+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 110

Thread: In the genes?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,191

    Default In the genes?

    https://www.facebook.com/BestVideoHe...location=group


    I'm sure I've mentioned it before but my wifes aunt lived in Africa for several years. Her husband worked in the oil field there. She said "there is something different about those people, they just looking for violence". She said there was always something happening in Africa, some kind of gory incident where some Africans up and killed some people or mutilated them for some stupid reason. One specific example she gave was when some Africans stormed a local hospital and killed a bunch of leprocy patients with machetes.

    I dunno man. I'm beginning to think that race just can't be reasoned with and that there will never be a balance in society. I think it's eugenics. I've been watching some videos on healthy eating and one that keeps popping up is how we should all be on the paleo died because we have thousands of years of adaptation to the hunter gatherer lifestyle and agriculture of wheat/bread is a more recent invention and is not well suited of us. Supposedly we are genetically evolved to the point that our bodies need to eat like we did 10k years ago or more in order to truly be healthy.

    How is it nearly everything about modern man is supposedly an issue of DNA from men desiring young girls because they are more fertile to what we eat being connected to our caveman days yet a race couldn't evolve to be more violent or less suited for modern civilization?

    I dunno, I'm just finding it harder and harder to make devils advocate arguments that black is a culture and not a genetic predisposition for violent and uncivilized behavior.
    "Nah man, a Paladin has to play fair and by the rules. Do you really see Silly not attacking a weakened opponent? Or rather, not exploiting a weakness to take an enemy down? He'd totally do that. It's the law of the jungle with Silly, even if he does have faith. I think he's principled, just not merciful." - Zavon

  2. #2

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sillywilly View Post
    https://www.facebook.com/BestVideoHe...location=group


    I'm sure I've mentioned it before but my wifes aunt lived in Africa for several years. Her husband worked in the oil field there. She said "there is something different about those people, they just looking for violence". She said there was always something happening in Africa, some kind of gory incident where some Africans up and killed some people or mutilated them for some stupid reason. One specific example she gave was when some Africans stormed a local hospital and killed a bunch of leprocy patients with machetes.

    I dunno man. I'm beginning to think that race just can't be reasoned with and that there will never be a balance in society. I think it's eugenics. I've been watching some videos on healthy eating and one that keeps popping up is how we should all be on the paleo died because we have thousands of years of adaptation to the hunter gatherer lifestyle and agriculture of wheat/bread is a more recent invention and is not well suited of us. Supposedly we are genetically evolved to the point that our bodies need to eat like we did 10k years ago or more in order to truly be healthy.

    How is it nearly everything about modern man is supposedly an issue of DNA from men desiring young girls because they are more fertile to what we eat being connected to our caveman days yet a race couldn't evolve to be more violent or less suited for modern civilization?

    I dunno, I'm just finding it harder and harder to make devils advocate arguments that black is a culture and not a genetic predisposition for violent and uncivilized behavior.
    85 IQ is basically the ideal IQ to predict someone is going to be a criminal. Higher is generally too aware of consequences to commit crimes of stupid. Combine that with more testosterone and you have American blacks. Africans are infinitely worse because they aren't thugs, but instead are more like completely amoral children. Their IQ's are so low they'd go back to 1800's populations if the modern world pulled out and left them to their own devices.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  3. #3

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Curious thought, maybe r/K selection has something to do with it besides IQ, because obviously it is not just that, as lower IQ whites/Asians who are not retarded (in the literal sense) are less violent.

    Whites and Asians being K selected and far more nurturing, compared to being r selected and popping out as many children as you can, seeing who survives.
    Last edited by Aeinna; 08-19-2017 at 12:24 AM.

    Do you like basghetti?


    I knew, ever since that day, the reason you had approached me, tender and soft, that my body is to your taste. To your hunger stricken eyes, how does my body seem? If you are to eat me, do it in one blow, so that the meat does not get hard. - Menchi, The Emergency Ration

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,191

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeinna View Post
    Curious thought, maybe r/K selection has something to do with it besides IQ, because obviously it is not just that, as lower IQ whites/Asians who are not retarded (in the literal sense) are less violent.

