Replying to Trolls in PWI

[pat]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
In all honesty, BTW, you can ask “What if it is genetic?” all you want, and others can too. Unfortunetly you will arrive at the same answer. IT’s not. That would mean that many of the successful Africans from around the world who have achieved compentency and general success would have been held back by subpar genetics and there are too many AFricans/Blacks who do test high IQ wise and are competent. These people were decendents of African natives and have succeeded. Your DNA has nothing to do with region, racially, and these people are too far in number to be considered potential outliers on a statistical scale. This just further proves that we are products of our environment to a degree.

And for the record, I never said we had DNA/genetics all figured out, but when it comes to this it is pretty obvious. You can take any race from any region, and barring any mental issues you can educate them to above a 70 mentally handicaped IQ level. [/quote]

Excuse me, that is not an argument.

So, some people did well.

Awesome?

So?

That says nothing about average intelligence in sub Saharan Africa, that only shows that intelligence is distributed along a bell curve there too.

That is along the lines of Chinese are not smaller than Americans because one Chinese plays in the NBA.

Also, what study?

Education in Africa? That is a good documentation that education sucks in Africa, but that say little about raw intelligence.

[/quote]

You cannot determine shit about raw intelligence with out education. Second, if I dropped your well educated ass in the African plains, you would die. Where as your ‘dumb’ counter parts will step around your carcass to get to the next source of survival. Whether that’s before or after the buzzards eat your dead ass, I don’t know.[/quote]

My ability to survive in Africa is hardly relevant and the claim that you cannot test someones IQ without education is unsubstantiated.

We test 3 year olds all the time and their IQ remains relatively stable over time.[/quote]

You don’t know much about them, so I will give you a brief run down, IQ tests are done age dependent. So you cannot give a 3 year old a 12 year old’s test. So if you you are test 20 year olds, of nomadic tribes in lower Saharan plains, you have to give them one that presumes an ability to read and write. Otherwise the test is not comparable to the 1rst world counter parts. Further, you have a language issue. While there are some regions who can speak French, maybe some Portuguese and Spanish, and perhaps a bit of English, may speak native dialects of native languages. Where the tests converted to those native languages? Where the tests administered orally or written? Was the time constraints observed on the tests? There are many, many considerations to take in to account for this to have any validity what so ever.

My main question is how were these numbers arrived at? What controls were used to ensure validity?
IQ is a measure that can only be determined in a person with average or better education. If you are not taught cognitive skills, if you do not have the ability to perform the test, then there is no way to determine an IQ.
If we administered the 3 year old test, adapted to their environment and culture, then I bet you can better measure.

To say that entire regions with millions of people in them, have a mean IQ just an ass hair above retardation is quite a bold statement and requires substantial proof… Not 'cause I said so.
These people lack resources and education, not total lack of ability.[/quote]

There are tests for people who are unable to read and write.
[/quote]
Oh? I have never heard of one for adults. Got a name of one? Or the institution that put forth an IQ test for adults with no words?

In fact there are numerous tests that tests for spatial intelligence (if that is a word in English) pattern recognition and so further and so on.

All that it requires is the ability to hold a pen and learn how to use it.

If you cannot do that, I guess testing your intelligence is kind of moot anyway.

There are cultures who don’t know how to do that, particularly over there.

[quote]
Do I recognize that they worked with the tests they had and that there are of course many methodological flaws in how these over 150 tests were administered?

Sure, but this is the data we have, what else is there to go on?

In fact, the whole OMGDZ racism and “it simply cannot be” attitude is the very reason why we wont get more reliable data and that is very, very bad, because assuming that we want to do something about the abysmal conditions in Africa we need a clear picture of what is actually going on. [/quote]

If you are trying to empirically prove that race is a mitigating factor in intelligence you’d definitely better bring your data and it better be impeccably controlled. When you are talking intelligence, you are talking superiority. I would expect people to be a little sensitive.

If a study said, “Austrians are the dumbest people in Europe.” I suppose that would be a-ok for you?

[orion]

Dude, clean up or post and to your last point, sure, it would say little about me.

[orion]

There was for example the Army Beta test, for people that either failed the Army Alpha test or were illiterate.

That was 1917 in France, one of the first.

