Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never said that. Try working on your reading comprehension skills. I wrote interfertile (not infertile), which is the topic of discussion. Despite your claims of having some knowledge of the subject, you seem to be unaware that it isn't uncommon for related species to mate and produce fertile offspring. You seem to hold the view that it's impossible for separate species to mate, which is clearly wrong. Wolves and coyotes can and do mate. So do polar bears and brown bears. So do false killer whales and dolphins. There are many more. The point is: you can't really have a proper discussion about the subject of this thread if you don't understand the species concept, which you don't.
Lol! This from someone bringing dogs mating with wolves into a discussion about whether African and non-African humans are distinct groups. Always revert to insults when you don't have anything else...The problem is always someone else's reading comprehension skills, not your writing or expository skills...hmmm...
And you seem to be unaware that the thread isn't every animal under the sun. I admit I'm not a zoological expert on the mating habits of dolphin or brown bears, but the entire point is African and non-African people here today are not different species. Here are some of my former professors who study this for a living. You may email them and tell them they're wrong about the definition of species as it applies to hominids and that you are right. Please, let me know how it goes. Please! I'm waiting with breath that is baited:
"A second reason that the Liberal-Left became disenchanted with the concept of IQ because research on twins showed that our IQs are largely determined genetically.
*It was found that the IQs of identical twins are much more similar than those of non-identicals, and several studies found that even when identical twins have been brought up in different families, they have very similar IQs. The political implication of the strong genetic determination of the IQ is that it would be very difficult to reduce social inequalities, as those who are born with high IQs inevitably do better than those whose IQs are lower.
Even more disturbing for the Liberal-Left was the evidence of race differences in IQs. This was found first in the United States in 1918, when the IQs of conscripts were tested.."
Researchers and institutions have been testing peoples intelligence for over 100 years. The army tested intelligence beginning in WW1 to see if you qualified.
Yeah, and the US Army results were that Northern blacks scored higher than Southern whites.
Quote:
A pure intelligence test isn't testing your knowledge or education but your ability to figure out or solve a mental task.
That's not entirely true. Aside from the fact it's not one test but a series of tests and if the IQ tests are performed in the United States they administered in the English language, not in Chinese. IQ exams tests for intelligence level in vocabulary for example. That is knowledge based and also a result of environmental exposure. The same thing applies with the math.
Some questions that involve problem solving can be culturally biased when it comes to the answer. Like asking the question, "You are sent to the store by your mother but you find the store is closed. What do you do?"
In the ethnic Black-American culture I was raised in it was common cultural practice that you walk back and report to your mother or grandmother that the store was closed, and wait for further instructions. Even though every kid knows he could walk to a different corner store. But the cultural discipline was to report back and await further instructions to walk to the other store or not.
In white American cultures it was customary for the kid just to walk to a different store regardless.
So, the answer can be culturally influenced.
None of these IQ tests set people out on construction sites with no experience in construction and tell them, "Now building me a house."
They don't drop people off in a Michigan forest in the middle of winter with nothing but the winter clothing on their back and a knife and tell them, "I'll be back in 30 days and you must figure out how to survive for all 30 days until my return."
They don't test people on making improvised explosives.
They don't test people on drawing or painting landscapes or life like portraits.
They don't test people on how to forge knives out of high carbon used steel junk parts.
They don't test people on how to rock climb up the side of a mountain or sky dive out a plane with no training.
They don't test people on what their ability and success rate is in being able to scheme people out of money over the phone.
They don't even test people on their ability to sexually pleasure the opposite sex or same sex.
"A second reason that the Liberal-Left became disenchanted with the concept of IQ because research on twins showed that our IQs are largely determined genetically.
*It was found that the IQs of identical twins are much more similar than those of non-identicals, and several studies found that even when identical twins have been brought up in different families, they have very similar IQs. The political implication of the strong genetic determination of the IQ is that it would be very difficult to reduce social inequalities, as those who are born with high IQs inevitably do better than those whose IQs are lower.
Even more disturbing for the Liberal-Left was the evidence of race differences in IQs. This was found first in the United States in 1918, when the IQs of conscripts were tested.."
That's right up there with homosexual studies on identitical twins.
What did a study find... something like 50 percent (or was it 70 percent?) of published scientific research test findings are unrepeatable? I'm parroting what I heard from one of the philosophy geared video shows put on by the anarchist libertarian Stephen Molyneux.
Yeah, and the US Army results were that Northern blacks scored higher than Southern whites.
But what does it matter? Probably northern whites scored a little higher too. Smarter blacks migrated north but the average was still what it was. Also northern blacks have a higher white admixture.
Quote:
That's not entirely true. Aside from the fact it's not one test but a series of tests and if the IQ tests are performed in the United States they administered in the English language, not in Chinese. IQ exams tests for intelligence level in vocabulary for example. That is knowledge based and also a result of environmental exposure. The same thing applies with the math.
You are talking more about proficiency testing than pure intelligence testing. When you test Americans of the same education level and in English where is the bias? They've long ago created culturally and language neutral intelligence tests. White college drops out test higher than certain other groups with a master's degree. Or that poor white children test higher than the children of wealthy of other groups. All these points you are bringing up have been addressed over the decades.