    Whites and Asians being K selected and far more nurturing, compared to being r selected and popping out as many children as you can, seeing who survives.
    There was actually a nobel peace prize winning geneticist that talked about exactly the same thing. He may have used the same K and r labeling as you did I can't remember specifically but I do know he caught alot of flak for saying that reproductive habits over thousands of years could be a major part of the black crime problem. He stated that black reproductive philosophy (paraphrasing entirely) is have as many as you can in hopes a few survive. Because there is less nurture the kids work it out like animals, the violent asshole coming out on top among the kids because he used violence and force to acquire the most resources. To where Europeans have thousands of years of having less offspring, devoting focus and resources into making a more effective few. So basically nature versus nurture. Whites and asians have a history of nurture and tribal/cultural development, and blacks have a history of instinct and animal eat animal.
    "Nah man, a Paladin has to play fair and by the rules. Do you really see Silly not attacking a weakened opponent? Or rather, not exploiting a weakness to take an enemy down? He'd totally do that. It's the law of the jungle with Silly, even if he does have faith. I think he's principled, just not merciful." - Zavon

  5. #5

    Default Re: In the genes?

    I start with a question about IQ rates. I go to the largest known factors in IQ which are diet during pregnancy and year 1->12. This alone completely explains everything and correlates with everything. This alone has an impact on IQ large enough to cover more than the differences we see. This alone has potential for reversal great enough to fix the statistical differences we see between areas and the problem is very approachable using existing technology.

    Since I didn't start with the assumption all are arbitrarily equal and work backwards I have no need of debates about education, discrimination or the CIA giving black people crack. Since I didn't start with racism and work backwards I simply have no need of genetic destinies or rationalized race-based statistics. I try to meet people on the left and the right in the middle sometimes but it's like humoring mechanics talking about Ford vs Honda when the problem is the car has no fucking tires on it.

    Potential progress getting hungry people food and getting poor people quality food, especially children and pregnant women, is enough to provide MULTIPLE LIFETIMES of meaningful progress on intelligence.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  6. #6

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    I start with a question about IQ rates. I go to the largest known factors in IQ which are diet during pregnancy and year 1->12. This alone completely explains everything and correlates with everything. This alone has an impact on IQ large enough to cover more than the differences we see. This alone has potential for reversal great enough to fix the statistical differences we see between areas and the problem is very approachable using existing technology.

    Since I didn't start with the assumption all are arbitrarily equal and work backwards I have no need of debates about education, discrimination or the CIA giving black people crack. Since I didn't start with racism and work backwards I simply have no need of genetic destinies or rationalized race-based statistics. I try to meet people on the left and the right in the middle sometimes but it's like humoring mechanics talking about Ford vs Honda when the problem is the car has no fucking tires on it.

    Potential progress getting hungry people food and getting poor people quality food, especially children and pregnant women, is enough to provide MULTIPLE LIFETIMES of meaningful progress on intelligence.
    Sorry VK but you're retarded. Look at adoption studies. IQ is .8 heritable. Unless you are trying to argue that affluent white people that adopt black children at birth don't feed them properly because wacism. The Minnesota trans-racial adoption study was one of the most powerful because it was so huge and over so many decades. Children have roughly the same IQ as their biological parents by the time they are 25. Nurture helps give a bump before then by spurring earlier development.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  7. #7

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    The Minnesota trans-racial adoption study was one of the most powerful because it was so huge and over so many decades.
    Yeah... 21 black kids adopted later than the rest... for a study by a group of people who then could not agree on a conclusion... That's the most powerful. And this is what you put your stock in.

    Meanwhile studies of malnutrition vs behavior and IQ are regularly done involving thousands -THOUSANDS- and show conclusive, consistent results.

    You're picking and choosing the science you want to pay attention to, working backwards to rationalize the answer you want to find.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  8. #8

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    Yeah... 21 black kids adopted later than the rest... for a study by a group of people who then could not agree on a conclusion... That's the most powerful. And this is what you put your stock in.

