Did humans evolve into separate races that differ in mental traits?

[iNow]

Really?

yes, really

[taxonomy26]

@ Taxonomy26, assuming you believe in evolution you must realize that mitochondrial DNA and the chain of Y-chromosome show all humans alive today are related. Not only did we all originate from a single tribe but over time have migrated to and from different regions intermixing over and over again. If race were a thing how do you determine the base line for each race? What are the races and who(m) is puely asingular race in today's world?

Duh Yeah.

All subspecies/Races of all plants and animals descended from a single species/tribe/stock.

We also all descended from a single Primate.. and a one-cell organism.

Yeah?

And I already posted NatGeo's Genographic Project which uses 11 Base populations/RACES, and can tell you what PERCENT of EACH you are.

Is there anything else?

 

and iSee the Dishonest Klown 'iNow' 'responded' to my detailed post with "yes really" and NO substantial rebuttal/answer, and by 'short-quoting'/abridging the meat of my elaborate post.

Garbage.

This place is Garbage where 12 IQ Trolls like iNow should not even be permitted to post.

Y'all take care now, NO one even came close, and you were all Wrong 10-fer-10.

`

[iNow]

Can't please 'em all, I guess

[Ten oz]

Duh Yeah.

All subspecies/Races of all plants and animals descended from a single species/tribe/stock.

We also all descended from a single Primate.. and a one-cell organism.

Yeah?

And I already posted NatGeo's Genographic Project which uses 11 Base populations/RACES, and can tell you what PERCENT of EACH you are.

Is there anything else?

 

and iSee the Dishonest Klown 'iNow' 'responded' to my detailed post with "yes really" and NO substantial rebuttal/answer, and by 'short-quoting'/abridging the meat of my elaborate post.

Garbage.

This place is Garbage where 12 IQ Trolls like iNow should not even be permitted to post.

Y'all take care now, NO one even came close, and you were all Wrong 10-fer-10.

`

That is based on regoin specific mutations in ones genes originated from. This thread is ask a larger question than are there differences amongst human populations base on region.

 

While humans are related to other species we are our own species. Within our own species we are all related. We are all intermixed. Blacks and whites are not subspecies. Bi-racial people are not infertile. So say "All subspecies/Races of all plants and animals descended from a single species/tribe/stock" doesn't address anything.

[taxonomy26]

That is based on regoin specific mutations in ones genes originated from. This thread is ask a larger question than are there differences amongst human populations base on region.

 

While humans are related to other species we are our own species. Within our own species we are all related. We are all intermixed. Blacks and whites are not subspecies. Bi-racial people are not infertile. So say "All subspecies/Races of all plants and animals descended from a single species/tribe/stock" doesn't address anything.

WTF are you talking about?

You are confusing the standard for Species with subspecies.

Of Course 'Blacks' and whites' can interbreed.

 

Gray Wolves have 37 subspecies/Races (incl domestic dogs), and they can all interbreed. WTF!

Probably 15 of those 37 live in North America and Have occasionally interbred. There's Manitoba Wolves, Vancouver wolves, etc, etc.

You're very confused about the difference between Species and subspecies/Race.

No wonder your opinions about IQ and everything else are so Off.

 

Color is Not Race/subspecies.

Most amateurs like you think Race is an American Black/White/Cop thing.

BTW, American 'Blacks' are Not a race, but a recent admixture of sub-Saharan and Euros. (thus/logically have 85 IQs, midway between sub-Saharan 70 and Euro 100)

But the two Genetically Furthest apart Races are sub-Saharans and Australian Aboriginals: Both people of color, but very/most distant Genetically. (and would be apparent in NatGeo's results). Race is NOT a Black/white thing.

 

Really, you're too Ignorant to debate, and besides confusing specie/subspecie, use Race colloquially, NOT scientifically as I do. The rest of them are even worse. iNow is total illiterate.

Bye!

`

Edited May 7, 2016 by taxonomy26

[Phi for All]

Bye!

!

Moderator Note

Please stay gone unless you can contribute without the horrible attitude. Civility is required by the rules you agreed to when you joined.

[taxonomy26]

Even, ie, James Watson (Watson&Crick) DNA Discoverer/Nobel Winner, was Smeared/Shouted down for telling the Truth, Not refuted.