[Rohnyn]

Two things;

1. These arguments always come back to ‘pile of poop = pyramid’ people will say OMGDZ AFRICANS DONT USE PENS AND DON’T HAVE CIVILIZATION SO YOU CAN’T JUDGE THEM BY THOSE STANDARDS. This is basically false and here is why; human welfare is a universal objective, regions that have had human population for the longest time (ahem Africa) and have yet to indigenously reach the bronze age and instead remain culturally stone age don’t get a free pass because of that. In fact, that only confirms that they are functioning idiots, they had a millenia head start and still have not improved or oprtimized their welfare. Don’t you find it odd these same ‘tribes’ you laud as being so in tune with the Earth require subrbanite recent college grads to go to their villages and teach them to do basic shit like dig a well, not plant the same field for 3 years in a row, and now mow down every yak they see with an Ak47? Just sayin.

2. Despite whatever ever self-hating left-wing neo-marxist errbody-equal bias you may have agaisnt dedutive reasoning and hard science, if it is true that subsaharan Africans of the Black race are functioning at near retard level as evidenced by their indigenous societies and diaspora both recently and historically…would it not be beneficial to acknowledge this in order to better help them? You cannot solve a problem until you acknowledge it. If you carry on as if these people were capable of rational decisions and introspection you’ll get the same failed results.

There’s a reason why the Portuguese rolled up to Japan and gave respect, and rolled up to Angola and thought they were sub-human cavemen. There was a marked difference in intelligence and development of the people. If we can acknowledge the problem, we might be able to find the root, and found a policy around that, if we don’t, it’s just going to be a perpetual cycle.

[Sloth]

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

There’s a reason why the Portuguese rolled up to Japan and gave respect, and rolled up to Angola and thought they were sub-human cavemen. There was a marked difference in intelligence and development of the people. If we can acknowledge the problem, we might be able to find the root, and found a policy around that, if we don’t, it’s just going to be a perpetual cycle. [/quote]

Any suggestions as to what the final solution would be?

[Rohnyn]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

There’s a reason why the Portuguese rolled up to Japan and gave respect, and rolled up to Angola and thought they were sub-human cavemen. There was a marked difference in intelligence and development of the people. If we can acknowledge the problem, we might be able to find the root, and found a policy around that, if we don’t, it’s just going to be a perpetual cycle. [/quote]

Any suggestions as to what the final solution would be?[/quote]
Eugenics of some sort and no, not of the artificial selection sort.
The point is that, you all want to intervene into a place that is inherently messed up. You wanted to cut the leaf but don’t want to pull out the root. That is the issue.
There is nothing to be gained from interverntio in Africa, only enmity and steps back to colonialism
If these are free fully intelligent human beings, then they should be left to handle this themselves. If you do not believe that, then you are a Colonialist. I am not.

[kamui]

human welfare is a universal objective, regions that have had human population for the longest time (ahem Africa) and have yet to indigenously reach the bronze age and instead remain culturally stone age don’t get a free pass because of that

let’s see if our current version of the “universal objective” of “human welfare” will survive one century without imploding under its own obscene weight.

stone age societies may not be welfarish enough to your taste, but at least they have been proven viable.

We are children among nations. Genius and hyper-active children, but children nonetheless.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]Swolegasm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Swolegasm wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]The Londoner wrote:

Unless we recolonize the continent ala the Chinese, I see no point to waste money trying to fix people who are obviously operating on an 85 IQ level as a societal whole. You may as well send Navy Seals to the middle of the ocean to teach dolphins to brush their teeth. You might actually have more success.

So essentially, what you’re saying is that African people are inherently stupid?

Are you even minutely aware of how racist your comment is?[/quote]
If I had said that Eastern Europe and Latin American had business cultures that were plagued by corruption would you have said that was racist?

You drew your own conclusion from the evidence given, I did not tell you that.
I wasn’t aware ‘facts’ were racist. I thought racism was predicated on advocating the superiority of your group over others.

What I did say was that Africa is inherently fukked up and has been seemingly perpetually…what is the point of investing blood, money and oil into the place? What will be taken in return?[/quote]

You pretty much said how superior you were. By you definition that is racist.

Uhh what will be taken in return? The good of mankind? improving there quality of life, which could be argued was caused by colinisation of Africa and the slave trade in particular by america.

Plus stone age? did you ever hear of timbuktu?
[/quote]

You know whats funny?

If someone points out that at least East Asians have a higher IQ than Europeans that is not racist.

If it is pointed out that Africans, at least those below the Sahara have a significantly lower IQ that is racist.