    Meanwhile studies of malnutrition vs behavior and IQ are regularly done involving thousands -THOUSANDS- and show conclusive, consistent results.

    You're picking and choosing the science you want to pay attention to, working backwards to rationalize the answer you want to find.
    Ok, so show me adoption studies where the adopted kids ended up with significantly higher IQ (on average) than their parents (as adults, age 25+). Since there are "thousands", it should be easy for you to link me one. I've never had any luck finding such a thing, although I have looked extensively.

    Twin studies where they were raised by different families (poor/rich) should show the same thing. If nurture had a lasting effect on adult IQ the poorly raised one should have a lower IQ. This is not the case in any study I have ever seen. Good nurture speeds development, poor nurture retards it, but eventually everyone gets to where genetics determined they would be. I'll wager there are probably extreme cases (such as actual starvation), that can change this equation - but haven't seen it evidenced yet.

    /edit: Or if you realize you've latched onto an indefensible argument, for the sake of argument let's accept it. At that point we must assume childhood nutrition can never be as good for black children as long as they are raised by low IQ black parents that we're already too late to "save" - this being the only reasonable assumption since poor children of other ethnic groups have higher IQ's. How do you even use that knowledge to craft policy? Black children must be taken away from their low IQ black parents and raised by white appointees of the state? Is that more or less "racis" than advocating for separate ethno-states? I'd also point out this was actually done in Australia to aborigines, it didn't raise IQ.

    /edit2: Holy mother of god, this is a new stat for me. Almost 50% of black women in the US have herpes. http://www.reuters.com/article/ps-he...23528620100309
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,392

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    I start with a question about IQ rates. I go to the largest known factors in IQ which are diet during pregnancy and year 1->12. This alone completely explains everything and correlates with everything. This alone has an impact on IQ large enough to cover more than the differences we see. This alone has potential for reversal great enough to fix the statistical differences we see between areas and the problem is very approachable using existing technology.

    Since I didn't start with the assumption all are arbitrarily equal and work backwards I have no need of debates about education, discrimination or the CIA giving black people crack. Since I didn't start with racism and work backwards I simply have no need of genetic destinies or rationalized race-based statistics. I try to meet people on the left and the right in the middle sometimes but it's like humoring mechanics talking about Ford vs Honda when the problem is the car has no fucking tires on it.

    Potential progress getting hungry people food and getting poor people quality food, especially children and pregnant women, is enough to provide MULTIPLE LIFETIMES of meaningful progress on intelligence.
    VK, I've seen you talk about malnutrition in these debates before. There is 100% no doubt that malnutrition is related to IQ deficits. That is old verified science that has been going on forever. However, the most I have ever been able to find linked to nutrition and IQ is Iron and Iodine (or was it B3? Can't remember for sure). The kind of cognitive development that is stunted from a lack of these vitaims is something in the range of like 8 to 16 IQ points, and can be made up later in life with supplements (though some of it is permanent iirc). Do you know of something different than you can show that is worse than that? Can you link it?

    What nutrient deficit specifically lowers IQ? How much does it lower IQ? Can it be repaired? Maybe you have information that I don't have, but from where I am sitting and what I've read the nutrition deficit doesn't even come close to accounting for the difference between races.

    Edit: Here is a direct link to a study that shows this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15734706

