Black Teen Shot by Neighborhood Watch

Off Topic
801

OK, so, IQ and T levels are predictive of violent crime?

Interesting. I’ve spent time in Takoradi, Ghana, with plenty of visits to nearby Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire. Let me tell you right off the bat, that in general (other than traffic/road idiocy), Takoradi is a pretty damned safe place in terms of violent crime, while Abidjan is…well let’s say you have to maintain a much higher degree of awareness when walking around town.

Both places are populated by people of extremely similar genetic backgrounds – predominantly Akan, Fanti, and related groups, with the usual African sprinkling of dozens if not hundreds of other populations/linguistic groups.

Food is 90% the same, cultural values on the family level are so similar that the population has some level of fluidity along the Ghana/Cote d’Ivoire border…and nobody on here will ever convince me that the IQ levels of one city are significantly different than the other…if anything, on average Abidjanis tend to be a little bit more clever, but that’s just a personal anecdotal observation, not that meaningful. So why the observable difference in the tendency towards violence?

Oh god did I just invite someone to speculate on a higher percentage of ‘white genes’ (lol) in Takoradi?

I’m not disputing all of TigerTime’s claims, regarding crime levels. My dispute is on the trend to over-simplify the situation on a level bordering on self-serving delusion.

For example – the crap about adapting to cold weather. What sort of convoluted nonsense is that? It doesn’t even for a moment address the fact that hot-weather populations have represented the pinnacle of human civilization for the significant majority of recorded history. The completely open questions and pointless speculation are examples of why there is no point in taking such claims seriously.

No, I don’t care to read one more convoluted self-serving justification from TigerTime. There actually are interesting conversations to be had about why certain populations have been more or less violent, more or less ‘advanced,’ at one time or another…but as long as anyone actually gets trolled into having this conversation with someone like TigerTime, absolutely zero information will be exchanged.

32 pages of circular reasoning, ffs…

802

[quote]orion wrote:

Which does not necessarily mean that IQ tests test what would traditionally be called intelligence, whatever that is. [/quote]

Also a good point. IQ correlates with average brain size almost perfectly until you look at the Inuit. They average an IQ of about 98 or so, despite having the largest brains.

As it turns out, the reason for this is because the Inuit have prodigious spacial memory, a skill requiring more brain mass. Spacial memory is an aspect not really relevant to modern IQ tests, even ones that control for ‘G’ and when an alternate IQ test was produced that specifically tested for spacial memory, the Inuit scored an average of 106 versus the white median of 100. The proposed reason for their advanced spacial memory is due to the demands placed on them by the terrain they live in. The areas they live in are barren and any given area is nearly indistinguishable from any other given area, so it’s vital that the Inuit are capable of navigating around using seemingly insignificant landmarks.

So you have something to relate this to, the average North East Asian Mongoloid IQ is 105 versus the 100 white median.

So, IQ tests are imperfect. It’s absolutely possible that blacks posses a form of intelligence not recorded by IQ tests, so if you guys want to make a valid counter argument, THIS is where you need to be. I’m deliberately giving you guys a handicap because, frankly, this is the sort of information you guys should already be privy to before you decide to step up to bat with me on this issue. I can understand why you guys are so ignorant when it comes to this field, but that’s no excuse for the arrogance some of you express in your posts. I’m absolutely willing to hear you out and even change my position if you can show me to be wrong, but the vast majority of you need to step up your game if this is your goal.

Also, any form of intelligence blacks may be prodigious in that is not recorded in conventional IQ tests has already been shown to have no effect on the average black income and the general state of Africa. Hmm, I suppose I didn’t give you much of a handicap after all…

803

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TDub301 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Someone please define “wrong street” to me in the context of a kid walking down one as a minority.

I am confused on this topic. [/quote]

Wrong street: the street that Zimmerman was patrolling. There you go. Doesn’t have to have anything to do with race.[/quote]

LOL.

You wrote:[quote]As far as I’m concerned, it’s just as likely that the kid was simply walking down the wrong neighborhood street, at the wrong time, while the wrong mentally unstable neighborhood watch captain was on patrol.[/quote]

You see, he was in THE RIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD, AT THE RIGHT TIME with THE WRONG PERSON thinking he was a criminal and taking his life for it.

