactly the way Americans are supposed to think and behave. Obviously, many Americans do not; they would be fools to do so. But having argued that the police officer should take race into consideration, Prof. Levin does not shrink from tackling the next question: What other decisions should we base on race? “Suppose the presence of more than a threshold number of black children in a classroom impedes the intellectual development of white children,” he writes; “Here would be a utilitarian argument for school segregation …”

After pointing out that blacks rape a vastly disproportionate number of white women, Prof. Levin goes on to say:

“If separating black men from white women would sharply decrease the incidence of rape among white women without raising its incidence among black women correspondingly, the personal preference for white women to avoid rape would be utilitarian grounds for such separation.”
Hats off to Prof. Levin. Not only is his theoretical analysis impressive, he is willing to step out of the ivory tower and apply it to real American problems.



http://www.amren.com/ar/1992/11/index.html

Please do read at least half the site, i will post other evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence- dont judge wikipedia, i bet it knows more than you do .

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

"To put matters bluntly, the question is not why anyone would believe the races are unequal in intelligence, but why anyone would believe them equal. When someone asserts that black intellectual performance would equal that of whites were society free of bias, the proper response is 'What makes you think so?' The burden of proof, usually placed on those who deny the intellectual equality of the races, rests squarely on those who assert it."[32]

-http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/lev.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly speaking, this is pretty common knowledge in America, the data is everywhere and consistent unlike some other so called data on another thread .

Speaking of which you know who inspired this thread and thus you know it is a parody.

Even so lets keep this discussion real, because if you look at the data, this can't be explain by simple bias, cultural factors, environmental factors, genetic factors, ect.

Yes, i know this topic is taboo. Its like a religion in America, so i will tred VERY carefully and not give my viewpoints until much later.

So for now, you answer the BIG quesion- WHY? peace over war
Posted 6/14/10 , edited 6/14/10
Do we really need to go into this? Do we really need to go into this?

If I judge someone for their intelligence it has nothing to do with their race, and I wish others to do the same to me. Parody or not, this title insults me. I maybe taking it a little too seriously, but I've dealt with this all too often. Since I'm now of age I've had to prove myself many times to people. I work harder than anyone else, but because of my race I'm considered "on the bottom?"

Living in a city where the majority of people are black I see it everyday. Our condition and where we live has battered us so much to the point where most probably lost their strive. They don't see education as being important, and would rather give in to the easy hustle of selling drugs. Our community leaders are also not putting in enough effort into the black community, parents also need to take responsibility. How are our children supposed to know that they can accomplish anything if they don't have the motivation? Everyday we are told that white is better. We are bombarded by it, and occasionally are victims to it. To really get into the deeper meaning of this topic you have to go back to the days of slavery. While whites were given more opportunities for education, blacks were left behind, but of course that's no excuse now since we blacks have every reason to better ourselves.

And here's another thing: do you honestly think that you would have a better education living in A. a ghetto surrounded by crime and drugs or B. the suburbs. Really think about this.

So what do we as black people need to do? First of all get better community leaders. Start out with the children while their young and teach them the advantages of finishing school. With this it is less likely for them to join gangs or other illegal activity. Secondly, give them the motivation, third teach them that their skin color is not a curse, but truly is beautiful, and lastly take responsibility.

I could care less about your statistics. In no way does your race or anyone else's make them better or smarter than me, and it's things like this which make us unable to evolve as a society. Though technology is changing, we're still stuck in the same old ignorant mindset. We need to go above this racial barrier. It's time to grow up, America.

To be perfectly frank, I don't want to put up with any closed-minded bullshit. If you can't talk with proper respect than please for the love of God don't post in this thread because I swear I'll ban you and everyone else who wants to be Mr. Internet Rebel. Try me.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 6/14/10
No we do not
Posted 6/14/10
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/14/10
I can't say anything about why there aren't any "advanced" black/African civilizations, but I believe that in America the IQ difference between races is largely due to cultural and socioeconomic factors. If you put any person from any race in the same circumstances that many black Americans are raised in (poor, crime-infested urban area with a faulty public education system) then they will all grow up to have equally low IQs. The high school I went to was diverse in terms of race and socioeconomic backgrounds of the students, and I always noticed that the kids who lived in urban areas usually didn't get very good grades while the students from suburban areas did, and there was a wide variety of races from both urban and suburban areas. Of course there were exceptions, some of the urban kids (like me) earned good grades and some of the suburban kids didn't do so well. The OP didn't say anything about the socioeconomic backgrounds of the people involved in the tests, so even though my idea is based solely on personal observation and I have no data to back it up, I think it's still a viable answer (or excuse depending on how you see it).