    Abstract
    This study quantifies the effects of iodine on the intellectual development of children using a systematic manual literature search of Chinese publications related to iodine deficiency disorders. The Chinese Medical Reference Database, Medline, and Cochrane library were searched electronically in Chinese and English. Inclusion criteria included: studies conducted in China, comparing children (<16 ys) living in naturally iodine sufficient (IS) with those in severely iodine deficient (ID) areas, or children in ID areas born before and after the introduction of iodine supplementation. Intelligent Quotient (IQ) was measured using Binet or Raven Scales. The iodine sufficient control groups were comparable socially, economically, and educationally with the study groups. Random effects models were used in the meta-analysis. Effect size was the standard deviation IQ point (SIQP), which is equivalent to 15 IQ. Thirty-seven reported studies, total 12,291 children, were analysed. The effect size was an increase of 0.83, 0.82, and 0.32 SIQP respectively, for the children living in IS communities compared with those living in ID areas with no iodine supplementation, with inadequate iodine supplementation, or children who had received iodine during their mothers' pregnancy and after birth. These equal to 12.45, 12.3, 4.8 IQ points. Compared with that of children whose mothers were persistently exposed to ID, the total effect size of the 21 entries was an increase of 0.58 SIQP (8.7 IQ points) in the group receiving iodine supplementation during pregnancy. Furthermore, there was an increase on 1.15 SIQP of Binet or 0.8 SIQP on Raven Scale (17.25 or 12 IQ points) for children born more than 3.5 years after iodine supplementation program was introduced. The level of iodine nutrition plays a crucial role in the intellectual development of children. The intelligence damage of children exposed to severe ID was profound, demonstrated by 12.45 IQ points loss and they recovered 8.7 IQ points with iodine supplementation or IS before and during pregnancy. Iodine supplementation before and during pregnancy to women living in severe ID areas could prevent their children from intelligence deficit. This effect becomes evident in children born 3.5 years after the iodine supplementation program was introduced.
    Last edited by Zavon; 08-21-2017 at 07:03 PM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  10. #10

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Hundreds confess to eating human flesh
    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Ne...umans-20170821

    Fifteen teens treated for rabies after GANG RAPING a donkey… as cops urge others who ‘admired’ the beast to come forward
    http://www.inquisitr.com/4438962/15-...ntract-rabies/

    Nutrition. Heh
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,392

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    Hundreds confess to eating human flesh
    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Ne...umans-20170821

    Fifteen teens treated for rabies after GANG RAPING a donkey… as cops urge others who ‘admired’ the beast to come forward
    http://www.inquisitr.com/4438962/15-...ntract-rabies/

    Nutrition. Heh
    I wonder if human flesh has Iron and Iodine in it. Out of curiosity, I looked up malnutrition (Stunting) and saw something like it's only a problem for around 28% to 36% of Sub-Saharan African Children. And, it isn't an issue at all in the United states (under 5% of all children) for African American children.
    Meanwhile, in South Asia there is a stunting rate of 34.1% (which is higher than most parts of Africa) yet the IQ is still higher than for Africans by about two standard deviations (in the low 90s for IQ).

    Nutrition is no doubt still a factor, if you consider that most Asians are 106. So a 92 versus a 106 IQ is still about a 12 (14) point average in difference for nutrition (which is the average from the study I linked above in rural china).

    So a best case scenario would be for us to give food to Africans, and bump the IQ up from a 62 to a 74 for only about 30% of the kids. They'd still be a race of people on continent full of scum and villiany.

    Edit: Under these circumstances and with this information, the only case I can imagine where Nutrition is still a factor equal to race (in any capacity really) is if malnutrition where to have some kind of long term generational effects on IQ. Given the historical prevalence of malnutrition (e.g. Irish potato famine), I'd have a hard time accepting that line of thinking. If anything, I'd say that nature would have to be robust in designing us against the damages of malnutrition because of the way our ancestors lived.
    Last edited by Zavon; 08-22-2017 at 05:21 PM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  12. #12

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    8 to 16 IQ points
    Specific nutrients? Burden is on me to go find adoption studies?

    Uh oh... world view in danger... time to throw out a bunch of shit from the 60's that made incorrect predictions and call VK a denier unless he debunks it line for line... Like last time when it was a geologist who was wrong about everything he ever predicted on climate and the ocean, which I had to go argue point-for-point or else I was running away from your alternative facts on climate science? Or before that when IQ was 0.9 herritable, at the same time you posted maps with HUGE differences in IQ between populations that were genetic sources for each other, like Africa vs American blacks?

    You guys are shutting down again.

    I will leave you to circle jerk around anecdotes in peace.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,191

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    Specific nutrients? Burden is on me to go find adoption studies?

