Correction..I did NOT say the graphs were UNRELIABLE..ONLY OUTDATED...as they were from 1995...READ THE POST...

 

The phrase, "Can you find something more ... reliable?" strongly implies that you consider them unreliable.

 

If the Negro race is biologically equivalent to the white race there should be abundant evidence for that equivalence. I do not see any.

 

Only when you first answer the question. Where is the evidence that black intelligence and criminality is hardwired into their DNA, where is this rogue gene that causes them (the blacks) to commit crimes and fail academically.

You have spouted off with this from the very beginning of this debate, and not once have you produced verifiable links and sources of information.

You also now spout that the data used for TBC is un-falsifiable, but it can be used to misrepresent the facts if not all parameters are the same. TBC as been debunked many times by many different people yet you refuse to take this information in, even to the fact where you demand that we (your opponents) write out essays in our own words to prove others and our theories. Well the fact is I am not a geneticist nor am I an anthropologist, so for me to use my own words to represent the views of others that I agree with would be to do them a disservice. If you want a lecture on gun drills with the M107/110/109, I can accommodate you, as soon as you sign the Official Secrets Act.

A further question that you need to answer is. What do you want to do with the blacks and other "inferior" races if TBC proves to be true? Do you want separate enclaves for them, where they can be wheeled out to do your menial tasks and entertain you in the movies and sports arenas? Remember that you are one of the 10%(?) who cannot find work in the US.

Your attitude to blacks and Hispanics is one of bigotry, you look at them and feel superior in yourself as you trudge the streets of a not very nice neighbourhood to cash your welfare check.

 

Because there ISN'T any.....niggers are nothing more than walking, and sometimes glorified monkeys.....which is why I think baller16 gets so upset when he feels someone is steeling from his culture.

 

Can you at least agree that all the races are of the same species? All races can, after all, interbreed, which in and of itself constitutes incontrovertible proof.

Can you also agree that all races share the same carnal drives? Certainly we layer culture upon those drives, and certainly culture does impose varying constraints. But the fundamental drives- to eat, to breed, to stay dry, to inhabit altitudes conducive to the maintenance of one standard atmosphere- are universal across the species.

I am not being flip here. I am pointing out that we, as a species, exhibit characteristic and expected uniformity.

We are also, in many ways, still savages. We do not treat each other very well. And our treatment of each other has a big impact on how we interact, how we allocate resources in society, and the degree to which we afford each other opportunities.

DL, your demand for any evidence whatsoever of equivalence has a certain appeal. I am troubled by the comparative absence of black adoptive parents of non-blacks. I am also troubled by the absence of any example of a post-neolithic civilization, under Negroid governance, that can be said to have thrived. Certainly no such civilization has enriched the human legacy or given us anything genuinely new. It is easy- and seductive- to conclude from these voids that Negroid civilizations have always been, by definition, doomed from the start.

But I think that the burden of proof would be on anyone who would draw such a conclusion. Why? Because there is too much contrary evidence. Humans, as a race, have constantly been at war, since the paleolithic. We are, to put it bluntly, animals. It is our way to slaughter mindlessly. Very few civilizations of any race have succeeded and thrived. Few civilizations have produced lasting legacies, or added anything to the human body of knowledge. Countless Asian, Caucasian, Amerindian, and Oceanic peoples have tried and failed. Even Europe, the pinnacle of human culture, has barely survived its brief experiment of unity, and the jury for the European Union is certainly still out. (Maastricht cancelled its E.U. anniversary celebration!) Few civilizations have produced immortal heroes, and most of those heroes- Socrates, Jesus Christ, Abraham Lincoln- have been slaughtered for their trouble.

Are blacks savages? Generally speaking, yes. But a sober mind would be compelled to add that they are, generally speaking, no worse than the rest of us.

 

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

Those who are reluctant to draw the conclusions I draw from the facts that I document remind me of those who refuse to accept evidence for the greenhouse effect, or even of those tobacco executives who for years refused to acknowledge the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

How much more evidence is necessary? How much more time needs to pass since racial discrimination in the United States was outlawed, and since expensive efforts have failed to bring blacks up to white standards? How much more time needs to pass since the end of European colonialism in Africa before we are allowed to acknowledge that blacks are biologically incapable of creating civilized societies without white supervision?