As a black guy who has lived in mostly-black neighborhoods most of my life and spent the vast majority of my life interacting with other black people, I can say that our culture is a huge contribution to all of this. Black American culture is largely centered around instant gratification and living for the moment. We are taught to do what feels good and do it ASAP regardless of the future consequences, which is why many black communities are so full of crime, mostly drug dealing, since it's the quick and easy way to make money, and that money is usually invested in things immediate (aka superficial) desires and pleasures. We are not taught to care about our futures because our lives could end at any moment, so we have no sense of foresight and don't care about things like saving money or earning an education. We are taught to live every day like it is our last because there is always the constant fear of being taken out by some gang banger (which is a phenomena that I don't have an explanation for). I personally think that our culture is like this because throughout most of American history, blacks were forced to struggle and suffer and fear death every day due to slavery and racial oppression. Now we are mostly free of that, but we're still instilled with the fear death from a young age, so we continue to try and enjoy the moment instead of worrying about the future since we don't expect our future to last very long. Of course this mindset causes us to hold ourselves down and dig our own holes of oppression that are difficult to escape. I can only assume that in suburban/white culture, people are taught to invest in their futures because there is not much concern about being killed in the crossfire of a gang fight or losing everything to a robbery, which is why people from those areas tend to take their education more seriously and become better educated. Again, this is all just based on my personal observations, which I don't expect anyone else to take seriously.

I might have kind of strayed off topic, but my main point is that black Americans are less intelligent on average because most of them have to live with cultural and socioeconomic factors that discourage them from being concerned about their future and encourage them to seek instant gratification, which is why they don't invest as much time and effort into their education as other races do. Now that I think about it, this may be just a huge waste of text, since my ideas are based on the premise that "IQ" is a measure of the amount of knowledge that one currently has (which is what I thought the OP meant) rather than a measure of one's potential to obtain and retain knowledge (which is what I think IQ actually is).
Posted 6/14/10
This is a spam thread waiting to happen. You know people are not going to read everything & will just blatantly reply angrily because of the topic title.
_________

Personally I don't care if people keep saying that; europeans are smarter than african-americans, people of Asian descent are smarter than both and etc. It's something people will keep "debating" about for years. And people who make up those so called accurate statics & studies are inane, but they know somebody will be dumb enough to believe it.
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 6/14/10 , edited 6/14/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

I can't say anything about why there aren't any "advanced" black/African civilizations, but I believe that in America the IQ difference between races is largely due to cultural and socioeconomic factors. If you put any person from any race in the same circumstances that many black Americans are raised in (poor, crime-infested urban area with a faulty public education system) then they will all grow up to have equally low IQs. The high school I went to was diverse in terms of race and socioeconomic backgrounds of the students, and I always noticed that the kids who lived in urban areas usually didn't get very good grades while the students from suburban areas did, and there was a wide variety of races from both urban and suburban areas. Of course there were exceptions, some of the urban kids (like me) earned good grades and some of the suburban kids didn't do so well. The OP didn't say anything about the socioeconomic backgrounds of the people involved in the tests, so even though my idea is based solely on personal observation and I have no data to back it up, I think it's still a viable answer (or excuse depending on how you see it).

As a black guy who has lived in mostly-black neighborhoods most of my life and spent the vast majority of my life interacting with other black people, I can say that our culture is a huge contribution to all of this. Black American culture is largely centered around instant gratification and living for the moment. We are taught to do what feels good and do it ASAP regardless of the future consequences, which is why many black communities are so full of crime, mostly drug dealing, since it's the quick and easy way to make money, and that money is usually invested in things immediate (aka superficial) desires and pleasures. We are not taught to care about our futures because our lives could end at any moment, so we have no sense of foresight and don't care about things like saving money or earning an education. We are taught to live every day like it is our last because there is always the constant fear of being taken out by some gang banger (which is a phenomena that I don't have an explanation for). I personally think that our culture is like this because throughout most of American history, blacks were forced to struggle and suffer and fear death every day due to slavery and racial oppression. Now we are mostly free of that, but we're still instilled with the fear death from a young age, so we continue to try and enjoy the moment instead of worrying about the future since we don't expect our future to last very long. Of course this mindset causes us to hold ourselves down and dig our own holes of oppression that are difficult to escape. I can only assume that in suburban/white culture, people are taught to invest in their futures because there is not much concern about being killed in the crossfire of a gang fight or losing everything to a robbery, which is why people from those areas tend to take their education more seriously and become better educated. Again, this is all just based on my personal observations, which I don't expect anyone else to take seriously.

