Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (15584)	1/5/2002 7:16:23 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't care at all what the group averages are I have spent my career looking at group averages and seeing if they are "really" different. I have some firm conclusions from this little investigation. (1) John Bryant is a racist. 99.9999% certainty. (2) The people who funded Arthur Jensen, or Arthur himself are probably racist. I mean why go to all the trouble find out if a certain group of people have less IQ? The FACT is when you bring bias into a first order interaction like education, you can get into some very clouded areas of so called "science". Bullshit is the word for it. Bias in an interaction is self sustaining and begins to "prove" its self. If black people are continually treated as "not quite as clever" in an education system the results that Arthur Jensen presents happens. No difference in "genes" needed. That gives some "proof" to continue the process. See what I mean?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (15584)	1/5/2002 11:26:53 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if different groups of humans had different abilities, no more than that German Shepards are smarter than Golden Retrievers. I suspect that the real problem with correlating "race" and IQ is that the race data is aggregated, and should be disaggregated. Lumped into "black" and "white" are some very large differences. Back in slavery days, members of certain tribes were considered ideal for tasks requiring intelligence and judgment, e.g., Woloff, Mandinka, while certain others were considered only fit for working in the fields, e.g., Congo. Maybe it was simply racism, as Congo people are darker, but it seems to me that those who used these people as slaves had the best perspective on their abilities. Or maybe it was merely cultural, remember that Romans liked to use Jews and Greeks as house slaves because they were more trainable than Germans - to state the obvious, Germans are far "whiter" than Greeks, phenotypically, and nowadays we don't think there is much difference between them IQ-wise, at least I don't. On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was no difference whatsoever.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (15584)	1/5/2002 8:56:06 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

There is no reason to expect correlation between skin colour and intelligence. Well, there's definitely a post with which you and I completely agree. Different people's have different IQs, but I believe its more due to their environment and relative "simplicity" of their lives in which their brain cells are not as stimulated. Given that much of the non-caucasian races have led poverty stricken lives and possessed little opportunity to have an education until a hundred years ago, it doesn't surprise me that IQ levels might be higher among Caucasians. But then again, one trip to the Ozarks in Arkansas can put the Kabosh on that theory as well...... :0) Hawk