I know you may not mean it, but the implication of what you wrote is STILL that the kid di not belong there.

He did.

He didn’t deserve to die for it either.

And yeah…it was ALL about race.[/quote]

I dont know.

I cant be all about race.

Its stupidity too, because if I wanted to keep the black man down, I would smother you with kindness.

If I coddled you from cradle to grave, made a better deal to young mothers than any young black man could, made it easier to get into colleges and government jobs, put in several steps where making more money, i.e. moving up in the world would actually net you less money and told you that all your woes were due to slavery and racism, I bet that I could destroy the black family, make it next to impossible to escape poverty and even those who did would live in a state of resentment and self doubt.

You see, killing people creates hate which is a form of strength.

Pampering makes people look to your for answers.

So this was not racism, this was stupid racism, the keyword being “stupid”.

804

[quote]LHT wrote:

No, I don’t care to read one more convoluted self-serving justification from TigerTime. There actually are interesting conversations to be had about why certain populations have been more or less violent, more or less ‘advanced,’ at one time or another…but as long as anyone actually gets trolled into having this conversation with someone like TigerTime, absolutely zero information will be exchanged.

32 pages of circular reasoning, ffs…[/quote]

For a new poster…I find myself agreeing with you quite a bit.

805

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Funny, many of your posts in this thread hinge on the races of the people involved.[/quote]

? the kid was killed because of the race of the people involved.

[quote]

My mom’s side is dark haired and olive skinned, that should get me something right?[/quote]

What are you talking about?

"I think we have covered the fact that this man’s race is not important about a few hundred times in this thread before your post. "

I thought you said otherwise. I must have misunderstood.

[quote]

more than that…it was so bad, that even after being asked why he was following Treyvon, he DIDN’T FEEL THE OBLIGATION TO RESPOND WITH AN ANSWER. That is just blatant disrespect because he had literally given up all possibilities that this kid was anything BUT a criminal.

That isn’t something small.

I applaud the father of that kid…because there is no way in hell I could sleep in that neighborhood with that guy after that and not do something…“saggy pants bad”.[/quote]

I don’t think this last part was addressing anything I’ve said. I’m not disagreeing with you about it.

806

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

"I think we have covered the fact that this man’s race is not important about a few hundred times in this thread before your post. "

I thought you said otherwise. I must have misunderstood.
[/quote]

Uh, yeah, you sure do misunderstand if you really need me to rehash what has already been stated so you do understand.

The tragedy is this KID being RACIALLY PROFILED. It doesn’t matter specifically what race Zimmerman was. dark Ninjaa had the best reply for this.

807

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:

Yes, it is true that statistics can be misleading. that’s why it’s important to go over each statistic to verify it’s relevancy and accuracy and not just deny them because that’s the status quo and no one will question you for doing so. Not saying you’re doing this, but that’s the vibe I’m getting from most people here. [/quote]

IQ test are also complete shit. They are design to diagnose mental retardation, not evaluate intelligence. They are extreeeeeeeemly culturally dependent and very hard to compare across cultural lines. For example guy smart guy from 1800 would fail a modern IQ test and a smart guy today would fail one designed in the culture of the 1800s.

I find it very hard to see the validity in comparing IQ tests in Africa with ones in Europe.

Edit: or for that matter, inner city black populations with more well to do white ones.[/quote]

Exactly. I once saw an IQ test where the answer was ‘Thelonius Monk’. It wasn’t a conventional question; it was a word challenge. The highest scores will also come from people who are the most interested in IQ testing and have the most experience in completing them. It’s an acquired skill, not a measure of intelligence. [/quote]

Questionable, the test used in intercultural comparisons are as non specific as possible, they do not even really have questions.

There are tests f9or people that cannot read. [/quote]

Therein lies the problem. If you give a literate person a test designed for a non-literate person, they will score higher than on a test tailored to their own intelligence, so how “tailored” is it? I’m aware that they may ‘extrapolate to compensate’, but published stats don’t really reflect reality.