What is also interesting is that the gap is always explained away in part that this tests are somehow favoring middle class Europeans, without going into why rice farmers in rural China seem to have no problems with that.

Also, the IQ of people in urban areas is higher than that in rural areas, what is that, urbanist?

edited[/quote]

I never argued with the IQ tests just that the tone of that guy, gave me the impression that we were talking about a sub race.[/quote]
I think you have just been mentally conditioned to refuse the cold hard facts of regional/racial reality and reacted that way until you got showed the numbers.
Far enough.[/quote]

I am not convinced of the “cold hard facts”. IQ is supposed to be a reflection of ability not education, but it posits you have education first. The regions in read reflect more the education or lack of, rather than cognitive ability. I garaun-fucking-tee that if you provide the same educational resources that we have and most first world countries have, you will get IQ’s that are on par with the rest of the world.

I want to know, what IQ test was give, how was it given, to whom was it given, in what language it was given, etc.
You cannot put enough controls on such a research because it is impossible. There for the results of such research is impossible.
You have to be able to prove that by genetic nature, you pull 1000 randomly selected kids out of that region, put them in a favorable educational surrounding such as the U.S. and test them against their peers 5 years later and get substantially, statistically significant lower mean than the rest of the world, then it would be somewhere near believable…It won’t, because you take a 1000 kids from that region and give them proper learning environments and those kids will show the same cognitive ability as anybody else.
Like wise if we took you ass as a kid and stuck it in middle Africa where you had to struggle to survive everyday and receive no education, you would come up really low on an IQ test too.

It requires a pretty decent level of education to even take an IQ test. Many people in Africa don’t have that at all.[/quote]

Then you will understand that IQ is changeable across time, and is not entirely heritable:

"The average I.Q. is, by definition, 100; but to achieve that result, raw test scores have to be standardized. If the average teenager today could go back in time and take an I.Q. test from 1910, he or she would have an I.Q. of 130, which would be better than 98 percent of those taking the test then. Nor is it easy to attribute this rise to improved education, because the aspects of the tests on which scores have risen most do not require a good vocabulary or even mathematical ability, but instead test powers of abstract reasoning. One theory is that we have gotten better at I.Q. tests because we live in a more symbol-rich environment… "

From a review of “Our Better Angels: Why Violence Has Declined” by Steven Pinker

Is Violence History? (Published 2011)

Notice the subtitle of the book.

[florelius]

[quote]The Londoner wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]The Londoner wrote:

Unless we recolonize the continent ala the Chinese, I see no point to waste money trying to fix people who are obviously operating on an 85 IQ level as a societal whole. You may as well send Navy Seals to the middle of the ocean to teach dolphins to brush their teeth. You might actually have more success.

So essentially, what you’re saying is that African people are inherently stupid?

Are you even minutely aware of how racist your comment is?[/quote]
If I had said that Eastern Europe and Latin American had business cultures that were plagued by corruption would you have said that was racist?

You drew your own conclusion from the evidence given, I did not tell you that.
I wasn’t aware ‘facts’ were racist. I thought racism was predicated on advocating the superiority of your group over others.

Care to share what exactly was false or incorrect in my assertion? You have evidence that demonstrates otherwise?

You can attenmpt to discredit the validity of IQ as an accurate measure of intellect, but you cannot discredit the outcomes of the tests by region and race. These have been repeated many times to similar results.

I actually was being very racially sensitive in my community as despite the fact that the scores fall into the 70 IQ range of most subsaharan African nations, I gave them an 85 level to be functioning above the retard gradient.[/quote]

OK, if you must.

Firstly, in relation to your earlier assertion on African IQ, which was published in studies by Richard Lynn, has been rubbished by other ressearchers, as found in this article (Controversial study of African IQ levels is 'deeply flawed' | ScienceDaily), amongst others I’m sure. It doesn’t take much reading to see that Richard Lynn is widely considered a racist in the psychological community.

Interesting, also, that he considers St. Lucia, for example, to be near bottom in terms of IQ, but that tiny island of around 150,000 spawned two Nobel Prize winners, a feat which earned them the highest population:prizewinner ratio of any country on Earth for a long time. I believe they lost it last year, unfortunately. Hmm.

So your IQ assertions aren’t founded, as they are based on a flawed study by an inherently racist psychologist.

