Topic: blacks have lower IQ than whites (Read 471 times)

First of all, no one is absolutely, but the way of development is different. I think your opinion is a bit racially discriminatory. You should not treat black people like this. If the data is favorable, I think the data is fake, Asian talent is the highest IQ group, Japan, China is enough to prove. But you should not ridicule black people. Do you know the contribution of black people to world music?

'every scientific breakthrough has been from whites'. this is not true. we only say this when you consider the past 200 years alone. but humans have in existence for more than 200,000 years. agriculture and food production started about 10,000 years ago which led to some societies changing from hunting and gathering to homes. Those who were first to start food production were in mesopotamia, present day Iraq. generally the areas of eurasia settled down first and needed to develop food production before others. that decision has reverberated throughout generations. they ended up developing centralized systems of governance, chiefdoms etc.

most of world's significant innovations in the old world were not done by whites: Before the birth of modern science in the Italian Renaissance, there had been far more innovations made in China. Paper, block printing, stirrups, an efficient horse collar, windmills, gunpowder. The chinese were actually the first to build and sail ships and explore the world, but for some reason resisted colonization or taking over new lands they found. the retreated back home. until the european renaissance from the 1500s.

Furthermore, the modern day europe benefited because they imported or assimilated some of the old world progress that had been made in the eurasia region which was occupied by islam. that initial advantage has propelled the region to the modern world.

so if you analyse history in terms of few hundred years yes whites have made greater scientific breakthroughs,

I think it's not about being black or white. It's just living in less developed countries vs living in more developed countries. It's how you study while growing up. For example If you are born in poorly developed country your starting place in the "Life Run" is before than someone who lives in developed country and  has a chance to study well and become successful, but it of course doesn't mean that the first example can't beat the second one in the "Run".

Black Like Me

It's been done. A long time ago. My guess if it was done again there'd be virtually no difference found.

Black Like Me, first published in 1961, is a nonfiction book by white journalist John Howard Griffin recounting his journey in the Deep South of the United States, at a time when African-Americans lived under Racial Segregation.More at Wikipedia...

Okay, so when we get advanced AI we need to have cans of black and white paint ready?

Lmao this post can be as racist as it can get already. OP didnt even cite sources of his claims. Besides, IQ is just an idea of how fast someone can understand the idea and can then construct replies and methods to respond to it. Some people are just better at it thats all, no need to compare ourselves to each other. I dont even understand why racism exists. Scientists should try to develop some tech that reverses skin color so that whites can become blacks and let them feel how they feel, how great would that be.

It's clear that iq plays a huge role in what career you will have.  Jordan Peterson said that a large amount of the population have an iq below 80 which makes them unable to perform simple tasks. The military will turn away applicants with a low iq because there is literally no task they can do that will be a benefit.  They will be a hindrance to the operation.

Perhaps perceiving it to not be intelligence is due to a lack of Interpersonal and Intrapersonal IQ 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

Redefine? Please give me the one definition of intelligence where everybody agrees on. As a said, there are many models and models are constructed. You can e.g. factor-analyse what specific criteria load on a central intelligence construct (e.g. spearmens g- and s- factor), there is not one clear definition of intelligence till now. Yes, there might be models which are more reliable and valid, which does not make other models completely obsolete.

E.g. Gartner postulated a multiple intelligence model, including musical / rhythmic and interpersonal intelligence. I know, those multiple factors do not clearly relate to one superior intelligence construct. And i give u that creativity is probably something different than intelligence, social intelligence though is very much a form of intelligence to me, although it's a non-academic measure.

In many intelligence test, comprehension, vocabulary and other verbal tasks are part of the test. Imo this clearly differs from other domains like processing speed, working memory, logical thinking and so on. It correlates still with a superior intelligence factor to a certain extent. But is it accurate to speak of a general intelligence mixing verbal skills and mathematic skills together? And the reliability of verbals tasks is also a bit limited and can depend heavily on the interviewer.

You will always have different subdomains, which you can measure more or less accurate. Those subdomains are somehow combined to an intelligence construct. What subdomains have to be within this intelligence construct will always be an approximation and is not as clear as it is what it is!

Regardless of all the arguments made on the average IQs of specific ethnic groups, however defined as shown by the above post, as an employer I do not take race into account.

All I take into account is the work history of an applicant, educational performance (GPA and/or transcripts), and my impression during a series of interviews.  Even if, hypothetically, a certain racial/ethnic group's average IQ was 50% lower than the average, that is only the average, meaning there's still the chance that the smartest person in the world, for example, as measured by IQ, however reliable or unreliable the measure, could still come from said racial group/minority.

In other words, I do not make presumptions of an individual's intelligence based on someone's appearance.

LOL people post some dumb crap !

