Race and IQ gap

Of course. Haiti and Detroit have "the wrong conditions". Iceland and Sydney have "the right conditions". It's all so simple.

 

Nonsense. Affirmative action is solely and explicitly predicated on current systemic disadvantage. It is not retribution, it is not reparation and it does not possess the capacity to time travel. You can't ameliorate something that happened centuries ago. You can only ameliorate what is happening now.

Who is "they," and what does that have to do with affirmative action? Your reasoning is so sloppy and your tendency to confabulate so porofund that it is often impossible to even figure out what you are trying to say.

LOL.... you have no idea what I studied, when I studied or where I studied. So another nice attack an another wrong hill.

 

What was conclusively debunked in that book other than the author's credibility?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Miscalculation

 

This is just nitpicking, and is still false.
You originally wrote:

So when a black is admitted to law school over a better qualified white, where is the "current advantage"? The white has better qualifications. The black has the "current advantage". So why is he admitted? Because affirmative action is predicated on the belief that group performance differences are caused by "white racism". Where is the benchmark if not "equality"?

People who support affirmative action. It seems pretty obvious. Maybe you have a hard time reading straightforward English. Maybe you just like nitpicking and playing dumb in lieu of a solid argument or even any accurate facts.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-05/news/mn-139_1_iq-test/2

Think about that. A court ruled that IQ tests were racially discriminatory. Well duh. Maybe the races are not "equal".

And another repetition of a phrase that was dubiously applicable and lame the first time you used it.

'Grandfather used to say "you never miss the water till the well runs dry."'
'He must have been a wise man.'
'No, that's all he ever said.'

 

It questions connections between race and IQ.

I'd like to add that even the idea of IQ is open to many interpretations.

 

You mean like racial brain size differences Gould supposedly debunks?

 

You said MoM "debunks" genetic racial IQ differences.

 

Yes, that's what I mean by questioning, and in reference to the expanded version of the book that looks at The Bell Curve.

 

Not debunked in any way shape or form- just attacked by Marxists.

 

Apples and oranges , slave populations were bred for muscle not brains , Australia hosts more than 100 different nationalities and Iceland is a barely populated island in the middle of the ocean .
Detroit is a city and cities come and go , in southern Europe we have thousands of abandoned ones .

 

Of course. There's always an excuse for each of the thousands of cases. It also saves time to not demonstrate they are correct in any way.

 

You take facts as excuses ? this is very unscientific .
Compare the most developed Europeans with the underdeveloped ones , the Mediterranean hosted several glorious civilizations and it is the birth place of almost everything that we today call western world. In the north Germans and Slavs lived in relatively thick forests and remained savages until they met with the Romans. Replace thick forests with much harder landscape like jungle and desert to understand what happen south of Sahara.

 

I do when the fact doesn't logically connect to the theory.

Does stating random facts about something constitute a scientific argument in your mind?

 

what is illogical in my post?

I thought i was clear, Iceland is an island with 300.000 people who can satisfy their needs through fishing and make some coin via the abundant geothermal energy of the country , you can in no way compare them with Detroit .

 

Most areas south of teh sahara are neither Dsert nor 'Jungle' (ie rainforest) but are scrub or savannah.

The Germans had superior agriculture to the Romans in any case.

 

You forgot Kalahari & the salt deserts in eastern Africa .

i wonder how the Romans never thought of this

 

No I didn't. I said most not all.

 

I'm pretty sure the Romans thought of huts made out of sticks. In addition to masonry cities.

 

True. Egypt was Rome's breadbasket, though. The Italian peninsula couldn't support it's half million population.

Trade is the deciding factor in the flourishing of civilizations. Trade allows a country to grow beyond normal means. Europe was a backwater until it gained control of the fragments of the Western Roman Empire, only after it had long since carroded. The Mediterranean was once the trading hub of the world, but that shifted to the Atlantic- which has always been controlled by Europe. Italy, once the premier and undisputed apex of human civilization- in regards to wealth, power, and learning- is now among the broken.

When you see powerful civilizations versus poorer civilizations, it tends to be a matter of positioning. The dominant culture always has the best of near everything until that positioning is shifted.

 

In Peloponnesian war 500.000 people died and Greece is 80% mountains , at maximum Pharaonic Egypt had 2m people, i suggest to look Italian geography.

Europe was backwater until they met with islamic world and eastern Roman fled to Italy after the fall of Constantinople.
Before Columbus the center of European trade was Antwerp ... and of course the Hansa cities , later trade went to Lisboa and Sevilla not the north.

There is no such thing as "dominant culture" , things always mix even if terribly incompatible , you may wanna check out Elefsinian mysteries.

 

The Greek Peninsula is not the Italian Peninsula. Also, I am talking about the 500,000 million-plus citizens of the city of Rome, itself, not the peninsula.

Also, those numbers might not be what you think. Rome's population was clearly unprecedented. Also, the Peleponessian Wars occured over a period of decades so the death toll is commulative.

I think what we have said is basically the same, regarding Europe's rise.

By "dominant culture" I meant the dominant state, or Power. Apologies.

 

besides geography malaria has a crippling effect on any civilization...rain forests, deserts, unproductive soils, the lack of domestic animals and indigenous disease all hamper development of societies in sub Saharan africa...even though africa was just as vulnerable to invasion by european colonists as north America and the natives of n american every bit as ferocious to occupation as sub-saharan africans, europeans found sub-saharan africa too hostile and challenging to colonize in any meaningful way... despite what some here claim are superior euro brains they failed miserably at thriving in africa.....

 

Yes we have all read Jared Diamond. Europeans didn't colonise west Africa due to their having NO natural resistance to malaria. They did rather well in East and South Africa- the superior brain was clearly of use.

 

no they didn't, they did no better than the locals already there, and far worse than their compatriots in N america...

 

Sure. South African whites with their nuclear weapons and coal derived gasoline plants did no better than the San bushmen.