What evidence exists that Blacks and Whites have equal intelligence?

You're sawing the branch on which you're standing when you say most Whites are dumb rednecks as Whites, on average, have significantly higher IQ than most ethno-racial groups.

LoL.

 

So you're pretty much comfortable with being a racist.

 

Or perhaps this one, which suggests environmental factors account for the differences measured, rather than inherent racial ability: http://www.nytimes/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html.

 

Source? There is evidence that Cro Magnons and Neandertals interbred, but there is no reason to suppose the Neandertals' larger brains made them smarter. In fact, the evidence points the other way. Their species did not survive. Ours did. How do you explain this if they were both smarter and more robust than we?

 

the encephalisation quotient has more do do with intelligence then just brain size

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient

.

 

The genetic similarities between certain human populations and Neanderthals are striking. Indeed, many researchers think the Europeans and Asians inherited between 1 and 4 percent of their DNA from Neanderthals, yet scientists have struggled to demonstrate with a high degree of certainty that these genetic similarities are the result of interbreeding between these two species. Now, a pair of European scientists say that they have confirmed the human-Neanderthal reproduction hypothesis using statistical modeling — and these results, the researchers add, should go a long way to change the way we think of other human-like species.

In the past, genetic similarities between Neanderthals and humans have been associated with two possible scenarios. The first hypothesis puts forth that idea that certain human populations — those that went on to become modern Eurasians — evolved in isolated patches in Africa that allowed them to stay genetically similar to Neanderthals after they split from their shared common ancestor. The interbreeding hypothesis, on the other hand, states that bouts of human-Neanderthal reproduction would have occurred after humans migrated out of Africa. So, to find out which hypothesis fit humanity's genetic history more closely, the scientists tested the two hypotheses using a statistics and an evolutionary model.

"We did a bunch of math to compute the likelihood of two different scenarios," says Laurent Frantz, study co-author and evolutionary biologist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. "We were able to do that by dividing the genome in small blocks of equal lengths from which we inferred genealogy." This method allowed the researchers to support with a high degree of certainty that interbreeding occurred, Frantz says. "Our analysis shows that a model that involves interbreeding is much more likely than a model where there was sustained substructure in Africa." The scientist cautions that sustained substructure might still have occurred, "but it cannot be used to explain the genetic similarities" all on its own.

These results, published today in Genetics, go against a 2012 study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which found that interbreeding was far less likely than the alternative. "There seemed to be something that has gone wrong [in that study] because it seems unparsimonious to me," Frantz says. "When we tested two hypotheses, we got a high support for a scenario where humans and Neanderthals interbred."

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/8/5593856/study-confirms-neanderthals-humans-interbreeding

Prof Riel Salvatore, who co-authored the research, added: "It's been long believed that Neanderthals were outcompeted by fitter modern humans and they could not adapt. "We are changing the main narrative. Neanderthals were just as adaptable and in many ways, simply victims of their own success." The team used archeological data to track behavioral changes in Western Eurasia and found that human mobility increased over time, probably in response to environmental change. By the Ice Age both Neanderthals and the ancestors of modern humans were ranging more widely across Eurasia in the search for food. This led them to interact - and interbreed - more often. The researchers ran a computer program for the equivalent of 1,500 generations showing that as Neanderthals and modern humans expanded their yearly ranges, the Neanderthals were slowly absorbed by more numerous modern humans until they had disappeared as a recognizable population.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8898321/Neanderthals-were-too-smart-for-their-own-good.html

 

you misunderstand, the fact remains that most "white ppl" have not been tested for this "iq test" and therefore you cannot know what the average is for "white ppl" other than those selected. You only know the average for those tested. Similar to the old jewISH gene theory, in which only those who were jewISH were tested and those who claim to be jewISH but who are not, werent.

 

the fact is that Jews do have a preponderance of certain Middle Eastern male haplotypes. I believe its the J1 gene.

 

Can you define " intelligence " first of all? Because if you mean IQ then we are more in education and social environment rather than brain power. Anyway i think people have just mixed qualities and deficits, for example i'm not good at maths but good at abstract thought, while a brilliant mathematician could be awful at philosophy and social relations.