When you mention charts from Wikipedia, I assume you mean this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income.png

and this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Education.png

I would have liked it if the person or persons who created the charts had included their sources, and explained how they composed their findings. Nevertheless, I have read many times that even when blacks live in affluent neighborhoods and attend safe schools that are well financed and average high test scores, the blacks still tend to perform less well than whites.

This cannot be explained environmentally.

It can be explained this way: "IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100."
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx#id_d90f8fc5-74e1-46ab-bd03-eafd0730133a

 

http://books.google.at/books?id=7nd9XxihqKAC&pg=PA10&dq=the+bell+curve&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3EXyTr-GH8fb4QTv6I3BAQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=the%20bell%20curve&f=false

This link should take you to a book titled "The assault on equality" by Peter Knapp..Relevant page is page 10...where you will find these words...

Typed out if the link does NOT work..

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Specifically the magic concerns the claims, the concepts and the assumptions and the use of sources and data in The Bell Curve. For example there is even a doubt about what the central claims of the book are. Many analysts have taken the central claim of the Bell Curve to be that Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites.
Hernnstein and Murray claim that to be a terrible misrepresentation. The Bell Curve is careful never to say that blacks are less intelligent than whites, and Murray has claimed that his critics must have read a different book than the one he wrote, or that they are misrepresenting his argument.
Murray claims to be agnostic over whether the lower performance of blacks on IQ tests is innate; to be a scientist uncovering the facts of large differences in performance on such tests and reviewing conflicting theories about it..."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If the link does not work the book can be found on "Google Books."

 

NO it just states that the graphs from 1995 which were reliable then, are NOT so reliable as graphs taken from 2011...

Information that is dated 1995 CAN NOT be called as RELIABLE as information which would be taken from when the year is 2011...

The information in 1995 CAN very well be RELIABLE, BUT this information will have changed by 2011 so CANNOT be used as RELIABLE information now...

YET again someone who ONLY READS what THEY WANT to READ.. NOT what is actually wrote...

BUY yourself some BIGGER, or STRONGER glasses, or maybe clean them or your monitor more often...

 

Using X-O's reliable and verifiable source of information, I have found another book which disputes the findings of The Bell Curve...

The book is titled "Psychological testing of American minorities: Issues and consequences" by Ronald J Samuda..

The link should give you the relevant page number (175)

http://books.google.at/books?id=8-INL7qF5l8C&pg=PA175&dq=the+bell+curve&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JFLyTorvC-P04QTIlLTOAQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=the%20bell%20curve&f=false

Now that is just 2 books I have found during a very quick search, HOW many more DO I need to post before people open their eyes and accept that The Bell Curve theories HAVE NOT been PROVEN...

 

LOL.

The wacky thing is, in your crass and irreverent way, you've said the same thing I just did!

Your post reminds me of an insane book I have. It is a 900 page, fully annotated spoof on the Bible. It is by R.F. Laird, and it is called The Boomer Bible.

Here is an excerpt. Pardon errors, everyone; I'm typing fast.

The Beginning
THE FIRST BOOK OF APES, CALLED
KINESIS

Chapter 1

At the beginning there was
nothing but a big ball of gases.

For a long time it just sat there,
in the nothingness, getting hotter and hotter.

Then it exploded.

The explosion created the stars,
which were burning bubbles of the first
big ball of gases.

The stars threw out chunks of debris
that cooled and became planets.

The planets spun round and became round.

...

Chapter 5

And the [life forms] that were like monkeys
had brains that were quite large.

And some of these grew quite big
and lost their tails, so that
they were no longer monkeys, but apes.

And the apes thrived and multiplied,
surviving even unto the present age.

And with the coming of the apes,
the period of the time that
was the beginning of the earth ended.


THE SECOND BOOK OF APES, CALLED
APES

Chapter 1

When he had come upon the earth, the ape was
naked and afraid. For comfort he picked up
a stick, chewed the end to a point, and stuck it
in a nearby living thing.