James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/jam...-truth_296.php

[....] It's difficult to name many more important living figures in 20th century biology than James Watson. He ushered in the current age of molecular biology with his achievements in 1953, he built up one of the world's greatest biological research facilities from damn near scratch, and he is a former head of the Human Genome Project.

Given such an august curriculum vitae, you would think that this man perhaps understands just a few things about genetics. But given only the condescending media coverage, you'd think this eminent geneticist was somehow "out of his depth" on this one.

In his interview with the Times on Oct. 14th, we learned that:

... [Watson] is "inherently Gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our Social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the Same as ours - whereas ALL the testing says Not really", and I know that this "Hot Potato" is going to be difficult to address.

These thoughts were a continuation of an important theme in his new book 'Avoid Boring People':

... there is No firm reason to anticipate that the Intellectual capacities of peoples geographically Separated in their Evolution should prove to have evolved Identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will Not be enough to make it so.

`
Although Watson's book had already been out for a month with these more euphemistic, but still obvious, comments on race and intelligence, no one expressed any outrage. In fact the reviews were reverential and universally positive.

The explicit reference to intelligence and people of African heritage in his interview was clearly a violation of a much more formidable taboo. Still I am not aware of there being much noise about it until Oct. 17th when the 'Independent' caused an immediate stir by calling attention to the remarks: Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners - Science - News - The Independent

There's no point in rehashing the rapid sequence of events in detail: several of Watson's sold-out speaking engagements were cancelled, many critical articles appeared in the British press, trailed by the American press a few days later, hundreds of blogs were fuming with negative commentary, including ones by the editors of Scientific American and Wired Magazine, a number of associations issued statements condemning his words, and soon he was suspended from his chancellorship at Cold Spring Harbor. Watson cancelled his already ruined book tour and flew home to tend to the Destruction. It was too late; the Eminent biologist retired in Disgrace on Oct. 26th.

One thing, though, was Conspicuously missing from this whole irritating denouement: ANY semblance of Factual Refutation. There is good reason for this: Everything Watson got in trouble for saying was entirely Correct! [.....]

And that's the way it will remain for about another 5 years or so until more of the genome is understood, empty PC aholes Shouting down the best data and minds available.
But it's unfolding in unassailable form, so prepare.

-

[iNow]

Watson may have helped uncover the double helix structure of DNA, but his views on race are trivially wrong, much like yours above since you cite him as your primary source.

 

To be plain, your five posts of childish ranting and vitriolic barbs cannot change this simple fact. Name calling and suggestions of others ignorance does not alter this truth, no matter how many times you assert people like me are illiterate or suffering from an IQ of 12.

 

More here from when this ignorant controversy began nearly a decade ago: http://www.wired.com/2007/10/is-james-watson/

[taxonomy26]

Watson may have helped uncover the double helix structure of DNA, but his views on race are trivially wrong, much like yours above since you cite him as your primary source.

 

To be plain, your five posts of childish ranting and vitriolic barbs cannot change this simple fact. Name calling and suggestions of others ignorance does not alter this truth, no matter how many times you assert people like me are illiterate or suffering from an IQ of 12.

 

More here from when this ignorant controversy began nearly a decade ago: http:///ww.wired.com/2008/10/is-james-watson/

 

And ALL your posts contain NO On Topic Content. (UnLike All of mine)

You're a Stupid 12 IQ Nonconversant TROLL, who hasn't responded to any of my posts.

Your worst, being "Yes really", to a highly detailed answer.

You're dumber than a stone.

`

Race differences in intelligence: how research changed my mind to overcome the “all races are equal” dogma

Race differences in intelligence: how research changed my mind to overcome the “all races are equal” dogma. | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception

I grew up indoctrinated by political correctness. Like a large part of citizens in Western countries I was brainwashed: Races do not exist, all are equal. Saying anything different, saying that there are racial differences, is racism, a crime.

In school I heard disparaging remarks about Artur Jensen and other “unscientific” “dishonest” “cheating” scientists doing faulty research about race differences. The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray actually looked fairly convincing to me, but if even President Bill Clinton denounced it, there must be something wrong about it.