Quote:
Some questions that involve problem solving can be culturally biased when it comes to the answer. Like asking the question, "You are sent to the store by your mother but you find the store is closed. What do you do?"
They don't ask question like that in IQ testing. They'll typically use patterns and sequences. Again there are culturally neutral test versions.
Quote:
None of these IQ tests set people out on construction sites with no experience in construction and tell them, "Now building me a house."
They don't drop people off in a Michigan forest in the middle of winter with nothing but the winter clothing on their back and a knife and tell them, "I'll be back in 30 days and you must figure out how to survive for all 30 days until my return."
They don't test people on making improvised explosives.
They don't test people on drawing or painting landscapes or life like portraits.
They don't test people on how to forge knives out of high carbon used steel junk parts.
They don't test people on how to rock climb up the side of a mountain or sky dive out a plane with no training.
They don't test people on what their ability and success rate is in being able to scheme people out of money over the phone.
They don't even test people on their ability to sexually pleasure the opposite sex or same sex.
That's because you are talking about knowledge, skills and abilities, interests and athletic ability. Intelligence testing doesn't test for this at all. Intelligence is just a measure of your ability to figure things out. So what intelligence testing predicts is how well you are able to learn any tasks and how proficient you will become. A low IQ person is not going to do as well as a high IQ person in any endeavor that requires intellect. You're totally misconstruing or misunderstanding intelligence measurement.
That's right up there with homosexual studies on identitical twins.
What did a study find... something like 50 percent (or was it 70 percent?) of published scientific research test findings are unrepeatable? I'm parroting what I heard from one of the philosophy geared video shows put on by the anarchist libertarian Stephen Molyneux.
They've been getting the same results for over 100 years of testing and research. And the real world backs up the testing. E Asians and Ashkenazi etc. are more successful.
Lol! This from someone bringing dogs mating with wolves into a discussion about whether African and non-African humans are distinct groups. Always revert to insults when you don't have anything else...The problem is always someone else's reading comprehension skills, not your writing or expository skills...hmmm...
And you seem to be unaware that the thread isn't every animal under the sun. I admit I'm not a zoological expert on the mating habits of dolphin or brown bears, but the entire point is African and non-African people here today are not different species.
You insult yourself. Again, I never said that African and non-Africans were different species nor did I even mention dogs and wolves mating. The fact that you think the species definition changes when talking about hominids shows your ignorance. You were the one who entered this thread smugly claiming to have superior knowledge about the subject, when you clearly don't. Why would I care about the opinion of your former professors when they've done such a poor job educating you?
on the issue of IQ, I don't buy that it is a marker of intelligence as much as I do that it is predictive of societal success in certain contexts.
though my opinion is formed anecdotally.
I went to grade and high school in sub Saharan Africa and university in the US. I never felt that whites were particularly smarter than Africans back in Africa.
What country are you from?
Quote:
I had an easier time in University than I did in grade and high school... for example, I did the GED and scored in like the 97th percentile. 4 years earlier I did the national high school acceptance test and scored in the low 80s..and that test was harder.
Americans taking the GED are people who dropped out of high school. It's not surprising that you scored higher relative to this group than you did relative to the general population of high school bound students in your home country.
Quote:
and just talking to people, guys weren't stupid...not borderline retarded the way IQ indicates. I just don't accept that a bunch of borderline retarded folk could have made me work so hard to keep up while supposedly above average people were easier to keep up with.
You're trying to debunk the claim that sub-Saharan IQs average around 70, right? Who did you go to school with in your home country? Were they of average ability for that society? Many people in sub-Saharan Africa don't attend high school. So the population that does is likely well above average.
I am actually more of a libertarian with a conservative streak. But you are correct. Partisans on both sides of the aisle do not correct their idiots. They should.
That's great. What do you think about the second half of my post? Since now you must have come to the conclusion that you threw away your white lineage that some of your fellow right-wing posters are extremely proud and defensive of
As I said, it takes a lot more than intelligence to be successful. An exchange of ICBMs would certainly require great technical expertise, but it would hardly be a success. The intelligence of the average person also hardly matters between a few points . What is the variability of it? A society that creates a few geniuses and it able to transmit it will likely do better than the relatively intelligent masses. This is the fatal flaw of socialism. Liver cells don't need to "know anything". They are specialized cells that do their job well and they are compliant in doing so. So while socialist countries try to educate everyone equally, successful societies compartmentalize, specialize and divide labor. Capitalism creates the equivalent of complex eukaryotic life forms with complex specialized organ systems. Social equalists emphasize growing a bacterial colony. Sometime cells revolt. We call that cancers. Sometime foreign agents enter the body, we call it an infection.
So its not how intelligent everyone is across a broad spectrum. Its how well they perform their functions, how compliant they are and how well they interact. If you randomly put together 20 "smart people", they would not come close to performing the task of a well trained team at McDonald's, especially if they hated each other.
Or I suppose one could just go with Neanderthals died out because they were stupid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