    Uh oh... world view in danger... time to throw out a bunch of shit from the 60's that made incorrect predictions and call VK a denier unless he debunks it line for line... Like last time when it was a geologist who was wrong about everything he ever predicted on climate and the ocean, which I had to go argue point-for-point or else I was running away from your alternative facts on climate science? Or before that when IQ was 0.9 herritable, at the same time you posted maps with HUGE differences in IQ between populations that were genetic sources for each other, like Africa vs American blacks?

    You guys are shutting down again.

    I will leave you to circle jerk around anecdotes in peace.

    Well I think what he means is that since pretty much all of the data points to genetics being the factor in IQ that if you're going to claim nutrition is the culprit you're going to need to show that the particular races IQ rises with nutrition. Simply showing that nutrition is different between the races doesn't prove that nutrition is the cause for a lower IQ. A lower average IQ would affect many factors within a race, including the ability to procure resources. So lower nutrition does not automatically = lower IQ. If you show that black children from homes with improved nutrition have higher IQs then you're on to something. Or if you can show that black kids adopted into white homes have higher IQs then you might have a connection between nutrition and nurture.

    Just out of curiosity VKhaun, as I know you're a 100% believer in macro evolution, how do you explain the ideology that all the races are equal? I'm not asking you to cite or source or do anything lengthy, just give me your general theory. Why would after 100k years of separation by geography, climate, resources, natural selection, and gene pool would all the races be equal in intelligence? Do you believe they are all equal in every way? Do you think all the races are just as intelligent when given equal environment, that they are all equal physically (health, athleticism, etc) given an equal environment?
    "Nah man, a Paladin has to play fair and by the rules. Do you really see Silly not attacking a weakened opponent? Or rather, not exploiting a weakness to take an enemy down? He'd totally do that. It's the law of the jungle with Silly, even if he does have faith. I think he's principled, just not merciful." - Zavon

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,392

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    Specific nutrients? Burden is on me to go find adoption studies?

    Uh oh... world view in danger... time to throw out a bunch of shit from the 60's that made incorrect predictions and call VK a denier unless he debunks it line for line... Like last time when it was a geologist who was wrong about everything he ever predicted on climate and the ocean, which I had to go argue point-for-point or else I was running away from your alternative facts on climate science? Or before that when IQ was 0.9 herritable, at the same time you posted maps with HUGE differences in IQ between populations that were genetic sources for each other, like Africa vs American blacks?

    You guys are shutting down again.

    I will leave you to circle jerk around anecdotes in peace.
    Jesus bro, don't go full retard here. You are the one that is acting like their world view is in danger-- I'm telling you I am open and listening to the possibility that you are correct.

    You have asserted that all IQ differences between races can be attributed to dietary difficulties. Ok, fine if that is true, tell me what is lacking in a persons diet to effect IQ? I went and searched for the answer, and the only nutrients that I could find responsible for the development for IQ were Iodine and Iron. The only effect that I could find that it had was an average of 12 points of IQ. I linked a study where this statement was found, that was a meta analysis of 12,000 different children all across China with Iodine deficiencies in both pre-natal and through 3.5 years of birth. With proper supplementation some, but not all of the IQ loss was regained by the children.

    So, that's what I was able to find on the subject. What do you already know about the subject that tells us diet is the most important factor in IQ? Why are African American children, who also have lower IQ than Asian american and European American children less intelligent even though they don't suffer from malnutrition like Africans? What is your theory?
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  15. Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    85 IQ is basically the ideal IQ to predict someone is going to be a criminal. Higher is generally too aware of consequences to commit crimes of stupid. Combine that with more testosterone and you have American blacks. Africans are infinitely worse because they aren't thugs, but instead are more like completely amoral children. Their IQ's are so low they'd go back to 1800's populations if the modern world pulled out and left them to their own devices.


    Have you heard of the Flynn effect?

    'The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day.'

    'Trahan et al. (2014) found that the effect was about 2.93 points per decade, based on both Stanford–Binet and Wechsler tests; they also found no evidence the effect was diminishing.'