I’m naturally touchy about any person writing off Africa in the way that you mentioned, especially as I’m a black man, and pretty well educated, likely more so than you. I understand more than anybody else that Africa has some huge social issues. But come on dude. You’re saying you’d have a better time teaching dolphins to brush their teeth. That kind of tone suggests you’re trying to advocate the superiority of your own race above another…which, as a matter of fact, is racist, by your own definition.

You’re more than welcome to sharing your opinion on Africa, I’d just suggest that you stop basing your evidence for its problems on half baked studies which have already been rubbished by other psychologists, and that you drop your demeaning, clearly racist tone.[/quote]

Why havent anyone responded to this black gentleman who actually took the time to respond to a clearly racist and fascistoid poster( ronhyn )

Richard Lynn

Read the end of this article, there are some rather revealing facts about how lynn disregarded test where blacks scored higher or the same as their white counterparts. Also some of the nations iq scores arent even tested on people who live in the nation they are suppose to measure. In short meaning that this is utter bullshit similar to historian revisionists who claims that the holocaust never happenend and so on. Ergo the entire premise( that african are retards according to some ) for the ongoing discussion is wrong.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]florelius wrote:

Why havent anyone responded to this black gentleman who actually took the time to respond to a clearly racist and fascistoid poster( ronhyn )
[/quote]

I would guess most people don’t want to respond to the obvious troll posters. “Don’t feed the trolls” as they say.

[pat]

[quote]orion wrote:
There was for example the Army Beta test, for people that either failed the Army Alpha test or were illiterate.

That was 1917 in France, one of the first. [/quote]

1917? How accurate was that?

[florelius]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

Why havent anyone responded to this black gentleman who actually took the time to respond to a clearly racist and fascistoid poster( ronhyn )
[/quote]

I would guess most people don’t want to respond to the obvious troll posters. “Don’t feed the trolls” as they say. [/quote]

I hope you mean ronhyn when you say troll, not the other guy?

[kamui]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
There was for example the Army Beta test, for people that either failed the Army Alpha test or were illiterate.

That was 1917 in France, one of the first. [/quote]

1917? How accurate was that?[/quote]

Also…

in France ? How accurate was that ?

[pat]

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

There’s a reason why the Portuguese rolled up to Japan and gave respect, and rolled up to Angola and thought they were sub-human cavemen. There was a marked difference in intelligence and development of the people. If we can acknowledge the problem, we might be able to find the root, and found a policy around that, if we don’t, it’s just going to be a perpetual cycle. [/quote]

Any suggestions as to what the final solution would be?[/quote]
Eugenics of some sort and no, not of the artificial selection sort.
The point is that, you all want to intervene into a place that is inherently messed up. You wanted to cut the leaf but don’t want to pull out the root. That is the issue.
There is nothing to be gained from interverntio in Africa, only enmity and steps back to colonialism
If these are free fully intelligent human beings, then they should be left to handle this themselves. If you do not believe that, then you are a Colonialist. I am not.[/quote]

Actually, the issue of intervening in that region has nothing to do with their state or lot in life. It’s very simply a matter of thwarting the growth of Islamic extremism and preventing a new safe haven for the festering of terrorism. Plus the murdering of the local people to add to that. We’re not trying to save them from their life styles or their poverty, or give them education though there will likely be a side product of that.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

Why havent anyone responded to this black gentleman who actually took the time to respond to a clearly racist and fascistoid poster( ronhyn )
[/quote]

I would guess most people don’t want to respond to the obvious troll posters. “Don’t feed the trolls” as they say. [/quote]

I hope you mean ronhyn when you say troll, not the other guy?[/quote]

Some posters will go on and on with the trolls because such things “shouldn’t be left standing” or some-such. Perhaps I’m simply too lazy, or too annoyed that my thread about the ramifications and support-of/opposition-to sending troops (advisers) to Uganda has turned into this shit by some random troll poster who “got in early” with the second post. In short, who do you think I meant?

[pat]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]Swolegasm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Swolegasm wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]The Londoner wrote:

Unless we recolonize the continent ala the Chinese, I see no point to waste money trying to fix people who are obviously operating on an 85 IQ level as a societal whole. You may as well send Navy Seals to the middle of the ocean to teach dolphins to brush their teeth. You might actually have more success.

So essentially, what you’re saying is that African people are inherently stupid?

Are you even minutely aware of how racist your comment is?[/quote]
If I had said that Eastern Europe and Latin American had business cultures that were plagued by corruption would you have said that was racist?