 

So you don't believe that darker pigmented skin (an obviously inherited trait) gives superior protection from the sun?

Human skin is comprised of three layers: the epidermis, dermis, and fat. Cells in the epidermis (the outermost layer of skin) called melanocytes produce melanin, the pigment that gives skin and eyes their color. The more melanin the melanocytes produce, the darker the skin pigmentation.1-4


Melanin helps protect the skin against effects of the sun such as skin cancers and premature aging. In African American skin, melanin provides a sun protection factor (SPF) approximately equivalent to 13.4, compared to 3.4 in white skin.6-8 This discrepancy illustrates why skin cancer is more prevalent in Caucasian people; it is, in fact, the most common type of malignancy in the US among Caucasians. Their inherently light skin color and low amounts of melanin leave them vulnerable to the sun’s carcinogenic (cancer-causing) ultraviolet rays. UV light, also emitted by tanning beds/lamps, is, in many cases, the causative culprit of skin cancer in Caucasian Americans.

http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/skin-cancer-and-skin-of-color

So that would make you a racist by the very definition of the word if you support the basic scientific facts that prove the superiority of darker skin genes.

It would prove you to be an imbecile devoid of rational thought if you don't believe these facts---but at least you wouldn't be a racist---a word created by other racists.

 

I'm willing to admit that more melanin in the skin means a lower rate of skin cancer. I'm just not willing to claim it makes darker people superior, any more than the fact that left handed people tend to live shorter lives than right handed people makes the righties somehow superior.

 

so according to greataxe, so- called black are superior because they can withstand the sun?

 

natural advantages actually make people less superior, as they don't have to use their minds to overcome environmental problems.

 

If we go by the exact definition of racism (per Merriam Webster) then believing that ANY inherited trait gives a certain race (group) an an advantage---a "superior" edge make you, me and everyone else a "racist."

: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

East Asians have a little higher IQ on average than Euro Whites. It doesn't bother me. Good for them. Same thing for inherited running and jumping, prize fighting and so on.

However, do you think it is fair to hold school districts liabale for how much tax money the school receives based on the test scores of its students? (That's the law around here anyway)?

A school that has around 98% Blacks has no hope of having the same test test scores as a school with mostly White/Asians---as most people would know.

Would it then be so racist to lower the expectations of these Black schools?

 

Yes, Blacks have superior genes when it comes to living in a sunny climate. But that would also work against them in a cloudy and cold enviornment with snow and ice. The black skin would stand out more and be easier target for animals and humans trying to kill them.

 

Liberal creationists?? What is a liberal creationist?
Based on the threads you're starting, I think the jury is in. Blacks are definitely smarter. Ok...we get it. You're a racist out to prove something.

 

Liberal creationists are people who believe human evolution stopped above the neck for politically driven reasons.

 

Are you familiar with the research of Richard Nisbett? He found that while a Black-White IQ gap exists the cause is entirely environmental. His evidence includes no correlation between degree of White ancestry and high Black IQ, the convergence of Black and White IQ in recent years, the alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs and adoption studies that do not lend support to the hereditarian hypothesis.

HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ A Commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 302–310

As far as brain size is concerned that evidence provided by Rushton and Jensen is based on outdated and methodologically flawed studies. There are no racial hierarchies in brain size and brain size does not determine intelligence within species.

How “Caucasoids” Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank From Morton to Rushton Current Anthropology Volume
42 , Number 1, February 2001

There's no evolutionary basis for genetically determined racial differences in intelligence.

That's an ironic label since many opponents of the hereditarian theory are anthropologists, biologists and geneticists who specialize in research on human evolution. For instance Joseph Graves who I quoted above maintains that it is actually scholars like Rushton who use tactics similar to Creationists in order to support their racialist arguments.

The position that human populations do not differ in average intelligence is not a creationist argument. Evolution does not mandate that everything be different. Evolution did not stop at the neck for humans. Most of our evolutionary history occurred on the African continent. The brain in particular developed its current faculties after humans evolved from a common ancestor with the Apes and before humans migrated to other continents. As Richardson says the brain tripled in size as a product of our unique social cooperation. Racists really don't understand evolutionary theory. They rely on simplistic theoretical models to explain human evolution and their research is full of errors as is the work of most people with ideological agendas.

