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.
...an era when smart people in free societies could speculate on difficult problems and controversial topics without fear of having their careers destroyed.
An era where women and minorities were often not afforded the opportunity to speculate on difficult problems, because the assumption was they weren't intelligent enough.
74.1% of residents were of Chinese descent ( not 100% chinese ) , 13.4% of Malay descent, 9.2% of Indian descent, and 3.3% of other
I never said it was 100% Chinese. The person to which I was responding listed Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, and Myanmar(IE all the southeast Asians countries), and then said that the Singapore people are of the same genetic stock as other southeast Asian countries, which isn't true.
Only about 1 in 8 people in Singapore are ancestrally southeast-Asian. The vast-majority are Chinese, and most of the remainder are from India. Singapore was a trading outpost between China and the West. It had been a pseudo-colony of China because all trade from China must go through the Malacca Strait. It became a British colony in the 1800's, and Britain also controlled India.
The immediate counterpart of Singapore is Hong Kong. Both exist for fundamentally the same reasons. Indians came to Singapore while it was a British colony, and the Chinese presence in Singapore also grew significantly under British dominion.
Regardless, the people of Singapore are predominantly not from southeast Asia. They are mostly migrants from China and India who came as merchants, foreign officials, bankers, soldiers, etc. And were likely not the "average" from their countries. He shouldn't have posted a picture comparing Singapore's average IQ to Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia, but instead compared it to China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, and Japan. By doing so, it wouldn't have seemed odd at all.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 05-09-2019 at 06:00 PM..
Once again, Watson is expressing his opinion, an opinion that is not grounded in science.
Have you ever looked at the science?
Blacks score lower on IQ tests than whites. That is an indisputable fact. Mixed-race blacks score higher than other blacks even when accounting for socio-economic status. American blacks score higher than Africans, which can be explained by the average American black being 20% white(probably more than that now).
When they compare adoption studies by white affluent families, the adopted white children score significantly higher on IQ tests than the adopted black children. When you look at the test scores of affluent blacks(IE blacks in say, the top 10% of income-earners), their average SAT and ACT scores are significantly lower than the equivalent white.
And as I mentioned earlier, when comparing identical-twins who are raised separately, their IQ is virtually identical.
No one doubts that nurture plays a role in intelligence, but only morons believe that genes don't affect intelligence. And only a liberal could believe that every race has exactly equal amounts of genetic traits associated with high-intelligence.
While all of the evidence supports everything James Watson believes to be true, since we don't yet understand intelligence fully, and because nurture plays a role in intelligence, plus the Flynn-effect, no one can prove with 100% certainty that either part or all of the racial gap is the result of genetics alone.
That does not mean that science has disproved the racial intelligence-gap being primarily genetic. It just means no one knows for sure, so all we can do is "guess"(IE use our intuition). I don't see how anyone who could look at the massive racial IQ gap, and after considering all evidence, not come to the conclusion that all, most, or at least much of it is from genetics.
But whether this is true or not, why does it even matter? Why are we so obsessed with IQ? What does IQ really mean?
I don't find fighting about race and IQ to be interesting at all. Obviously IQ varies dramatically within populations as well. And honestly, I don't find IQ to be overly important if people aren't literally retarded. And people with high IQ's aren't necessarily "better people"(and might even be worse).
I never said it was 100% Chinese. The person to which I was responding listed Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, and Myanmar(IE all the southeast Asians countries), and then said that the Singapore people are of the same genetic stock as other southeast Asian countries, which isn't true.
Only about 1 in 8 people in Singapore are ancestrally southeast-Asian. The vast-majority are Chinese, and most of the remainder are from India. Singapore was a trading outpost between China and the West. It had been a pseudo-colony of China because all trade from China must go through the Malacca Strait. It became a British colony in the 1800's, and Britain also controlled India.
The immediate counterpart of Singapore is Hong Kong. Both exist for fundamentally the same reasons. Indians came to Singapore while it was a British colony, and the Chinese presence in Singapore also grew significantly under British dominion.
Regardless, the people of Singapore are predominantly not from southeast Asia. They are mostly migrants from China and India who came as merchants, foreign officials, bankers, soldiers, etc. And were likely not the "average" from their countries. He shouldn't have posted a picture comparing Singapore's average IQ to Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia, but instead compared it to China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, and Japan. By doing so, it wouldn't have seemed odd at all.
I can't see any difference between people living in North Viet-nam and South China..
As i can't see any difference between an Austrian and French..
I can see some difference between a Scandinavian and a Siciian.. but their IQ is more and less the same..
People of African descent should put little weight on these European/European-American attempts to push inferiority and justify poor behavior toward people of African origin.
Such tests make no difference when it comes to overall success in life. Whites in the U.S. have on average had higher IQs but yet found it necessary to subjugate people of African and Native American origin to get ahead. Even still, scores of whites are uneducated and less successful than they should be at this point. Only in the 1960s were people of African origin given the opportunities afforded whites and, in that time, many have taken advantage of the opportunities. There is an overall improvement in education levels, income etc. The majority are no longer in poverty. That is what matters and we ought not be distracted by nonsense.
Blacks score lower on IQ tests than whites. That is an indisputable fact. Mixed-race blacks score higher than other blacks even when accounting for socio-economic status. American blacks score higher than Africans, which can be explained by the average American black being 20% white(probably more than that now).
When they compare adoption studies by white affluent families, the adopted white children score significantly higher on IQ tests than the adopted black children. When you look at the test scores of affluent blacks(IE blacks in say, the top 10% of income-earners), their average SAT and ACT scores are significantly lower than the equivalent white.
And as I mentioned earlier, when comparing identical-twins who are raised separately, their IQ is virtually identical.
No one doubts that nurture plays a role in intelligence, but only morons believe that genes don't affect intelligence. And only a liberal could believe that every race has exactly equal amounts of genetic traits associated with high-intelligence.
While all of the evidence supports everything James Watson believes to be true, since we don't yet understand intelligence fully, and because nurture plays a role in intelligence, plus the Flynn-effect, no one can prove with 100% certainty that either part or all of the racial gap is the result of genetics alone.
That does not mean that science has disproved the racial intelligence-gap being primarily genetic. It just means no one knows for sure, so all we can do is "guess"(IE use our intuition). I don't see how anyone who could look at the massive racial IQ gap, and after considering all evidence, not come to the conclusion that all, most, or at least much of it is from genetics.
But whether this is true or not, why does it even matter? Why are we so obsessed with IQ? What does IQ really mean?
I don't find fighting about race and IQ to be interesting at all. Obviously IQ varies dramatically within populations as well. And honestly, I don't find IQ to be overly important if people aren't literally retarded. And people with high IQ's aren't necessarily "better people"(and might even be worse).
IQ tests aren't reliable indicators of intelligence. Any position that uses IQ tests (or SAT/ACT scores) as evidence is a flawed position. Watson, of all people, should know this. We have a long way to go before we understand intelligence, what it is, and how to measure it. In the meantime, we cannot dismiss that the current tests have a significant culture gap that plays to white superiority. And it's only important because the assumptions that Watson is making, when made by institutions, leads to less access to the resources that scientists depend upon. And when women and minorities have less access, they have less success. Which reinforces the opinions of people like Watson. And that hurts science as a whole, and the whole world.
the current tests have a significant culture gap that plays to white superiority.
... which explains why East Asians do better on the tests than white people.
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.