I might have kind of strayed off topic, but my main point is that black Americans are less intelligent on average because most of them have to live with cultural and socioeconomic factors that discourage them from being concerned about their future and encourage them to seek instant gratification, which is why they don't invest as much time and effort into their education as other races do. Now that I think about it, this may be just a huge waste of text, since my ideas are based on the premise that "IQ" is a measure of the amount of knowledge that one currently has (which is what I thought the OP meant) rather than a measure of one's potential to obtain and retain knowledge (which is what I think IQ actually is).


Very well put, and i will also add that the definitions of intelligence, race, and even religion are not universal. Some people even claim these things dont even exists, BUT

"The Head Start programs of the 1960s assumed that if a deprived black child’s early environment were artificially enriched, he could catch up with middle-class whites. Of all the Great Society programs, Head Start is probably the only one that is still talked about as if it worked. It did not. After intense early instruction, ghetto children did manage to improve their scores on achievement and even IQ tests. What is less well known is that these improvements could not be made to last.

One of the most thorough, long-term studies of the Head Start approach was the Milwaukee Project, undertaken in the 1980s at a cost of millions of dollars. A group of infants was selected soon after birth to spend five days a week in “infant stimulation centers.” The leader of the project claimed that the enrichment given these children made the early environments of such famous child prodigies as John Stuart Mill and Francis Galton seem impoverished. The children were kept in the program for six years, and then sent to regular public schools.

The media reported delightedly that, on leaving the program, the children scored 30 points higher on IQ tests than did a control group. It was scarcely reported to the public at all when, three years later, the “enriched” children were found to be performing at the same academic level as the controls, that is to say, at a level commensurate to an IQ of 80.

Professor Arthur Jensen of Berkeley believes that these results actually reflect defects in the tests these children took. He suspects that real, underlying intelligence — what he calls g — cannot be improved by instruction. He thinks that in the Milwaukee Project, children were taught specific ways to take certain IQ tests but he says “g remained unaffected.”

A more recent study of childhood enrichment has produced similar, strictly short-term results. J.S. Fuerst of Loyola University has tracked 684 black children who attended specially-funded programs that were so intensive and far-reaching that Mr. Fuerst calls them “Head Start to the fourth power.” The children stayed in these programs for two to seven years, and had significantly better test scores than a control group. However, ten years later, after the children had returned to regular schools, their performances were practically indistinguishable from those of children who had not gotten the special instruction.

Prof. Jensen points out that intensive education at any age improves achievement, whether or not it has any effect on g. At the same time, it increases the performance gap between smart students and dull students. Everyone learns more in a good school, but the gifted children leave the slow ones even further behind.

Unfortunately, in American schools today, there is more emphasis on closing the performance gap between black and white, stupid and smart, than in raising the level for everyone. The best way to close the gap is therefore to teach as little as possible, since this leaves all groups equally ignorant. Probably no teacher sets out deliberately to lower standards. However, this is the only known way to narrow the academic gap between blacks and whites; what are commonly called “dumbed down” curricula are the result.

For several decades, American educators have been wringing their hands over declining schools. Sacrificing quality in the name of equality is probably one of the causes. A head start for some is being replaced by a handicap for all. "


AND

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

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

The best evidence on the heritability of intelligence comes from studies of twins.

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



Sir Cyril Burt, Hans Eysenck, R. Travis Osborne, and, most recently, Thomas J. Bouchard, are just a few of the people who have studied the intelligence of twins. They have concluded that intelligence is under considerably greater genetic than environmental control, with heredity accounting for 60 to 80 percent of all differences in intelligence. Thus, if one person has an IQ of 100 and another an IQ of 125, heredity accounts for 15 to 20 of the 25-point difference. Not even the most heroic environmental intervention could close the IQ gap by more than 10 points.

It is sometimes argued that if intelligence is affected even in the slightest by environment, society owes the less intelligent whatever boost a good environment can give them. Obviously, it is the intelligent who would have to provide the less intelligent with an IQ-boosting environment. So far, the evidence suggests that we do not know how to manipulate the environment to produce lasting IQ gains (see A Head Start Does Not Last) and if we did, the intelligent would demand the same treatment for themselves as for the unintelligent. The gap would presumably stay the same or grow wider.

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

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

Blacks may have gotten as far in American society as their natural limitations permit.

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

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

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


ALSO

"Surprising as this conclusion may seem, it is born out by the record of blacks in other white societies. For example, blacks are one eighth of the population of the United States and one eighth of the population of London, England. In both cases they commit about half of the reported crime. Canada does not keep official crime statistics by race, but informal estimates are that the two to five percent of the people of Toronto who are black commit 30 to 40 percent of the crime.