Police stats are increasingly reliant on quotas (not just in the U.S); they are primarily meant to reflect police performance first, crimes rates second. Drug counsellors in many countries know the addresses of major dealers,and so do the cops, but it is better to stake out the dealer’s houses and arrest the customers than arrest the dealers. It pads out arrest statistics so much better (shh! I’m not supposed to know this so it’s not true).

808

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

Exactly. I once saw an IQ test where the answer was ‘Thelonius Monk’. It wasn’t a conventional question; it was a word challenge. The highest scores will also come from people who are the most interested in IQ testing and have the most experience in completing them. It’s an acquired skill, not a measure of intelligence. [/quote]

IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]

OK…so if everyone is telling Tiger Lilly this, why is he still typing?[/quote]

Well, that is not quite true.

For what its worth, the better you do in IQ tests, the more money you are likely to make.

Which does not necessarily mean that IQ tests test what would traditionally be called intelligence, whatever that is. [/quote]

I’ve had my IQ tested but the results were kept from me until I got out of college. I never put much reliance in them but can see how culture and exposure can affect the outcome to some degree. Both of my parents were teachers. My mom had me reading on a middle school level in Kindergarten. I did horrible in high school. I was Dean’s List in college. I do not believe they can dictate any level of success in life and that seems to be what some are arguing.

This is definitely not my field of study…but I do know something about genetics.[/quote]

Well, the fact is they do dictate ones level of success, but only if you let them. There are engineers with lower IQ’s than the average janitor. For the individual, I believe hard work is the main determining factor for success. It’s just that when you look at large populations, work ethic becomes a wash and genetic factors pan out.

My girlfriend’s high school average is about 15% higher than mine, despite being over 20 IQ points lower than me, so I know the kind of difference the extra mile can make. You get out of life what you put into it. I think this is something we can agree on.

809

[quote]TDub301 wrote:

I actually have my own theory that everyone is equally intelligent.[/quote]

It’s called egalitarianism. When egalitarianism is applied to racial intelligence levels, it fails. Each race has a different average brain size and difference average ratio between grey and white matter. For all the races to end up with equal intelligence levels is just about as close to a statistical impossibility as you can get and every valid study ever done on this topic has shown this is simply not the case. It would be nice if all the races had equal intelligence levels, but that’s just matter of factly less likely than all the races ending up with equal aggregate athletic proficiency.

810

[quote]roybot wrote:

Police stats are increasingly reliant on quotas (not just in the U.S); they are primarily meant to reflect police performance first, crimes rates second. Drug counsellors in many countries know the addresses of major dealers,and so do the cops, but it is better to stake out the dealer’s houses and arrest the customers than arrest the dealers. It pads out arrest statistics so much better (shh! I’m not supposed to know this so it’s not true).[/quote]

Yeah, the Austrian police does that too.

Better to show up at a rave and go through everyones pockets than to catch one criminal mastermind.

Happens every spring, when they have to send their statistics.

811

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]

Not to completely derail this, but Jews rock on IQ tests, are like 1% of the world population, and have half the world’s Nobel Prizes. Not to mention writing the book that is the cornerstone of our ethics.

So there is something to IQ test, IMHO.[/quote]

Yeah, but for what its worth, for the longest time Jews started to read at three working their way through the Torah, instead of “Bob has a ball, watch Bob and his ball”.

Add to that a heritage that insinuates that everything you have better fit into your suitcase and into your head and who knows what that leads to. [/quote]

But that would imply a large cultural influence.[/quote]

Mebbe.

If that was true though, it would also explain why people who see reading a book as a sign of sympathizing with the enemy do not so well on IQ tests.

[/quote]

Which again is cultural. My grandmother was almost just south of white…as in light skinned but “black” facial features enough to know she isn’t. Her husband was jet black. He would often go missing in the middle of the night so she had to buy Pearl Drops toothpaste so he could be found.