You drew your own conclusion from the evidence given, I did not tell you that.
I wasn’t aware ‘facts’ were racist. I thought racism was predicated on advocating the superiority of your group over others.

What I did say was that Africa is inherently fukked up and has been seemingly perpetually…what is the point of investing blood, money and oil into the place? What will be taken in return?[/quote]

You pretty much said how superior you were. By you definition that is racist.

Uhh what will be taken in return? The good of mankind? improving there quality of life, which could be argued was caused by colinisation of Africa and the slave trade in particular by america.

Plus stone age? did you ever hear of timbuktu?
[/quote]

You know whats funny?

If someone points out that at least East Asians have a higher IQ than Europeans that is not racist.

If it is pointed out that Africans, at least those below the Sahara have a significantly lower IQ that is racist.

What is also interesting is that the gap is always explained away in part that this tests are somehow favoring middle class Europeans, without going into why rice farmers in rural China seem to have no problems with that.

Also, the IQ of people in urban areas is higher than that in rural areas, what is that, urbanist?

edited[/quote]

I never argued with the IQ tests just that the tone of that guy, gave me the impression that we were talking about a sub race.[/quote]
I think you have just been mentally conditioned to refuse the cold hard facts of regional/racial reality and reacted that way until you got showed the numbers.
Far enough.[/quote]

I am not convinced of the “cold hard facts”. IQ is supposed to be a reflection of ability not education, but it posits you have education first. The regions in read reflect more the education or lack of, rather than cognitive ability. I garaun-fucking-tee that if you provide the same educational resources that we have and most first world countries have, you will get IQ’s that are on par with the rest of the world.

I want to know, what IQ test was give, how was it given, to whom was it given, in what language it was given, etc.
You cannot put enough controls on such a research because it is impossible. There for the results of such research is impossible.
You have to be able to prove that by genetic nature, you pull 1000 randomly selected kids out of that region, put them in a favorable educational surrounding such as the U.S. and test them against their peers 5 years later and get substantially, statistically significant lower mean than the rest of the world, then it would be somewhere near believable…It won’t, because you take a 1000 kids from that region and give them proper learning environments and those kids will show the same cognitive ability as anybody else.
Like wise if we took you ass as a kid and stuck it in middle Africa where you had to struggle to survive everyday and receive no education, you would come up really low on an IQ test too.

It requires a pretty decent level of education to even take an IQ test. Many people in Africa don’t have that at all.[/quote]

Then you will understand that IQ is changeable across time, and is not entirely heritable:

"The average I.Q. is, by definition, 100; but to achieve that result, raw test scores have to be standardized. If the average teenager today could go back in time and take an I.Q. test from 1910, he or she would have an I.Q. of 130, which would be better than 98 percent of those taking the test then. Nor is it easy to attribute this rise to improved education, because the aspects of the tests on which scores have risen most do not require a good vocabulary or even mathematical ability, but instead test powers of abstract reasoning. One theory is that we have gotten better at I.Q. tests because we live in a more symbol-rich environment… "

From a review of “Our Better Angels: Why Violence Has Declined” by Steven Pinker

Is Violence History? (Published 2011)

Notice the subtitle of the book.

[/quote]

Actually, their are wide spread problems with the tests themselves. The problem largely is how to test cognitive ability with out also testing education levels and piping through cultural paradigms. The further issue is that the shit on IQ tests can be taught and learned. Pattern recognition, spatial recognition, etc. all that shit is some thing that at least in part is taught in schools here. If you take the IQ test 10 times, technically your score should improve each time. But for the test to be valid, that shouldn’t really happen. You should not be able to learn the ‘test’. It makes perfect sense to me that if you test an educated person here and an uneducated person there, that the scores will be lower. They have never had any exposure to that stuff. How ever, I am pretty sure they know the patterns of animal migrations and movements, distance from a lion and approximately how long it would take said lion to get there, etc. Shit we wouldn’t be able to do if we were dropped in there all of the sudden.

It’s also not fair to say they are poor because they are stupid. There are lot’s of factors to consider before you can pin point a reason. One, may perhaps simply be that they don’t want to live in the same ways we live. But also there is an enormous amount of fighting, war and oppression there and you cannot ignore that. If we had roving militias running around raping our women and burning our villages, we’re not going to give a fuck what our IQ is.