When the living thing died, transfixed by the stick,
the ape ate of its flesh and soon conceived a great hunger
for the death of other living things.

Thereupon the ape made many pointed sticks
and stuck them into great multitudes of other
living things, including, on occasion, other apes.

Chapter 2

For seven times seven generations of their race,
the apes stuck pointed sticks into seven times
seven generations of other living things.

And there were seven times seven kinds of apes, and of this
number there were brown apes, and black apes,

And green apes, and red apes, and white apes, and yellow apes.

And there were small apes, and tall apes, and wide apes,
and narrow apes, and thin apes, and fat apes.

And swift apes, and slow apes, and strong apes, and weak apes,
and clever apes, and dull apes.

And of this number, all were killer apes.

Chapter 3

...and as the living things grew scarce in number,
the apes became afraid.

For if all other kinds of living things died, there
would be nothing left to kill,

Except the other apes, all of whom were killer apes,
well armed with pointed sticks.

And so it happened that the apes banded together,
like to like, to keep the other apes from killing them.

Brown apes joined together with brown apes, black
apes with black apes,

Green apes with green apes, red apes with red apes,
...

And strong apes with strong apes, weak apes with weak
apes, clever apes with clever apes, and dull apes with dull apes.

Chapter 4

Thereupon bands of apes turned upon other bands
of apes and transfixed one another with many
thousands of pointed sticks.

And brown apes killed black apes, even unto extinction.

Red apes slew green apes, leaving none alive,

And likewise white apes slew yellow apes,
and tall apes slew small apes,

And wide apes slew narrow apes, and strong
apes slew weak apes,

And slow apes slew swift apes, and thin apes
slew fat apes,

And clever apes slew all the dull apes, and then the
strong apes, and then the swift apes, and the
thin apes, and the wide apes, and the tall apes
and the white apes, and the red apes, and the brown
apes,

Until the clever apes were all alone on the earth,
with the exception of the other living things and many,
many trees that could be turned into pointed sticks.

_____________

It goes on, pretty much as above, for 898 more pages. It is quite a book. It even has a chapter about Americans, called Yanks, and a chapter about Germans, called Krauts, and a chapter about the French, called Frogs. Yes, there is a chapter about Jews, but it is also about the Muslims, and lumps both groups into a particularly savage chapter called Beaks (The Book of Bloody Noses.)

It is quite a book. Almost as entertaining as the "real" Bible, whatever that means.

 

Bell Curve refuted: Inequality is a structural problem, not a hereditary condition.

Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth
Claude S. Fischer, Michael Hout, Martín Sánchez Jankowski, Samuel R. Lucas, Ann Swidler, & Kim Voss

“As debate rages over the widening and destructive gap between the rich and the rest of Americans, Claude Fischer and his colleagues present a comprehensive new treatment of inequality in America. They challenge arguments that expanding inequality is the natural, perhaps necessary, accompaniment of economic growth. They refute the claims of the incendiary bestseller The Bell Curve (1994) through a clear, rigorous re-analysis of the very data its authors, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, used to contend that inherited differences in intelligence explain inequality. Inequality by Design offers a powerful alternative explanation, stressing that economic fortune depends more on social circumstances than on IQ, which is itself a product of society. More critical yet, patterns of inequality must be explained by looking beyond the attributes of individuals to the structure of society. Social policies set the "rules of the game" within which individual abilities and efforts matter. And recent policies have, on the whole, widened the gap between the rich and the rest of Americans since the 1970s.

Not only does the wealth of individuals' parents shape their chances for a good life, so do national policies ranging from labor laws to investments in education to tax deductions. The authors explore the ways that America--the most economically unequal society in the industrialized world--unevenly distributes rewards through regulation of the market, taxes, and government spending. It attacks the myth that inequality fosters economic growth, that reducing economic inequality requires enormous welfare expenditures, and that there is little we can do to alter the extent of inequality. It also attacks the injurious myth of innate racial inequality, presenting powerful evidence that racial differences in achievement are the consequences, not the causes, of social inequality. By refusing to blame inequality on an unchangeable human nature and an inexorable market--an excuse that leads to resignation and passivity--Inequality by Design shows how we can advance policies that widen opportunity for all.