I remember getting made fun of at one school I attended (the only one majority black) where I was teased for how I spoke. Apparently, I spoke “white”. That is the community many of these kids are raised in. Education is not valued (mind you, I do think this is changing lately) and the focus is not on praising pure intellect mostly because of the condition many of those kids are living in and the options they think are available to them.

This can not be ignored with standardized tests or completely left out of the equation.[/quote]

This is another theory I find plausible. I vaguely remember reading about a crime report from the 1800’s that actually showed blacks had lower crime rates, both in total and as a % of population, than whites. I haven’t been able to find it, but assuming it’s true, it suggests a culture of violence as the problem, not the low IQ/high T mixture.

It would take more than just that report, obviously, but it is a valid counter-theory.

The warring nature of Africa can also plausibly be explained in this way if one looks at Africa in terms of Lloyd DeMause’s psycho-history theory (which I adhere to), but this theory still requires the low aggregate African IQ to explain this.

812

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

Police stats are increasingly reliant on quotas (not just in the U.S); they are primarily meant to reflect police performance first, crimes rates second. Drug counsellors in many countries know the addresses of major dealers,and so do the cops, but it is better to stake out the dealer’s houses and arrest the customers than arrest the dealers. It pads out arrest statistics so much better (shh! I’m not supposed to know this so it’s not true).[/quote]

Yeah, the Austrian police does that too.

Better to show up at a rave and go through everyones pockets than to catch one criminal mastermind.

Happens every spring, when they have to send their statistics. [/quote]

LOL! Truth. Stats beget stats.

813

[quote]LHT wrote:
OK, so, IQ and T levels are predictive of violent crime?

Interesting. I’ve spent time in Takoradi, Ghana, with plenty of visits to nearby Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire. Let me tell you right off the bat, that in general (other than traffic/road idiocy), Takoradi is a pretty damned safe place in terms of violent crime, while Abidjan is…well let’s say you have to maintain a much higher degree of awareness when walking around town.

Both places are populated by people of extremely similar genetic backgrounds – predominantly Akan, Fanti, and related groups, with the usual African sprinkling of dozens if not hundreds of other populations/linguistic groups.

Food is 90% the same, cultural values on the family level are so similar that the population has some level of fluidity along the Ghana/Cote d’Ivoire border…and nobody on here will ever convince me that the IQ levels of one city are significantly different than the other…if anything, on average Abidjanis tend to be a little bit more clever, but that’s just a personal anecdotal observation, not that meaningful. So why the observable difference in the tendency towards violence?

Oh god did I just invite someone to speculate on a higher percentage of ‘white genes’ (lol) in Takoradi?

I’m not disputing all of TigerTime’s claims, regarding crime levels. My dispute is on the trend to over-simplify the situation on a level bordering on self-serving delusion.

For example – the crap about adapting to cold weather. What sort of convoluted nonsense is that? It doesn’t even for a moment address the fact that hot-weather populations have represented the pinnacle of human civilization for the significant majority of recorded history. The completely open questions and pointless speculation are examples of why there is no point in taking such claims seriously.

No, I don’t care to read one more convoluted self-serving justification from TigerTime. There actually are interesting conversations to be had about why certain populations have been more or less violent, more or less ‘advanced,’ at one time or another…but as long as anyone actually gets trolled into having this conversation with someone like TigerTime, absolutely zero information will be exchanged.

32 pages of circular reasoning, ffs…[/quote]

Is the homicide rate difference there even nearly as drastic?

“Cold weather” is just an example of a factor that would put pressure on brain performance. Check out what I wrote about the Inuit before you misrepresent what I’m saying. As I’ve already said, the take home notes of that post are that leaving Africa meant leaving the safety net of an already established food supply. If you look at a map showing median IQ’s, you’ll see that the trend is the farther a given population moved from Africa, the “smarter” their descendants became because, well, they had to in order to establish a sustainable civilization. It absolutely makes sense as to why the middle east would be number one when they were because they were in a sweet spot. They Were far enough from Africa to require more intelligence, but close enough that they still retained some benefit of the early African lifestyle. Sure, the European and Asian tribes evolved larger, more powerful brains, but it takes time for the products of this advanced brain function to compound enough for Europe and Asia to surpass the “old” world countries. Which is exactly what happened. As one would expect, given enough time.