Race-realism/Racialism is pseudoscience.

 

why would they want to do that anyway?

 

OP should be dropped into Kongo jungle and left for a month to survive using his intelligence .

No i will not mention history since it will ruin the fun .

 

So what you're saying is that Blacks are more likely to be stupid and less likely to get skin cancer. compared to Whites. I don't see that this makes either race inherently superior.

Being comfortable in your bigotry is a positive, I guess.

As far as your school district funding goes, it's a poor craftsman that blames his materials for his results. If the administration can't do their job regardless of circumstance, they should quit. Failing that they should be fired.

 

Jay aka Morhpeus invited me here from YouTube, encouraging me to pitch in on this thread. Okie dokie, here it comes -

I really hope that you did not go ahead and post this after I already showed Nisbett's research and inflated claims being dismantled by James J. Lee yesterday evening, including the specific claim you are making in this thread. That Lee's paper demolishing this was published in 2009 and Nisbett oddly never bothered responding to it, having it apparently have magically "slipped" his mind and stuff, never struck you as odd which doesn't surprise me. You have quite an emotional horse in this race.

Unfortunately you have chosen to ride this emotional horse in the form of galloping from forum to forum (or in my case YouTube), attempting to get a win on people by almost exclusively copy/pasting from Nisbett and Graves, without having bothered to do any looking into criticisms of their work, thus setting yourself up for a HUGE fall.

You obviously cannot defend criticisms of Nisbett's work which is understandable since apparently he can't either, so what argument does that leave you?

Worse, you paste an email to me from Nisbett authored last night in which he gives his half-assed explanation to why in the 5 years that Lee had written that article demolishing an entire book of his in a mere 9 pages - gee he "forgot" and like, "other guys pitched in writing my book," he first takes a snide cheap-shot at Lee (gee, why isn't that article on his website hmmmm) and then gives another article as a source for the validity of his work which he (Nisbett) claimed to have "survived critical analysis." Indeed, I already had some reading into the topic and already had a page bookmarked in which the exact opposite happened - the specific article that Nisbett cited that had "survived criticism" (indirectly admitting, by the way, that the book did not) had in fact NOT survived criticism, as proven here. And yet again, in searching, I have not found in this case either that Nisbett bothered to reply to this newer critical response, which by the way, demolished his work in the same way that Lee did - by explaining and illustrating manners in which Nisbett overstated results of tests and misused the data. The same flaws in the book were not only ignored but replicated again later in more recent claims by Nisbett. More than person has outed this guy's poor methodology and he has neither responded to nor corrected it.

So at the best, all you're going to be able to do in these internet debates is to try to take advantage of the ignorance of opponents on the question of the validity of Nisbett's work. At most, you can "win" a debate online depending on the ignorance of your opponent, but the problem is that it is ALL you are going to do because your claims are wholly untenable as much as Nisbett's are, so in the real world you have won nothing. Zilch.

Indeed, in our discussion on YouTube, you attempted to cover for the frequent and severe flaws in Nesbitt's work by merely moving the goalposts around and saying, "Well debunk this over here instead. If you don't to my satisfaction, you have 'lost the debate.'" This is childish. YOU are the one positing that IQ equality has been proven and that IQ inequality is the result of white racism, and your "defense" of this position is to paste a guy with a poor track record who has been (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)-slapped off and on for years, and when you (and he) cannot defend those debunked claims of his, you merely cry racist and present a new set of claims to which you insist must be debunked or your position stands, hahahah and stuff. YOU make this assertion, thus YOU must prove it to be true. Anything short of this is debating the topic in bad faith. The source for this assertion you make has been proven to be grossly flawed and irrelevant, having had more than one PhD in the field explain in glorious detail (published with peer review) how his conclusions are untenable, false, and exaggerated, in no small part by his misstating and misusing existing data, in ways which were also detailed.

So... What is your aim here?

 

The answer to the question in the tread title is "none."

 

What evidence exists that they don't have equal intelligence?

 

You just insulted black people.