Large numbers of blacks have been living in Canada and England for only a few decades, yet their crime rates are equivalent to those of blacks who have suffered “400 years of oppression” in the United States. Although data are scarce, Canadian and British blacks also seem to have rates of poverty and illegitimacy that are the equivalents of American blacks.



All other multi-racial societies show the same pattern. In Brazil, for example, slavery was never as widespread as in the United States and race relations are consistently described as better than they are here. Yet the disparity between black and white incomes is greater in Brazil than in the United States. Cuba also has a mixed population and is famous for its aggressive, socialist egalitarianism. Though Cuban officials are embarrassed by this and try to keep it a secret, blacks are invariably at the bottom of society.

Average IQ’s may be as low as 80 in Uganda, 75 in Nigeria, and 65 in Zaire.

The primitive circumstances of pre-colonial Africa are well known, as is the spectacular failure of Africans to build modern nations after independence (see “Why is Africa Poor,” AR, Jan. 1992). Africans suffer from primitive levels of public health, but they may also be held back by an average intelligence even lower than that of black Americans. Most American blacks have at least some white ancestry, which raises their intelligence. Professor Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster in Ireland, probably the most prominent student of national differences in intelligence, reports that average IQs may be as low as 80 in Uganda and Ghana, 75 in Nigeria, and 65 in Zaire. Such low levels of intelligence would rule out any possibility of real development.

The Caribbean nation of Haiti presents an interesting parallel to the failures of black Africans. Its six million inhabitants are all black, the descendants of slaves. Haiti has essentially been governed by blacks ever since the slave insurrection of 1791, in which nearly all whites were killed. Thus, it has a history of independence and black rule that is much longer than that of African nations. Despite such different histories, Haiti is practically indistinguishable from Africa in terms of GNP per capita, infant mortality rates, average educational level, and all the other indices of modernization. Its governments have been the corrupt shambles that is typical of Africa. If Haiti were dragged across the Atlantic Ocean and attached to the coast of Africa, it would seem perfectly at home.

To recapitulate, there is no evidence, either in America or abroad, in the present or in the past, that suggests blacks are as intelligent as other races. All of the evidence points to a significant and durable inequality.

The body of research is now so great that virtually no one who has taken the trouble to look into it remains an egalitarian. There was a time when some reputable scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, Leon Kamin, and Richard Lewontin seriously maintained the egalitarian or environmentalist view. They have now fallen silent. Their views are now echoed primarily by people who know nothing about current research data and show no interest in it. They appear to be driven by some motive other than the search for scientific truth.

That a proposition for which there is no evidence can have become dogma is one of the mysteries of our time. Part of the explanation for this is that a great many people seem to believe that even if racial differences can be proven they must be denied and suppressed. As we will show later in this series, it is vital that racial differences be recognized and accepted. "


http://www.amren.com/ar/1992/11/index.html

Forgive me, i know thats a lot to read on a contriversal/taboo topic. I can sympathise with a lot of what your saying because i grew up in a similiar environment, though it was middle class. But this answers the whole socio-economic thing as well as the unequal education thing. This study seems to account for that. peace over war
Posted 6/15/10
Posted 6/15/10 , edited 6/15/10
We can already see your viewpoint, Nazi JJT2. Are you going to state next that Jews are less intelligent than Germans?

If I was a mod, I'd permaban you immediately with no regard for my own position on this site.

Keep this shit out of the forums. EPIC FAIL!!!
Posted 6/15/10

Aztecnology wrote:

We can already see your viewpoint, Nazi JJT2. Are you going to state next that Jews are less intelligent than Germans?

If I was a mod, I'd permaban you immediately with no regard for my own position on this site.

Keep this shit out of the forums. EPIC FAIL!!!


no the jews are really smart, why do you think they run the media, and control most of America?
Posted 6/15/10

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:


Aztecnology wrote:

We can already see your viewpoint, Nazi JJT2. Are you going to state next that Jews are less intelligent than Germans?

If I was a mod, I'd permaban you immediately with no regard for my own position on this site.

Keep this shit out of the forums. EPIC FAIL!!!


no the jews are really smart, why do you think they run the media, and control most of America?


Posted 6/15/10 , edited 6/15/10
I only allowed this thread to stay open to see the viewpoints of others instead of outright rejecting it, but by seeing most of the replies there's no point for it to stay open. The OPs intentions were to cause controversy, to try and play ignorance is not an excuse. It truly makes me ill, and I feel it as if he's using this information to mock blacks. It will not be accepted, not for any race.
You must be logged in to post.