Nothing you’ve said here is actually in contradiction to what I’ve said.

Edit: It’s also worth mentioning that it is well established that low IQ correlates with more criminal behaviour. This is a trend seen in all races.

814

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Which does not necessarily mean that IQ tests test what would traditionally be called intelligence, whatever that is. [/quote]

Also a good point. IQ correlates with average brain size almost perfectly until you look at the Inuit. They average an IQ of about 98 or so, despite having the largest brains.

As it turns out, the reason for this is because the Inuit have prodigious spacial memory, a skill requiring more brain mass. Spacial memory is an aspect not really relevant to modern IQ tests, even ones that control for ‘G’ and when an alternate IQ test was produced that specifically tested for spacial memory, the Inuit scored an average of 106 versus the white median of 100. The proposed reason for their advanced spacial memory is due to the demands placed on them by the terrain they live in. The areas they live in are barren and any given area is nearly indistinguishable from any other given area, so it’s vital that the Inuit are capable of navigating around using seemingly insignificant landmarks.

So you have something to relate this to, the average North East Asian Mongoloid IQ is 105 versus the 100 white median.

So, IQ tests are imperfect. It’s absolutely possible that blacks posses a form of intelligence not recorded by IQ tests, so if you guys want to make a valid counter argument, THIS is where you need to be. I’m deliberately giving you guys a handicap because, frankly, this is the sort of information you guys should already be privy to before you decide to step up to bat with me on this issue. I can understand why you guys are so ignorant when it comes to this field, but that’s no excuse for the arrogance some of you express in your posts. I’m absolutely willing to hear you out and even change my position if you can show me to be wrong, but the vast majority of you need to step up your game if this is your goal.

Also, any form of intelligence blacks may be prodigious in that is not recorded in conventional IQ tests has already been shown to have no effect on the average black income and the general state of Africa. Hmm, I suppose I didn’t give you much of a handicap after all… [/quote]

Please don’t speak out of your ass, you’re lack of knowledge about basic neuroscience is becoming a bit too glaringly obvious. Mental capacity is more correlated with brain surface area than over all mass, numerous animals having larger brains than our own (elephants, average sperm whale brain mass is 7X that of a human) while brain mass is more closely correlated to body size than anything else. More surface area=more grey matter=more of the brain that actually has to do with what is traditionally thought of as intelligence.

Also while certain brain areas do display more electrical activity during different thought processes to definitively say that they are mostly associated with that region is again laughable, there is far too much interplay at an electrical and non-electrical level to posit such claims.

815

[quote]roybot wrote:
Police stats are increasingly reliant on quotas (not just in the U.S); they are primarily meant to reflect police performance first, crimes rates second. Drug counsellors in many countries know the addresses of major dealers,and so do the cops, but it is better to stake out the dealer’s houses and arrest the customers than arrest the dealers. It pads out arrest statistics so much better (shh! I’m not supposed to know this so it’s not true).[/quote]

This is interesting, but it’s certainly not a game-changer and it’s only marginally relevant.

  1. I’m talking about violent crime, not drug offences.
  2. What your suggesting still assumes that enough blacks are committing these crimes for the statistics I’ve given to be accurate. After all, you won’t get arrested for walking into a drug dealers house until you actually do go into it.

And before some fool brings it up, yes mistakes happen, but not enough to be statistically significant in this case.

816

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]TDub301 wrote:

I actually have my own theory that everyone is equally intelligent.[/quote]

It’s called egalitarianism. When egalitarianism is applied to racial intelligence levels, it fails. Each race has a different average brain size and difference average ratio between grey and white matter. For all the races to end up with equal intelligence levels is just about as close to a statistical impossibility as you can get and every valid study ever done on this topic has shown this is simply not the case. It would be nice if all the races had equal intelligence levels, but that’s just matter of factly less likely than all the races ending up with equal aggregate athletic proficiency. [/quote]
Have you ever did any real research into IQ testing and its critiques? Please post your research that shows that income is tied into higher IQ because frankly everything I have seen doesn’t follow this.