Reviews:

"Inequality by Design's most important findings describe an America deeply stratified by class, an America in which equal opportunity remains only and idle dream...[It] may well after the public discussion...with a shot across the bow of the nation's policymakers."--Lingua Franca

". . . calmly but devastatingly refutes the view that IQ is the inexorable force behind growing inequality in American society. [This] message deserves wide airing, lest voters and policy makers believe the fatalistic--and false--message that our destiny lies in our genes. . . . The fact that IQ isn't destiny means Americans can't wash their hands of poverty and related social problems by imagining them to be timeless and unchangeable."--Jonathan Marshall, San Francisco Chronicle

"A clear and persuasive counter argument to the conclusions of Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein in The Bell Curve. . . . The authors urge that Americans not scapegoat race but look critically at policy and at a design for society to narrow the gaps between the least and most encouraged in our country."--Library Journal

Endorsement:

"The authors of this compelling new study rebut the wrong-headed work of Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein by mobilizing powerful evidence to demonstrate that inequality is a structural problem, not a hereditary condition…. One of the most important books on what divides America socially and economically since the work of Christopher Jencks and his Harvard colleagues nearly a quarter century ago."--Daniel Bell

Table of Contents:

Figures and Tables ix
Preface xi
CHAPTER 1 Why Inequality? 3
CHAPTER 2 Understanding "Intelligence" 22
CHAPTER 3 But Is It Intelligence? 55
CHAPTER 4 Who Wins? Who Loses? 70
CHAPTER 5 The Rewards of the Game: Systems of Inequality 102
CHAPTER 6 HOW Unequal? America's Invisible Policy Choices
CHAPTER 7 Enriching Intelligence: More Policy Choices 158
CHAPTER 8 Confronting Inequality in America: The Power of Public Investment 204
APPENDIX 1 Summary of The Bell Curve 217
APPENDIX 2 Statistical Analysis for Chapter 4 225
Notes 241
References 277
Index 303”

Ref. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5877.html

 

Of course blacks and whites are of the same species. Until fairly recently it was believed that the ancestors of whites and Orientals were of a different species than Neanderthals, and could not have produced fertile offspring with them.

Since DNA from Neanderthals has been discovered it has also been discovered that humans who are not descended from African Negroes have some Neanderthal genes. The gene for red hair may have come from Neanderthals, but the gene for blue eyes seems to have originated from a mutation that happened less than ten thousand years ago.

The Neanderthal DNA also demonstrates that genetically Neanderthals differed from modern humans far more than any of the existing races differ from each other.

As far as drives are concerned it should be obvious that most humans have sex drives directed at those of the opposite sex, but some are homosexuals. Moreover, the intensity and even the nature of the sex drive differs between individuals. Speaking only of myself I have always felt romantic love and sexual desire as two different inclinations. Far from having a "virgin - whore" dichotomy in my mind, it has been difficult for me to be sexually attracted to a woman to whom I am not also romantically attracted. I would be physically incapable of raping a woman, or even of having sex with a prostitute.

The nouns "savage," "barbarian," and "civilization." have emotional connotations. That is because we live in civilizations, and view savages and barbarians as threats. With greater reason they have viewed us as more serious threats because we have nearly always been able to defeat them militarily.

I define a savage as a paleolithic hunter. I define a barbarian as a neolithic farmer or herder. I define a civilization as a culture that includes cities, along with writing and mathematics.

The Nazis were cruel, but by my definition they were civilized. The Eskimos were said to be peaceful. By my definitive they were savages. They lived by hunting and fishing. They did not practice agriculture. They did not domesticate animals.

Nevertheless, there is fossil evidence and the accounts of literate observers that paleolithic hunters were much more warlike than contemporary humans. I read somewhere that even before the Plains Indians in the United States began to fight the U.S. cavalry Plains Indians men were somewhat more likely to die violently every year than soldiers in the Soviet Army during the Second World War.

Neolithic societies were also more violent, because virtually every man took part in the wars. One of the characteristics of civilization is specialization of labor. War is carried out by professional military forces. In the world today the great majority of men go through their lives without ever being in combat. This was nearly as true for those living in the Roman Empire.