 

There always was some complex theory to explain away the IQ differences:

*different culture

*parental expectation

*mother’s malnourishment

*IQ measurements are racially and culturally biased

My opinion changed when I read about trans-racial adoption studies. That was the last drop that really disproved all these desperate attempts to explain away racial differences in intelligence.

 

“The best evidence for the genetic basis of race-IQ differences comes from trans-racial adoption studies of Oriental children, Black children, and Mixed-Race children. All these children have been adopted by White parents at an early age and have grown up in middle-class White homes.”

 

....Korean and Vietnamese babies from poor backgrounds, many of whom were malnourished, were adopted by White American and Belgian families. When they grew up, they excelled in school. The IQs of the adopted Oriental children were 10 or more points higher than the national average for the country they grew up in. Trans-racial adoption does not increase or decrease IQ. The three-way pattern of race differences in IQ remains.”

In plain English: adopted Asian babies grew up to be very bright, adopted black babies grew up to have low intelligence. One more desperate argument that was posed to save the “racial equality” dogma:

[........]

That did it for me. It destroyed my ingrained indoctrinated beliefs that all races must be equal. It opened up my mind to the possibility that there could be racial differences.

 

Before we go on, may I stress a few more points

 

*I have no axe to grind against blacks. I am not interested in proving that blacks are stupid or inferior. I am not a white supremacist

*I have an axe to grind against dogmatism, blindness, stupidity. I have an axe to grind against the catholic church for repressing Galileo’s truth about the moving and revolving earth. And I have an axe to grind about political correctness repressing the truth, repressing research.

*This site is about human stupidity versus truth and consciousness

*Rushton, though much maligned, is not some crazy cook but one of the most prestigious research scientists to date: Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who. Some of Rushtons scientific publications can be found on his University page: The University of Western Ontario

Edited May 8, 2016 by taxonomy26

[StringJunky]

 

 

And ALL your posts contain NO On Topic Content. (UnLike All of mine)

You're a Stupid 12 IQ Nonconversant TROLL, who hasn't responded to any of my posts.

Your worst, being "Yes really", to a highly detailed answer.

You're dumber than a stone.

`

Race differences in intelligence: how research changed my mind to overcome the “all races are equal” dogma

Race differences in intelligence: how research changed my mind to overcome the “all races are equal” dogma. | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception

I grew up indoctrinated by political correctness. Like a large part of citizens in Western countries I was brainwashed: Races do not exist, all are equal. Saying anything different, saying that there are racial differences, is racism, a crime.

In school I heard disparaging remarks about Artur Jensen and other “unscientific” “dishonest” “cheating” scientists doing faulty research about race differences. The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray actually looked fairly convincing to me, but if even President Bill Clinton denounced it, there must be something wrong about it.

 

There always was some complex theory to explain away the IQ differences:

*different culture

*parental expectation

*mother’s malnourishment

*IQ measurements are racially and culturally biased

My opinion changed when I read about trans-racial adoption studies. That was the last drop that really disproved all these desperate attempts to explain away racial differences in intelligence.

 

“The best evidence for the genetic basis of race-IQ differences comes from trans-racial adoption studies of Oriental children, Black children, and Mixed-Race children. All these children have been adopted by White parents at an early age and have grown up in middle-class White homes.”

 

....Korean and Vietnamese babies from poor backgrounds, many of whom were malnourished, were adopted by White American and Belgian families. When they grew up, they excelled in school. The IQs of the adopted Oriental children were 10 or more points higher than the national average for the country they grew up in. Trans-racial adoption does not increase or decrease IQ. The three-way pattern of race differences in IQ remains.”

In plain English: adopted Asian babies grew up to be very bright, adopted black babies grew up to have low intelligence. One more desperate argument that was posed to save the “racial equality” dogma:

[........]

That did it for me. It destroyed my ingrained indoctrinated beliefs that all races must be equal. It opened up my mind to the possibility that there could be racial differences.

 

Before we go on, may I stress a few more points

 

*I have no axe to grind against blacks. I am not interested in proving that blacks are stupid or inferior. I am not a white supremacist

*I have an axe to grind against dogmatism, blindness, stupidity. I have an axe to grind against the catholic church for repressing Galileo’s truth about the moving and revolving earth. And I have an axe to grind about political correctness repressing the truth, repressing research.