Unless you are simply saying to hit a certain baseline income you need a certain base IQ so if you are sub 100 you are more likely to have a lower income. There is nothing that equates to this on the other side. The higher an IQ is has no correlation to income after a certain sweet spot.

Terman’s old study amply showed this…and its the exact opposite of what he was looking for and its likely the largest IQ study ever done.

He selected genius kids in Cali by IQ testing several times cutting the lower IQ kids each time to get his study pool. Then he followed them through their lives. (he lent a bit of bias even by writing letters of recomendation, but I digress). Basically in the end even he concluded that intelligence and achievement at best have an imperfect relationship.
He even rejected William Shockley and Luis Alvarez which shows his system to be beyond suspect.
Other critics were a bit harsher saying that a completely random group of kids picked would have achieved the same success, which since its largely true puts whatever it is that IQ measures a bit up in the air. Though to show that no matter how gifted one might be one can believe in some total horseshit Shockley became big in the idea that lower intelligence breeding was fucking up the race and science should take a hand even maybe make a nobel laureate sperm bank.

Terman also was an early member of something called the Human Betterment Society which had some noble aims Tiger Time would be down with. Lets just say such an association might make him a bit biased at the very least.

So this guy Terman is pretty much the linchpin of IQ testing at least for the 50 or 60 years from 1930 to 1980 or so. He put the Stanford in Stanford Binet after all. And he changed the focus from identifying those that might need more help to those that were gifted.

This would be a link to Raven’s test which is an IQ test that is culture bias free(in theory) for anyone that is interested.

817

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

Exactly. I once saw an IQ test where the answer was ‘Thelonius Monk’. It wasn’t a conventional question; it was a word challenge. The highest scores will also come from people who are the most interested in IQ testing and have the most experience in completing them. It’s an acquired skill, not a measure of intelligence. [/quote]

IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]

OK…so if everyone is telling Tiger Lilly this, why is he still typing?[/quote]

Well, that is not quite true.

For what its worth, the better you do in IQ tests, the more money you are likely to make.

Which does not necessarily mean that IQ tests test what would traditionally be called intelligence, whatever that is. [/quote]

I’ve had my IQ tested but the results were kept from me until I got out of college. I never put much reliance in them but can see how culture and exposure can affect the outcome to some degree. Both of my parents were teachers. My mom had me reading on a middle school level in Kindergarten. I did horrible in high school. I was Dean’s List in college. I do not believe they can dictate any level of success in life and that seems to be what some are arguing.

This is definitely not my field of study…but I do know something about genetics.[/quote]

Well, the fact is they do dictate ones level of success, but only if you let them. There are engineers with lower IQ’s than the average janitor. For the individual, I believe hard work is the main determining factor for success. It’s just that when you look at large populations, work ethic becomes a wash and genetic factors pan out.

My girlfriend’s high school average is about 15% higher than mine, despite being over 20 IQ points lower than me, so I know the kind of difference the extra mile can make. You get out of life what you put into it. I think this is something we can agree on.[/quote]

You have in no way shown that they dictate success. You have shown correlation only.

It is entirely possible that they are both caused by another factor.

You are failing in your basic logic.

For example: If a kid is apathetic, they may put 0 effort into an IQ exam because they just plain don’t care. That apathy could also cause a general lack of success in life.

A low IQ doesn’t mean low intelligence, and it doesn’t mean it is the cause of success.

818

[quote]otar wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Which does not necessarily mean that IQ tests test what would traditionally be called intelligence, whatever that is. [/quote]

Also a good point. IQ correlates with average brain size almost perfectly until you look at the Inuit. They average an IQ of about 98 or so, despite having the largest brains.

As it turns out, the reason for this is because the Inuit have prodigious spacial memory, a skill requiring more brain mass. Spacial memory is an aspect not really relevant to modern IQ tests, even ones that control for ‘G’ and when an alternate IQ test was produced that specifically tested for spacial memory, the Inuit scored an average of 106 versus the white median of 100. The proposed reason for their advanced spacial memory is due to the demands placed on them by the terrain they live in. The areas they live in are barren and any given area is nearly indistinguishable from any other given area, so it’s vital that the Inuit are capable of navigating around using seemingly insignificant landmarks.

So you have something to relate this to, the average North East Asian Mongoloid IQ is 105 versus the 100 white median.

So, IQ tests are imperfect. It’s absolutely possible that blacks posses a form of intelligence not recorded by IQ tests, so if you guys want to make a valid counter argument, THIS is where you need to be. I’m deliberately giving you guys a handicap because, frankly, this is the sort of information you guys should already be privy to before you decide to step up to bat with me on this issue. I can understand why you guys are so ignorant when it comes to this field, but that’s no excuse for the arrogance some of you express in your posts. I’m absolutely willing to hear you out and even change my position if you can show me to be wrong, but the vast majority of you need to step up your game if this is your goal.

Also, any form of intelligence blacks may be prodigious in that is not recorded in conventional IQ tests has already been shown to have no effect on the average black income and the general state of Africa. Hmm, I suppose I didn’t give you much of a handicap after all… [/quote]

Please don’t speak out of your ass, you’re lack of knowledge about basic neuroscience is becoming a bit too glaringly obvious. Mental capacity is more correlated with brain surface area than over all mass, numerous animals having larger brains than our own (elephants, average sperm whale brain mass is 7X that of a human) while brain mass is more closely correlated to body size than anything else. More surface area=more grey matter=more of the brain that actually has to do with what is traditionally thought of as intelligence.

Also while certain brain areas do display more electrical activity during different thought processes to definitively say that they are mostly associated with that region is again laughable, there is far too much interplay at an electrical and non-electrical level to posit such claims.[/quote]

I actually don’t see how what you’ve said is a counter argument. I’m pretty sure I stated that not only do some races have bigger brains, but the grey to white matter ratio is also different, which makes sense given what you’ve said about grey matter and intelligence.

Also, your cross-species argument is silly. I’m well aware that intelligence is more accurately predicted when you look at the brain-to-body mass ratio, but given that we’re talking about one species, Humans, and we’re all about the same size, this argument is a non-sequitur.

And to finish off your hubris-littered haymaker of a counter argument, “Recent research indicates that, in primates, whole brain size is a better measure of cognitive abilities than brain-to-body mass ratio. The total weight of the species is greater than the predicted sample only if the frontal lobe is adjusted for spacial relation.”

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&ProduktNr=223831&Ausgabe=233218&ArtikelNr=102973&ContentOnly=false

Please, at least build up a Wikipedian understanding of this topic before charging in so boldly.

819

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]otar wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Which does not necessarily mean that IQ tests test what would traditionally be called intelligence, whatever that is. [/quote]

Also a good point. IQ correlates with average brain size almost perfectly until you look at the Inuit. They average an IQ of about 98 or so, despite having the largest brains.

As it turns out, the reason for this is because the Inuit have prodigious spacial memory, a skill requiring more brain mass. Spacial memory is an aspect not really relevant to modern IQ tests, even ones that control for ‘G’ and when an alternate IQ test was produced that specifically tested for spacial memory, the Inuit scored an average of 106 versus the white median of 100. The proposed reason for their advanced spacial memory is due to the demands placed on them by the terrain they live in. The areas they live in are barren and any given area is nearly indistinguishable from any other given area, so it’s vital that the Inuit are capable of navigating around using seemingly insignificant landmarks.

So you have something to relate this to, the average North East Asian Mongoloid IQ is 105 versus the 100 white median.

So, IQ tests are imperfect. It’s absolutely possible that blacks posses a form of intelligence not recorded by IQ tests, so if you guys want to make a valid counter argument, THIS is where you need to be. I’m deliberately giving you guys a handicap because, frankly, this is the sort of information you guys should already be privy to before you decide to step up to bat with me on this issue. I can understand why you guys are so ignorant when it comes to this field, but that’s no excuse for the arrogance some of you express in your posts. I’m absolutely willing to hear you out and even change my position if you can show me to be wrong, but the vast majority of you need to step up your game if this is your goal.