It is either a brilliant subject to troll people with or proof that inbreeding is dangerous.



Of course intelligence is related to some genetics - but it is a far stretch to claim it is related to genetics that produce Melanin .  

Without even bringing in socio-economic factors.


There is a major flaw with this assertion.

Who is defined as "White" ? How is someone from Scottish decent the same as someone from the Baltics or Germany ?

Who is defined as "Black" ? How is someone from Africa the same as someone from the Pacific Islands ?

Who is defined as "Asian" ? Are Filipinos, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and, Burmese all the same ?

Why are Jews (a religious ancestry) categorized separately ?

Who is Indian ? Even Columbus got that one wrong !

Apart from ignoring actual race and tribal ancestry of just those classified as "white":

 Pelasgians, Tyrrhenians, Anatolians, Dacians, Thracians, Italic peoples, Etruscans, Adriatic Veneti, Ligurians, Greek, Celts,  Rhaetians, Swabians, Vistula Veneti, Lugii , Balts, Iberians, Lusitani, Aquitani, Celtiberians, Basques, Phoenicians, Sardinians, Finnic people, Germanic people, Scythians, Sarmatians and Sicani.

Then ignore thousands of years of immigration, intermingling (both voluntarily and forced). The Roman and Ottoman Emipre at one stage ruled large parts of Europe.
The spice trade and world exploration resulted in populations intermingling.


Then to just determine the scores on dermatology and country of origin is scientifically completely flawed.

Then there is IQ:





The evidence presented is so far is silly. I can only help but laugh as it reminds me of all the other wacky theories that fall under Scientific racism .  and other mis-used statistics.

It is sad that people cannot just admit their racial bias. It is shameful to bastardize scientific studies to try to justify unfounded preconceived beliefs.

It appears that some studies haven't moved along from the classifications by Carl Linnaeus in the 1700's which is stupid and lazy beyond belief. How long has DNA testing been around ? Who does the classification ? Who determine whether someone is "black, white, asian, latino, indian" ?


There are some attempts at more detailed studies: https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-1468043861/race-differences-in-intelligence-creativity-and-creative

It is interesting to note that the countries with the "highest intelligence" tend to be also some of the worlds biggest polluters and have the largest destructive ecological footprint.

It might be natures way of balancing it out: http://www.calhealthreport.org/2018/01/31/teen-exposure-air-pollution-reduce-iq-levels-long-term/

Please don't try to redefine intelligence to include "emotions, creativity and other non-academic measures"... that is NOT intelligence

It sounds like you are trying to give everyone a participation trophy for intelligence

Intelligence is what it is... some people have it, others don't... similarly, some people are good at sports, and others are not... you don't need to pretend that chess is a sport in order to make intelligent people feel better about sucking at physical activity...

Some people are creative, others intelligent... these are 2 completely different things... why try to put them in the same category?

There are many models and definitions of intelligence. The IQ usually is measured in an academic form, regardless of the culture of the subjects being tested. Therefore we measure, what WE think intelligence is, bringing disadvantages for certain groups. Intelligence needs to be considered always with the context someone is in.

For me, intelligence is how to be smart and cognitively adaptable compared to others in the same surrounding and it should also include the emotional intelligence and creativity and other non-academic measures.

Ignorance, ethnocentricity and your own personal thoughts and beliefs do not count as facts.  When you say studies, post the studies you're touting so that we can all have a productive conversation. 

so what, soon we can connect compters to our brains,

i dont think this statistics are representative, and with better economic foundations people in africa can allso become annyoing theortisits, like people elsewhere.

additonally in the future we might connect computers to our brains so we can discuss annoying details about pancakes at the speed of light, throug binary communication

I think he meant to say:

1. asian
2. jews
3. whites
4. latinos
5. indians
6. blacks

We are talking about the averages here. 

Like you said, religiosity, culture also plays a role, not just race.
 

I have never seen a single study about IQ which places whites above asians... never

Asians have been shown to have an average IQ of 10+ points higher than whites in every study

For example, this study shows Korea and Japan with an average IQ of 105+, US with 97, and US Catholics at only 90... no surprise that Catholics have a lower IQ than average Americans

Every study I have seen shows asians about 10 points higher than whites, non-religious about 10 points higher than religious, and whites about 10 points higher than blacks... I wouldn't brag if I were you



Also note, US whites are about 10-15 IQ points lower than whites from the Netherlands, an atheist country... coincidence?

I have nothing against black people but in general they have lower inteligent than white people as there are houndred exsamples of that one of them is gang murders they kill them selfs like crazy every other black mother is single parent because father is dead or in prison

I guess its true, the prison population is mostly african, you don't see many white people in prison.  Also come to think of it you dont see many black scientists or professors.