    This means the blacks of today have a higher general intelligence than the whites of 1930. Remind me, were about half of the whites in 1930 prone to violence? We're 50% of whites of 1930 'unemployable'? I think the theory that it is the intelligence gap between blacks and whites that is responsible for violence difference and employability might be a little simplistic. By the way, the Flynn Effect is global, not just in the US.

    Sorry I am on my iPad so giving links to appropriate studies and such is difficult.
    Last edited by Random Havoc; 08-23-2017 at 07:52 AM.
    To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time;
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    912

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Random Havoc View Post
    Have you heard of the Flynn effect?

    'The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day.'

    'Trahan et al. (2014) found that the effect was about 2.93 points per decade, based on both Stanford–Binet and Wechsler tests; they also found no evidence the effect was diminishing.'


    This means the blacks of today have a higher general intelligence than the whites of 1930. Remind me, were about half of the whites in 1930 prone to violence? We're 50% of whites of 1930 'unemployable'? I think the theory that it is the intelligence gap between blacks and whites that is responsible for violence difference and employability might be a little simplistic. By the way, the Flynn Effect is global, not just in the US.

    Sorry I am on my iPad so giving links to appropriate studies and such is difficult.
    I've tried to avoid this topic with a 10ft pole but you made an interesting point here. Could you say that the increasing 'intelligence'(such a broad term) of (average) whites compounding over the (average) blacks just continues the strife due to increasing resentment that the blacks 'cant't catch up'? I'm talking solely in generalizations but the main point of contention on the side of blacks in America is that whites are holding them back systemically. I won't deny that there are examples that support these claims, especially in our legal system, but at the same time if they claim to see and know this systemic discrimination so well how come they are unable to create clear concise cases to prove it as such.

    I stand on the fence with the opinion that no-one is straight inferior to another unless able to prove it on an individual basis (lacking generalizations/stereotypes) as there are many ways an individual can be useful and find worth.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,392

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Random Havoc View Post
    Have you heard of the Flynn effect?

    'The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day.'

    'Trahan et al. (2014) found that the effect was about 2.93 points per decade, based on both Stanford–Binet and Wechsler tests; they also found no evidence the effect was diminishing.'


    This means the blacks of today have a higher general intelligence than the whites of 1930. Remind me, were about half of the whites in 1930 prone to violence? We're 50% of whites of 1930 'unemployable'? I think the theory that it is the intelligence gap between blacks and whites that is responsible for violence difference and employability might be a little simplistic. By the way, the Flynn Effect is global, not just in the US.

    Sorry I am on my iPad so giving links to appropriate studies and such is difficult.
    I think that is a really interesting question. I could only find this data on homicide rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rate_by_decade


    Although that is in no way comprehensive enough for "all crime", you should still expect the rate to be higher in the 30's than it is now. Instead, it is slowly going up and down without regard to increases in intelligence. It seems to always be worse during economic crisis (great depression, vietnam war, ww2).

    I stand on the fence with the opinion that no-one is straight inferior to another unless able to prove it on an individual basis (lacking generalizations/stereotypes) as there are many ways an individual can be useful and find worth. ~ Phyr
    Right right right, I think we are all in agreement with you on this. We are not all created equally, but you still have to treat everyone as an individual. When we are talking about racial differences, we are discussing things in terms of economic or political policy (e.g. groups of people), and searching for answers to the differences between races.
    Last edited by Zavon; 08-23-2017 at 08:13 AM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,191

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Random Havoc View Post
    Have you heard of the Flynn effect?

    'The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day.'

    'Trahan et al. (2014) found that the effect was about 2.93 points per decade, based on both Stanford–Binet and Wechsler tests; they also found no evidence the effect was diminishing.'


    This means the blacks of today have a higher general intelligence than the whites of 1930. Remind me, were about half of the whites in 1930 prone to violence? We're 50% of whites of 1930 'unemployable'? I think the theory that it is the intelligence gap between blacks and whites that is responsible for violence difference and employability might be a little simplistic. By the way, the Flynn Effect is global, not just in the US.