Also, any form of intelligence blacks may be prodigious in that is not recorded in conventional IQ tests has already been shown to have no effect on the average black income and the general state of Africa. Hmm, I suppose I didn’t give you much of a handicap after all… [/quote]

Please don’t speak out of your ass, you’re lack of knowledge about basic neuroscience is becoming a bit too glaringly obvious. Mental capacity is more correlated with brain surface area than over all mass, numerous animals having larger brains than our own (elephants, average sperm whale brain mass is 7X that of a human) while brain mass is more closely correlated to body size than anything else. More surface area=more grey matter=more of the brain that actually has to do with what is traditionally thought of as intelligence.

Also while certain brain areas do display more electrical activity during different thought processes to definitively say that they are mostly associated with that region is again laughable, there is far too much interplay at an electrical and non-electrical level to posit such claims.[/quote]

I actually don’t see how what you’ve said is a counter argument. I’m pretty sure I stated that not only do some races have bigger brains, but the grey to white matter ratio is also different, which makes sense given what you’ve said about grey matter and intelligence.

Also, your cross-species argument is silly. I’m well aware that intelligence is more accurately predicted when you look at the brain-to-body mass ratio, but given that we’re talking about one species, Humans, and we’re all about the same size, this argument is a non-sequitur.

And to finish off your hubris-littered haymaker of a counter argument, “Recent research indicates that, in primates, whole brain size is a better measure of cognitive abilities than brain-to-body mass ratio. The total weight of the species is greater than the predicted sample only if the frontal lobe is adjusted for spacial relation.”

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&ProduktNr=223831&Ausgabe=233218&ArtikelNr=102973&ContentOnly=false

Please, at least build up a Wikipedian understanding of this topic before charging in so boldly. [/quote]

Brain size and intelligence generally do not relate within a species. Einstein had a small brain.

820

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]

Not to completely derail this, but Jews rock on IQ tests, are like 1% of the world population, and have half the world’s Nobel Prizes. Not to mention writing the book that is the cornerstone of our ethics.

So there is something to IQ test, IMHO.[/quote]

Yeah, but for what its worth, for the longest time Jews started to read at three working their way through the Torah, instead of “Bob has a ball, watch Bob and his ball”.

Add to that a heritage that insinuates that everything you have better fit into your suitcase and into your head and who knows what that leads to. [/quote]

But that would imply a large cultural influence.[/quote]

Mebbe.

If that was true though, it would also explain why people who see reading a book as a sign of sympathizing with the enemy do not so well on IQ tests.

[/quote]

Which again is cultural. My grandmother was almost just south of white…as in light skinned but “black” facial features enough to know she isn’t. Her husband was jet black. He would often go missing in the middle of the night so she had to buy Pearl Drops toothpaste so he could be found.

I remember getting made fun of at one school I attended (the only one majority black) where I was teased for how I spoke. Apparently, I spoke “white”. That is the community many of these kids are raised in. Education is not valued (mind you, I do think this is changing lately) and the focus is not on praising pure intellect mostly because of the condition many of those kids are living in and the options they think are available to them.

This can not be ignored with standardized tests or completely left out of the equation.[/quote]

This is another theory I find plausible. I vaguely remember reading about a crime report from the 1800’s that actually showed blacks had lower crime rates, both in total and as a % of population, than whites. I haven’t been able to find it, but assuming it’s true, it suggests a culture of violence as the problem, not the low IQ/high T mixture.

It would take more than just that report, obviously, but it is a valid counter-theory.

The warring nature of Africa can also plausibly be explained in this way if one looks at Africa in terms of Lloyd DeMause’s psycho-history theory (which I adhere to), but this theory still requires the low aggregate African IQ to explain this. [/quote]

I know that we’re well into tiger time but wake up. Africans were less warlike than white colonists otherwise they wouldn’t have been enslaved. The conquerors’ methods are always the most brutal. The state of modern Africa is a legacy of slavery and superimposing an incompatible government onto a honeycomb-like system of tribes.