The reason there hasn’t been vast improvements in the testing is that the whole model is more or less being thrown out by the psychological community because of it’s inherent flaws. It is actually a quite antiquated intelligence test and the model is moving more towards performance ability per category, rather than boiling things down to a number. Further many of the require skills are math skills. So you could be a brilliant artist or linguist who may perform poorly on an IQ test.

[pat]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

Why havent anyone responded to this black gentleman who actually took the time to respond to a clearly racist and fascistoid poster( ronhyn )
[/quote]

I would guess most people don’t want to respond to the obvious troll posters. “Don’t feed the trolls” as they say. [/quote]

I hope you mean ronhyn when you say troll, not the other guy?[/quote]

Some posters will go on and on with the trolls because such things “shouldn’t be left standing” or some-such. Perhaps I’m simply too lazy, or too annoyed that my thread about the ramifications and support-of/opposition-to sending troops (advisers) to Uganda has turned into this shit by some random troll poster who “got in early” with the second post. In short, who do you think I meant? [/quote]

Your right. It’s tough to ignore when somebody drops a bomb like ‘They are in this predicament because Africa is a shit hole and blacks are inherently stupid.’

Especially since the point of sending the troops is about terrorism. Which I do support sending troops, but we have to analyze what kind of commitment we want to have over there. My problem is that wars have become political footballs. Will 100 troops be enough? I am not sure. Uganda and Ethiopia know where these people are. If we provide weapons and air support, we can solve that issue pretty quickly, especially in Somalia.

[pat]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]The Londoner wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]The Londoner wrote:

Unless we recolonize the continent ala the Chinese, I see no point to waste money trying to fix people who are obviously operating on an 85 IQ level as a societal whole. You may as well send Navy Seals to the middle of the ocean to teach dolphins to brush their teeth. You might actually have more success.

So essentially, what you’re saying is that African people are inherently stupid?

Are you even minutely aware of how racist your comment is?[/quote]
If I had said that Eastern Europe and Latin American had business cultures that were plagued by corruption would you have said that was racist?

You drew your own conclusion from the evidence given, I did not tell you that.
I wasn’t aware ‘facts’ were racist. I thought racism was predicated on advocating the superiority of your group over others.

Care to share what exactly was false or incorrect in my assertion? You have evidence that demonstrates otherwise?

You can attenmpt to discredit the validity of IQ as an accurate measure of intellect, but you cannot discredit the outcomes of the tests by region and race. These have been repeated many times to similar results.

I actually was being very racially sensitive in my community as despite the fact that the scores fall into the 70 IQ range of most subsaharan African nations, I gave them an 85 level to be functioning above the retard gradient.[/quote]

OK, if you must.

Firstly, in relation to your earlier assertion on African IQ, which was published in studies by Richard Lynn, has been rubbished by other ressearchers, as found in this article (Controversial study of African IQ levels is 'deeply flawed' | ScienceDaily), amongst others I’m sure. It doesn’t take much reading to see that Richard Lynn is widely considered a racist in the psychological community.

Interesting, also, that he considers St. Lucia, for example, to be near bottom in terms of IQ, but that tiny island of around 150,000 spawned two Nobel Prize winners, a feat which earned them the highest population:prizewinner ratio of any country on Earth for a long time. I believe they lost it last year, unfortunately. Hmm.

So your IQ assertions aren’t founded, as they are based on a flawed study by an inherently racist psychologist.

I’m naturally touchy about any person writing off Africa in the way that you mentioned, especially as I’m a black man, and pretty well educated, likely more so than you. I understand more than anybody else that Africa has some huge social issues. But come on dude. You’re saying you’d have a better time teaching dolphins to brush their teeth. That kind of tone suggests you’re trying to advocate the superiority of your own race above another…which, as a matter of fact, is racist, by your own definition.

You’re more than welcome to sharing your opinion on Africa, I’d just suggest that you stop basing your evidence for its problems on half baked studies which have already been rubbished by other psychologists, and that you drop your demeaning, clearly racist tone.[/quote]

Why havent anyone responded to this black gentleman who actually took the time to respond to a clearly racist and fascistoid poster( ronhyn )

Richard Lynn

Read the end of this article, there are some rather revealing facts about how lynn disregarded test where blacks scored higher or the same as their white counterparts. Also some of the nations iq scores arent even tested on people who live in the nation they are suppose to measure. In short meaning that this is utter bullshit similar to historian revisionists who claims that the holocaust never happenend and so on. Ergo the entire premise( that african are retards according to some ) for the ongoing discussion is wrong.