I attribute the higher crime rates of blacks to the fact that fewer generations separate them from a paleolithic and a neolithic way of life than the number of generations that separate whites and Orientals from that way of life.

That does not mean that blacks are hopeless. It does mean that they require a stricter criminal justice system. I expect the races to merge into one in a few thousand years, if not sooner. Blacks have much more genetic diversity than other races. Their contribution to the merger will be a species that is able to respond more quickly to changes in the environment.

 

Inequality By Design


"What the authors do most effectively is the reanalysis of the very data that Herrnstein and Murray used. The results are laid out in a clear, straightforward manner that nonspecialists should be able to comprehend easily. (Clarity of expression is a hallmark of the entire book, which made this reader wonder how the six authors divided their tasks and arrived at such a felicitous prose style.)

The deconstruction of "The Bell Curve" is accomplished by illustrating several features of that book: the data massaging common in psychometric methodology; the tortured construction of bell cures from data that are not bell shaped; the confusion of correlation with causation in arguments for the validity of a test; the arbitrary definition of intelligence that inheres in IQ tests; and the misreading, or dismissal, of data that contradict the genetic hypothesis.

Soon the authors of "Inequality by Design" are well into the main purpose of their book, demonstrating that inequality, and especially its magnitude, are socially designed and not a consequence of IQ "intelligence." From this point on, the busy reader can glean a tremendous amount of information simply by perusing the numerous tables, graphs, and figures. The reader would learn that the magnitude of the current inequality in the United States does not reflect any historical constant, nor is it of the same order as that found in other first world nations. The gap between the social classes in the United States today is unusually wide historically and internationally."

Ref. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HSP/is_1_2/ai_66678522/

 

Carrie Joslin,

From your education at Stanford, and probably from other sources as well you know that just because a writer says something you and others want to believe does not mean that it is true.

Innate human inequality does not mean that the growing income gap - which I have condemned in other threads - is just, or even inevitable. Unfortunately it does complicate efforts to achieve a more egalitarian society.

 

If there is truth and wisdom in those books, explain it in your own words, substantiating your factual assertions with facts you can document from credible sources. If you cannot do that I will have to assume that you do not understand what the books are saying.

 

How the fuck are the Eskimos meant to farm on the tundra? How would they domesticate the Polar bear, snow foxes and seals?

Again you are making assertions, where are the sources to back up your theories.

I am certainly glad that your definition of civilisation and savagery are not the international norm.

Were the Japanese during the 20s, 30s and early 40s civilised or savages? You decide that throwing people into concentration and labour camps because they have a different religion, politics and sexuality is the act of civilised men.

Next you will be telling us that eugenics is the way forward and you have a Brave new World for us to enter. Just remember to take your Soma and Hail Our Ford.

 

The high-lighted section I have trouble getting my head around...

By the very nature of where the eskimo's lived, JUST how the hell could they practise agriculture, or even farm the land...
Have you tried ploughing an ice-field, or planting crops like potato's or maize in ice...

The eskimo's hunted and fished for food to eat so that they can survive, much the same way as early man did...
The Nazi's were only civilised due to the fact that their fore-fathers had utilised, and perfected certain skills to maintain a standard of living..

 

Leave it to Distant Lover to be so blinded by his own prejudices that he isn't aware of Alaskan Huskies domesticated by the natives and trained as sled dogs.

 

My point is that they did not.

In his book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies Jared Diamond explained the beginning of agriculture and later civilization in the Near East rather than, say, sub Saharan Africa by pointing out that the Fertile Crescent happened to have edible wild plants that were easy to cultivate, like wheat and barley, and animals that could be domesticated, like wild and sheep, and goats. This was an interesting and valid insight.

Unfortunately, he went from this to conclude that peoples who have practiced agriculture and urban living for thousands of years are no more intelligent on the average than populations who have been much more recently introduced. He overlooked, perhaps for reasons of political correctness, that agriculture and urban living have different population pressures than a paleolithic existence. Among other things they require a predisposition to leave peacefully with one's neighbors, and more intelligence.