*This site is about human stupidity versus truth and consciousness

*Rushton, though much maligned, is not some crazy cook but one of the most prestigious research scientists to date: Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who. Some of Rushtons scientific publications can be found on his University page: The University of Western Ontario

 

I thought you'd left us.

 

Can't live with us, can't live without is; must be love.

[Phi for All]

And ALL your posts contain NO On Topic Content. (UnLike All of mine)

You're a Stupid 12 IQ Nonconversant TROLL, who hasn't responded to any of my posts.

Your worst, being "Yes really", to a highly detailed answer.

You're dumber than a stone.

 

!

Moderator Note

Speaking of dumb, you were just warned about not coming back with this uncivil attitude. Yet you did it anyway. That's not ignorance; it's not something you can unlearn. That's a character flaw you might want to work on before you lie and agree to the rules of a discussion forum.

 

You need some positive work done on how you communicate in a discussion. Right now, it's like you sat down at the table and started insulting everyone. You come off like a complete asshat. I'm sure that's not what you were going for, or I hope not.

 

Either way, you better step up your game and start acting like a grownup. Be civil, it's our number one rule. We don't need you if you continue to act this way.

[iNow]

For the interested reader, here are a few good reviews of why the concept of race is unsound and unuseful:

 

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/genewatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=198&archive=yes

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040271

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JuGFdFM6FSZwDFfIwerynJ35ijtVYF5EGGC148KY7z8/viewform

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/race-is-not-biology/276174/

[CharonY]

Actually, I would not discount the usefulness in subdividing the human population into races (or other names) in specific circumstances. However, the historic(often skin-colour-based) classification is usually not terribly useful and often misused and/or misunderstood, which makes them problematic.

 

I would not agree that race is exclusively a social construct, though its understanding is mostly used in this context. The viewpoint that it is useless is mostly based on fundamental issues such as the fact that variation in-population can be larger than between. However, when tracing specific populations using precisely defined characteristics can be useful.

However, especially in the context of OP's question, which is a trait that is heavily influenced by external factors (including nutrition, stimulation during childhood, learning experience etc.) a categorization according to e.g. IQ would result in wildly mixed populations with little geographic separation. Sure, for each bin some areas may be over, and some under-represented but genetically it would be a very wild mix from around the world (again we are talking about relative wide distributions here).

[John Cuthber]

 

 

You're a Stupid 12 IQ Nonconversant TROLL, who hasn't responded to any of my posts.

Your worst, being "Yes really", to a highly detailed answer.

 

`

In the real world, it was a two word reply to a one word question; quite generous in a way.

[emeraldwolf]

I find it interesting that so many acknowledge that genetic factors account for a wide range of characteristics among humans and their diverse races, such as athletic ability, hair color, sweat-gland concentration, body-shape, height etc, but that somehow genetics mysteriously plays no role in intelligence.

 

It is silly to believe that we are all equal mentally. That we are unequal physically is a readily noted fact-- no one has any qualms about saying that an African makes a better basketball player than a Caucasian. That we are unequal mentally is a hot potato that no one wants to touch because being labeled a "racist" ruins lives, ruins careers, and ruins your own self image.

 

So don't be ridiculous. Various environments and their obstacles forced some populations to strain their bodies and their minds more than say a flat savanna where animals, water, and vegetation were all readily available. Migrate to the mountains or the tundra and suddenly the task to survive requires more mental prowess.

 

The answer to your question is yes.

Edited May 12, 2016 by emeraldwolf

[iNow]

Nobody is saying that everyone is equal mentally, nor is anyone saying that genetics don't play a critical role in intelligence. The point is that race is not a valid way to group these differences as it's roughly equivalent to suggesting that people with brown hair are genetically smarter than people with black hair.

[CharonY]

I find it interesting that so many acknowledge that genetic factors account for a wide range of characteristics among humans and their diverse races, such as athletic ability, hair color, sweat-gland concentration, body-shape, height etc, but that somehow genetics mysteriously plays no role in intelligence.

 

It is silly to believe that we are all equal mentally. That we are unequal physically is a readily noted fact-- no one has any qualms about saying that an African makes a better basketball player than a Caucasian. That we are unequal mentally is a hot potato that no one wants to touch because being labeled a "racist" ruins lives, ruins careers, and ruins your own self image.

 

So don't be ridiculous. Various environments and their obstacles forced some populations to strain their bodies and their minds more than say a flat savanna where animals, water, and vegetation were all readily available. Migrate to the mountains or the tundra and suddenly the task to survive requires more mental prowess.

 

The answer to your question is yes.

 

As I said before, if you just take individual traits (such as, say IQ scores, height etc.) you will find that the resulting populations are not clearly separated by any boundaries.

 

Also, you are falling prey to stereotypes, as clearly an African will not be automatically a better basketball player. Looking at average heights of various African populations pretty much destroys the notion. It is also a stereotype that people with darker skin are somehow stronger and faster than those with lighter skins (again, there are subgroups that may be, but not as a whole) using sports as an example. There are other biases in play that explain why certain types of sports are dominated by certain groups (with popularity and socioeconomic standing being important ones).

 

Edit: Another important point that some may be unaware of is that taxonomic classification below the species level are contentious and usually used in relatively narrow circumstances. The reason being that, clear categorization remains elusive, especially with the availability of molecular methods, which question traditional classifications. Even on the species level boundaries are not clear and it is obvious that if we go below that level, it is obviously even less clear. As such it does not make sense to use it as universal classifiers (as implied by OP) but may be useful for certain, well-defined questions..

Edited May 12, 2016 by CharonY

[EgalitarianJay]

I find it interesting that so many acknowledge that genetic factors account for a wide range of characteristics among humans and their diverse races, such as athletic ability, hair color, sweat-gland concentration, body-shape, height etc, but that somehow genetics mysteriously plays no role in intelligence.

 

It is silly to believe that we are all equal mentally. That we are unequal physically is a readily noted fact-- no one has any qualms about saying that an African makes a better basketball player than a Caucasian. That we are unequal mentally is a hot potato that no one wants to touch because being labeled a "racist" ruins lives, ruins careers, and ruins your own self image.

 

So don't be ridiculous. Various environments and their obstacles forced some populations to strain their bodies and their minds more than say a flat savanna where animals, water, and vegetation were all readily available. Migrate to the mountains or the tundra and suddenly the task to survive requires more mental prowess.

 

The answer to your question is yes.

 

 

There are some genetic differences between human populations. I don't agree that humans differ in all the traits you mentioned but there are some obvious, observable differences. I will acknowledge that.

You should consider however that in all species there are more commonalities than differences. So the question is whether or not intelligence is a something that all human populations have in common or are there differences in this trait? To answer this question we need to look at the nature of intelligence and how human intelligence evolved. What we know about intelligence is that it is a complex, polygenic, multi-factorial trait meaning that intelligence is determined by the expression of many genes and intelligence is affected by both genetic and environmental variables. So how did human intelligence evolve? Why are we so much smarter than animals? This question can be answered by looking at our evolutionary history. Humans evolved from an ancestor with the Great Apes who are themselves highly intelligent compared to other animals. Millions of years of evolution brought about the changes that led to the intelligence of primates and several million years separate humans from Apes. One of the anatomical indicators of intelligence is the degree of an animal's encephalization, the size of the brain relative to body mass. We know from the fossil record that human brains are 3 times larger than Apes allowing for much greater brain power. We also know that modern humans descend primarily from a single evolutionary lineage (with some slight interbreeding with archaic humans) that originated in Africa. So however our intelligence evolved it did so within a single region. One theory is that the environmental uncertainty in Africa lead to greater social interaction for early hominids that impelled the development of greater cognitive skills. The archeological record indicates that we became anatomically and behaviorally modern in Africa.

 

So humans were already intelligent before they left Africa. Did they get smarter? Your theory that cold weather created an evolutionary pressure for even greater intelligence is problematic considering that Africans have the intelligence to survive those conditions. One interesting fact to consider is that Neanderthal were living in Europe and Asia longer than modern humans and were thus more cold adapted. When modern humans came to Eurasia they brought with them a more sophisticated culture. The extinction of Neanderthal indicates that modern humans were able to out compete them for food and may have killed many of them off. There was also some interbreeding between the groups however Neanderthal were completely wiped out after the interaction with modern humans. This undercuts the idea that adapting to cold regions leads to greater intelligence. If that were the case then Neanderthal should be ruling the world today.

