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.
It actually isn't a myth. This is an empirical question that has been tested numerous times. In 1994, 52 leading university professors in relevant fields signed a statement called "Mainstream Science on Intelligence," and several of the points in the statement were directly about this issue, such as the following:
The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered
That doesn't imply that every corner of the globe doesn't have people perfectly capable of understanding complex human thought. It is a statement about averages as the population level. Anglo-Saxon whites are not above all other humans, either -- that is not a claim I made.
IQ is a biological feature that is primarily hereditary in nature. There are all sorts of other biological features that vary based on race, and it would be strange if there was zero IQ variation between races.
Ok. Believe your bias.
Look at the sample space for the subjects at study. I know better. What genetic trait would you attribute to the better IQ test taking skills by those you consider white? I am sure that those you consider white are NOT tested for a specific human genome but by your visual perception of what white is.......
What is white? Tell me the specific human genome branch that defines white and then tell me why that gives a superior IQ test taking skill? By how much?
It is purely environment and privilege. Don't believe me? Start looking at the similarities of the human genome rather than the infinitesimally small differences.
This is a touchy topic. I am not white so don't blame me for not knowing about exactly which demography among whites achieved what it did in arts/science/infrastructure etc. For me its just the white civilization that created cities like Sydney and Toronto and NYC..
The answer is simple really. Urbanization. Cities naturally expand as capitals of government and business and trade crossroads. Thus they allow for the concentration of wealth and power. Cities are hubs that cause the creation of wealth classes. And cities are incentivized to do things that make them MORE attractive as a place to live and do business. Cities are incentivized to make their mark in the world as glorious symbols of national pride. And this desire to shine includes things like culture, art, innovation, and all the trappings of luxury and leisure. Thus, cities will attract persons who supply those elevating things. So.... cities allow for the growth and development of an intellectual class that can be freed up from subsistence living in order to pursue loftier goals.
On the down side, cities also attract laborers looking for employment from someone else. If urban growth is not properly managed... and jobs are not created that keep pace with population growth... you end up with a large unemployed underclass that is trapped and ghettoized in circumstances that grow increasingly desperate. And those situations inevitably lead to a net drain on city resources, and you end up with a city that looks like what big cities typically look like all throughout history: Opulent splendor and culture in a city center encircled by vast slums and run down areas.
Europe stands out because Europe had a singular vision unmatched in all of previous history to colonize the world, fueled by intense nationalistic competition between the major Euro monarchies, and the abuse of religion to justify taking whole continents captive in the name of "civilizing them". Immense sums of wealth and resources were extracted from across the globe by the kings and queens of the post-Roman millineum. This wealth fueled the ever-growing cycle of militarism and science/technology wars, which in turn generated even more wealth... and so on.
I think really, Europe's expansionism was really about the egos of monarchs wanting to keep up with one another and to grab the cash and the land before some other kingdom did. And the religion was used to justify it as "bringing civilization to the savages". And really, it was all funded by both taxation and plundered wealth. It was an enterprise of government that operated according to aristocratic assumptions about "divine right" and all that stuff.
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 03-11-2016 at 06:11 PM..
Look at the sample space for the subjects at study. I know better. What genetic trait would you attribute to the better IQ test taking skills by those you consider white? I am sure that those you consider white are NOT tested for a specific human genome but by your visual perception of what white is.......
What is white? Tell me the specific human genome branch that defines white and then tell me why that gives a superior IQ test taking skill? By how much?
It is purely environment and privilege. Don't believe me? Start looking at the similarities of the human genome rather than the infinitesimally small differences.
WHAT is purely environment and "privilege"? IQ?
Do you understand what an IQ test is?
You obviously don't understand evolution. So...maybe you should embrace creationism.
Webster defines it quite easily and pointedly. Where are you getting your definitions from?
From assorted Left Winger purveyors of identity politics and Critical Theory and assorted other Marxian worldviews.
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.