    Sorry I am on my iPad so giving links to appropriate studies and such is difficult.
    So basically IQ doesn't contribute to violence, just being black does?
    "Nah man, a Paladin has to play fair and by the rules. Do you really see Silly not attacking a weakened opponent? Or rather, not exploiting a weakness to take an enemy down? He'd totally do that. It's the law of the jungle with Silly, even if he does have faith. I think he's principled, just not merciful." - Zavon

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,392

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sillywilly View Post
    So basically IQ doesn't contribute to violence, just being black does?
    I lol'd. Well during the great depression the murder rate was twice as high as it is now, so I'd say that economic factors probably have more to do with murder at least, than race. Blacks only made up 9% of the population then too. That's looking at things in a vacuum though.
    Last edited by Zavon; 08-23-2017 at 08:29 AM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  20. #20

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sillywilly View Post
    Well I think what he means is that since pretty much all of the data points to genetics being the factor in IQ that if you're going to claim nutrition is the culprit you're going to need to show that the particular races IQ rises with nutrition. Simply showing that nutrition is different between the races doesn't prove that nutrition is the cause for a lower IQ. A lower average IQ would affect many factors within a race, including the ability to procure resources. So lower nutrition does not automatically = lower IQ. If you show that black children from homes with improved nutrition have higher IQs then you're on to something. Or if you can show that black kids adopted into white homes have higher IQs then you might have a connection between nutrition and nurture.
    No one here is denying anything is a factor and AFAIK no one ever has on this board. We're purely arguing degrees. Marou claims, in the same breath, that genetics are the largest factor due to heritability and at the same time that there's this massive gap shown by IQ stats between African and american blacks. These two things can't both be true at the same time. His whole position trying to make genetics the #1 factor is a scrap book of cherry picked passages from shitty studies that don't fit together and don't even agree with the conclusions of the same studies. It's a wholly invented position that does not exist among people without a preoccupation with race.

    Lower nutrition 100% does = lower IQ. Studies on this are so trivially easy to find it's not even worth pretending this is in contention to humor an argument if you made one. Thousands upon thousands of children have been tested. It's easy testing to do since there are tons of starving kids in areas with the lowest IQ's where it's easy to make progress Marou claims is impossible.

    The burden is not on me here. The IQ map and the malnutrition map line up perfectly. Showing that people with better nutrition, better education and better environments have better IQ's has already been done to death. I can't show that nutrition by itself is responsible, but I don't need to. Showing that blacks IQ's rose when they came here and their environment changed is already done. There's at least a 15pt difference from here to Africa already, and there are still miles and miles of potential improvement in all environmental directions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sillywilly View Post
    Just out of curiosity VKhaun, as I know you're a 100% believer in macro evolution, how do you explain the ideology that all the races are equal? I'm not asking you to cite or source or do anything lengthy, just give me your general theory. Why would after 100k years of separation by geography, climate, and gene pool would all the races be equal in intelligence? Do you believe they are all equal in every way? Do you think all the races are just as intelligent when given equal environment, that they are all equal physically (health, athleticism, etc) given an equal environment?
    I don't know why you would think I believe all races are arbitrarily equal in every aspect. I do not. I have never claimed this. I do not defend the assertion if it's being made by someone else.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    912

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Right right right, I think we are all in agreement with you on this. We are not all created equally, but you still have to treat everyone as an individual. When we are talking about racial differences, we are discussing things in terms of economic or political policy (e.g. groups of people), and searching for answers to the differences between races.
    It is sometimes hard to tell the difference.

    However, to be an apologist to your point, you might say there is such an extreme subset in the black population in America that skews the data heavily towards the negative. Part of this stems from the intelligence aspect, compounded with terrible environments for years that no one is able to do much about because almost anything these days becomes 'targeted racism' even if the community is nothing but a bunch of trap houses and hollowed out apartment complexes that gangs live in. There isn't an easy answer to that aside from state/federal building projects to displace these people and try to upend the 'wheel' (circle of poverty) but then again they will all scream back to the failed housing projects of the earlier years of our history.