 

Based on the available evidence it seems that human intelligence is not unevenly distributed across geographic populations. The trait has equal survival value in all regions of the world which makes it different from traits that have adaptive significance like skin color.

[EdEarl]

(Biting tongue) I dislike this thread, but I applaud those who have posted scientific findings.

[MEC1960]

"I find it interesting that so many acknowledge that genetic factors account for a wide range of characteristics among humans and their diverse races, such as athletic ability, hair color, sweat-gland concentration, body-shape, height etc, but that somehow genetics mysteriously plays no role in intelligence."

 

Of course intelligence is partly determined by genes though it is also largely dependent on development and the environment. No one - not anyone knowledgeable about biology or genetics- would dispute that. Our intelligence is partly dependent on the intelligence of our ancestors, just as our eye color, adult height and susceptibility to heart disease is. Intelligence is a product -an emergent trait- of biology and is thus subject to the rules of inheritance (and development and the environment).

 

"It is silly to believe that we are all equal mentally."

 

Of course it is, but no one is saying we are. What we are saying is that you've got your question wrong - one that carries the baggage of racism. What you and others have failed to do is to define race in a biologically meaningful way. Here is an illustration of where you fail;

 

"That we are unequal physically is a readily noted fact-- no one has any qualms about saying that an African makes a better basketball player than a Caucasian. That we are unequal mentally is a hot potato that no one wants to touch because being labeled a "racist" ruins lives, ruins careers, and ruins your own self image."

 

*Which* Africans are better basketball players than Causcasians? Are the Aka, Efe and Mbuti people (who average adult heights are under 5'1") better? Google images of them and tell me what race you think they are.

 

You have made the mistake of thinking that because most African-Americans trace their ancestry to regions of Central and West Africa that all Africans look like them. They don't. The point is - there is as much genetic diversity *within* a race as there is between them. We have no -and I mean none- evidence for racial differences in intelligence. There *are* differences that are both regional and cluster in racial groups - and these differences are usually attributed to a large number of variables, including social status, wealth and family history, etc- but those differences disappear when the focus is broader.

Edited May 12, 2016 by MEC1960

[Mikemikev]

You have made the mistake of thinking that because most African-Americans trace their ancestry to regions of Central and West Africa that all Africans look like them. They don't. The point is - there is as much genetic diversity *within* a race as there is between them. We have no -and I mean none- evidence for racial differences in intelligence. There *are* differences that are both regional and cluster in racial groups - and these differences are usually attributed to a large number of variables, including social status, wealth and family history, etc- but those differences disappear when the focus is broader.

So what? There is more genetic diversity within chimps and humans than between them (Long 2010). I think we share most of our diversity with dogs. That doesn't rule out consistent let alone average differences on traits.

 

The consistent pattern is evidence for racial differences in intelligence. Its actually you that has no evidence for a cultural (read oppression) based explanation.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Mikemikev

[Strange]

Its actually you that has no evidence for a cultural (read oppression) based explanation.

 

 

There is a lot of evidence for cultural effects in IQ testing.

 

And what does "oppression" have to do with it? That is a totally bizarre thing to say.

[Mikemikev]

There is a lot of evidence for cultural effects in IQ testing.

 

And what does "oppression" have to do with it? That is a totally bizarre thing to say.

There is no evidence these explain the global IQ pattern. Are you genuinely unfamiliar with the "racism" explanation of race differences? Its pretty much the only one. How else would equal people be consistently depressed on IQ. Try reading "what if the hereditarian hypothesis is true"? Will you be ok typing that into google, or should I link to google?

[Strange]

There is no evidence these explain the global IQ pattern.

 

 

So you agree that there are cultural effects in IQ tests? (Which is pretty obvious if you look at the sot of questions in the tests.)

 

 

 

Are you genuinely unfamiliar with the "racism" explanation of race differences? Its pretty much the only one. How else would equal people be consistently depressed on IQ. Try reading "what if the hereditarian hypothesis is true"? Will you be ok typing that into google, or should I link to google?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Mikemikev]

 

So you agree that there are cultural effects in IQ tests? (Which is pretty obvious if you look at the sot of questions in the tests.)

 

Sure

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I know. I'm sorry.