[/quote]

I read it it was a good post.

[pat]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[edit] Enjoy the thread. I guess at least it didn’t turn into another “libertarianism” thread. [/ edit]

[quote]President Barack Obama announced Friday he is dispatching about 100 U.S. troops Ã?¢?? mostly special operations forces Ã?¢?? to central Africa to advise in the fight against the Lord’s Resistance Army Ã?¢?? a guerrilla group accused of widespread atrocities across several countries. The first U.S. troops arrived Wednesday.

Long considered one of Africa’s most brutal rebel groups, the Lord’s Resistance Army began its attacks in Uganda more than 20 years ago. But the rebels are at their weakest point in 15 years. Their forces are fractured and scattered, and the Ugandan military estimated earlier this year that only 200 to 400 fighters remain. In 2003 the LRA had 3,000 armed troops and 2,000 people in support roles.[/quote]

What do you all think? Personally, I’ve wanted Joseph Kony dead for a long, long time. I would be quite pleased if a predator drone were to take him out. That said, I don’t really want our country in bed with Yoweri Museveni either.

I’m still formulating an opinion. So I’d like to hear what PWI thinks. [/quote]

Well, it was an appropriate rename…

[florelius]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]The Londoner wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]The Londoner wrote:

Unless we recolonize the continent ala the Chinese, I see no point to waste money trying to fix people who are obviously operating on an 85 IQ level as a societal whole. You may as well send Navy Seals to the middle of the ocean to teach dolphins to brush their teeth. You might actually have more success.

So essentially, what you’re saying is that African people are inherently stupid?

Are you even minutely aware of how racist your comment is?[/quote]
If I had said that Eastern Europe and Latin American had business cultures that were plagued by corruption would you have said that was racist?

You drew your own conclusion from the evidence given, I did not tell you that.
I wasn’t aware ‘facts’ were racist. I thought racism was predicated on advocating the superiority of your group over others.

Care to share what exactly was false or incorrect in my assertion? You have evidence that demonstrates otherwise?

You can attenmpt to discredit the validity of IQ as an accurate measure of intellect, but you cannot discredit the outcomes of the tests by region and race. These have been repeated many times to similar results.

I actually was being very racially sensitive in my community as despite the fact that the scores fall into the 70 IQ range of most subsaharan African nations, I gave them an 85 level to be functioning above the retard gradient.[/quote]

OK, if you must.

Firstly, in relation to your earlier assertion on African IQ, which was published in studies by Richard Lynn, has been rubbished by other ressearchers, as found in this article (Controversial study of African IQ levels is 'deeply flawed' | ScienceDaily), amongst others I’m sure. It doesn’t take much reading to see that Richard Lynn is widely considered a racist in the psychological community.

Interesting, also, that he considers St. Lucia, for example, to be near bottom in terms of IQ, but that tiny island of around 150,000 spawned two Nobel Prize winners, a feat which earned them the highest population:prizewinner ratio of any country on Earth for a long time. I believe they lost it last year, unfortunately. Hmm.

So your IQ assertions aren’t founded, as they are based on a flawed study by an inherently racist psychologist.

I’m naturally touchy about any person writing off Africa in the way that you mentioned, especially as I’m a black man, and pretty well educated, likely more so than you. I understand more than anybody else that Africa has some huge social issues. But come on dude. You’re saying you’d have a better time teaching dolphins to brush their teeth. That kind of tone suggests you’re trying to advocate the superiority of your own race above another…which, as a matter of fact, is racist, by your own definition.

You’re more than welcome to sharing your opinion on Africa, I’d just suggest that you stop basing your evidence for its problems on half baked studies which have already been rubbished by other psychologists, and that you drop your demeaning, clearly racist tone.[/quote]

Why havent anyone responded to this black gentleman who actually took the time to respond to a clearly racist and fascistoid poster( ronhyn )

Richard Lynn

Read the end of this article, there are some rather revealing facts about how lynn disregarded test where blacks scored higher or the same as their white counterparts. Also some of the nations iq scores arent even tested on people who live in the nation they are suppose to measure. In short meaning that this is utter bullshit similar to historian revisionists who claims that the holocaust never happenend and so on. Ergo the entire premise( that african are retards according to some ) for the ongoing discussion is wrong.

[/quote]

I read it it was a good post.[/quote]

No doubt about that

ps. Your argument troughout this thread have been solid.