    Obama probably would've been the best chance to do this as a black authoritarian president but he did not, most likely because it would've alienated his voter base. And during his second term he was coasting hard, and whites were so focused on spending money on killing isis that trying to fund housing/redevelopment projects to the benefit of blacks would've been met with a resounding HAHAHAHA *insert gif of Ray Liotta laughing like a madman*

    Edit2: INB4 "why waste more money on them" it is just a thought, I'd much rather see money go into our network/transportation/energy infrastructure than housing for any poor people.
    Last edited by Pyrrhus; 08-23-2017 at 08:48 AM.

  22. #22

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sillywilly View Post
    So basically IQ doesn't contribute to violence, just being black does?
    IQ definitely correlates to violence, social problems and impulse control when measured against nutrition for all people. Random Havoc has made a clever quip for us to untangle but the root cause isn't IQ so there's no need to assign any arbitrary value to non-violence. The root cause was malnutrition. Half of whites in 1930 weren't as prone to malnutrition as Africans or black Americans.

    I would also politely point out that, once again, genetics alone would be completely and totally confounded by Random Havoc's argument but malnutrition, education and other environmental factors explain and even predict what we see in reality and history. I might be giving him too much credit, but this may have been his point.
    Last edited by VKhaun; 08-23-2017 at 08:48 AM.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    912

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    IQ definitely correlates to violence, social problems and impulse control when measured against nutrition for all people. Random Havoc has made a clever quip for us to untangle but the root cause isn't IQ so there's no need to assign any arbitrary value to non-violence. The root cause was malnutrition. Half of whites in 1930 weren't as prone to malnutrition as Africans or black Americans.

    I would also politely point out that, once again, genetics alone would be completely and totally confounded by Random Havoc's argument but malnutrition, education and other environmental factors explain and even predict what we see in reality and history. I might be giving him too much credit, but this may have been his point.
    I disagree that genetics are totally confounded by Havoc's assertions. Genetics play a role in socialization and to an extent vice-versa. Genetic expression is still not perfectly understood and there are a lot of conflicting studies iirc. Let alone the whole aspect that a mind and free will contributes to such an equation, socialization and experiences become pretty important role in development, and genetics can fit into this with as simple a trait as skin color and intelligence. As anecdotal as it was it really struck home to me when I read a post from a black guy about how their culture when they were younger was to mock things that they couldn't achieve or were unable to compete in, and many of the people he grew up with that didn't 'move on' are still stuck in such a line of thought. Such as swimming, 'upper class' sports, math/science, etc. (white people/Asian stuff)
    Last edited by Pyrrhus; 08-23-2017 at 08:56 AM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,392

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    IQ definitely correlates to violence, social problems and impulse control when measured against nutrition for all people. Random Havoc has made a clever quip for us to untangle but the root cause isn't IQ so there's no need to assign any arbitrary value to non-violence. The root cause was malnutrition. Half of whites in 1930 weren't as prone to malnutrition as Africans or black Americans.

    I would also politely point out that, once again, genetics alone would be completely and totally confounded by Random Havoc's argument but malnutrition, education and other environmental factors explain and even predict what we see in reality and history. I might be giving him too much credit, but this may have been his point.
    Here is an indepth study complete with a regression analysis of malnutrition that shows: "Controlling for malnutrition was found to have no effect on the international Black-White IQ gap, and malnutrition was statistically insignificant in predicting national IQ among only Black and White nations after race was controlled for."

    http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...q-differences/

    All of his sources and the data he used is present in the study. Thoughts?
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  25. #25

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    All of his sources and the data he used is present in the study. Thoughts?
    I'll come back to it later. I've been up all night and I'm going to bed.

    My first impression isn't great though. If malnutrition affects IQ then it MUST close the gap between whites and blacks. Either the author has to show that malnutrition has no affect on IQ at all, or they have to show that whites and blacks had equal issues with malnutrition. Both of these are obvious non-starters. Looking at the other articles by the same author and seeing "...after race was controlled for" I expect to see some clever math inventing his point for him, which will lead to Marou claiming VK doesn't get maths and declaring himself the victor again... but I get extra cynical when I'm tired.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts