2

 

Again (likely for the 15th or 16th time) I will offer you a counter challenge. I will accept the data in The Bell Curve at face value. Now, you have to support the assertions you make about various ethnicities based on that data. You haven't been able to do it so far, and I'll predict that you will go off on an unrelated tangent -as you have done every other time I've issued this challenge. But, I am ever hopeful.

Your theory sounds like this:

premise #1: IQ is a function of ethnicity,
premise #2: Blacks have the lowest mean IQ as an ethnic group
conclusion: Therefore Blacks misbehave more often than other ethnicities.
Please correct me if I've misunderstood.

The only premise that is empirically supported by the data in The Bell Curve is the 2nd (I wont even challenge the methodology involved). The first one has been hotly disputed across the scientific community . . . conflicting evidence and alternative explanations abound. The conclusion is simply a leap of fantasy, not supported by the premises whatsoever. You like the Nizkor fallacy link, I'll bet you can even identify which fallacy you've engaged in, eh? Good Luck!

 

You have misunderstood. To begin with African Negroes do not have the lowest average IQ of any racial group. Australian Aborigines do.

As far as supporting my assertions I have documented that blacks in the United States have a much higher murder rate than whites, and that countries with black majorities usually have a much higher murder rate than countries with white or Oriental majorities.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

So, I would still like for you to explain the circumstances that would prove The Bell Curve.

 

Just like he said you go off at a tangent into murder stats, do you realise that US blacks live in the poorest neighbourhoods, and poor areas produce criminals. But that doesn't matter to you, just your beloved BC and the cry of "murder Rates".

 

OK - I play along with your semantic dodge and amend the description of your position:

Your theory sounds like this:

premise #1: IQ is a function of ethnicity,
premise #2: Blacks have the one of the lowest mean IQs as an ethnic group
conclusion: Therefore Blacks misbehave more often than other ethnicities.
Please correct me if I've misunderstood.

How's that?

 

You have still not explained what you would consider proof of The Bell Curve thesis. I have explained what I would consider to be a valid disproof.

Moreover, your syllogism is still a distortion of The Bell Curve argument.

It would be more accurate to say:

Major premise: IQ is determined primarily by genes.
Minor premise: Blacks tend to have fewer high IQ genes than whites.
Conclusion: The measured differences between black and white intelligence is primarily genetic, and unlikely to change significantly.

Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein do take note that violent street criminals tend to have low IQs, and suggest that this may be a reason blacks have a higher rate of violent crime than whites.

However, there are brilliant criminals. Al Capone could probably have been a successful businessman. For reasons of his own he chose a career in which the rewards may have been greater, but the risks were certainly higher.

Professor J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario attributes the high black crime rate to higher rates of testosterone.

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

In their book The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending do not directly discuss black crime. They do suggest that civilization reduces the crime rate over a period of centuries and thousands of years by removing more aggressive individuals from the gene pool.

http://the10000yearexplosion.com/

 

Poor Orientals have low crime rates. San Jose, California was deluged by Vietnamese war refugees during during the 1980s. Most of these were indigent had come over with barely enough property to put in a suitcase. Nevertheless, San Jose had and has the lowest crime rate of any large American city.

http://www.morganquitno.com/cit07pop.htm#500,000+

In the United States China towns are known for poverty and low crime rates.

 

Sorry, but I've already conceded that I would accept The Bell Curve on it's face - it's your conclusions that are fallacious, not those of The Bell Curve.

It is at this point that you jump off into pure conjecture - the vast majority of which is not supported by the syllogism you just provided.

Ooops - You're paraphrasing and taking out of context the remarks of the very men whose views you are espousing . . . but, no empirical evidence for this portion of the argument :-| No falsifiable scientific methodology used to support this alleged conclusion. :-| This is the typically the point at which you wander about the web looking for data that doesn't exist - and come back with numerous off-topic points supported by irrelevant citation. Go ahead, I'll wait . . . maybe.

 

I do not quite understand this. Are you saying that you agree with The Bell Curve, but not me?

 

Not quite - I said I would be willing to accept the data in The Bell Curve and challenged you to defend the conclusions you draw from that data. For the time, I am simply dismissing the various refutations of the premises that underlie The Bell Curve.

Murray and Herrnstein only went so far with theirs - you take a much longer leap with the data than they do.

 

Well, I think the case could be made for the German atrocities being the cause of Hitler and his henchmen (MAYBE, but you gotta stretch a long ways). I ain't buying it for the Japanese. Their brutality went far beyond blaming Hirihito; The Japanese, from soldier to commander engaged in systematic, ruthless, barbarianism on a level unseen in history. You cannot blame soldiers repeatedly raping mothers and brutally killing children on commanders. It takes a special kind of barbarian to do that stuff.
The Bell Curve proposes that Orientals do better on average than blacks in intelligence tests and that they will predictably be less violent than blacks.
One cannot argue that a decade of sub human brutality that serves no military purpose is an "anomaly". Not during war and not even with the full support and encouragement of political leadership.
For damn sure this one example blows a major hole in the Bell Curve thingy.

 

DL:
We been over the Tuskegee Airmen example I cited several times. Let me give it to you again.
1) The Tuskegee Airmen were NOT specially selected. Military commanders initially tried an end run by upping the requirements for blacks in the squadron on the theory that there weren't enough smart darkies to fill the ranks. Roosevelt squashed that early on.
THE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN WERE SELECTED USING THE SAME CRITERIA AS FOR ANY OTHER FIGHTER SQUADRON. THEY WERE NOT EXCEPTIONAL IN THAT REGARD.

2) The squadron never had more than 5-10,000 members but the numbers are significant in that other squadrons were roughly the same size. Valid comparisons can be made.The conclusions that are inescapable are that they outperformed all white US squadrons, the German "super race" pilots, and Oriental fighter groups. As one example, no bomber escorted by the Tuskegee group was lost to enemy action. No other squadron of any nation can make that claim. The Tuskegee Airmen accomplished this record in spite of being fired upon by their own bombers early in their deployment. No other squadron from any other nation had to deal with that little adversity.

If one would argue that the numbers are statistically invalid, then the argument for twins raised apart must fall under the same argument.

And if one buys into the Bell Curve thingy, one would still have to scratch ones' head and wonder how in the HELL them blacks so completely outperformed whites.

Since you can't find references for them, here are some to get you started;
http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org/Tuskegee_Airmen_History.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/a_people_at_war/new_roles/99th_pursuit_squadron.html

 

If you can find a credible source that says that the Tuskegee Airmen outperformed similar all white units, quote it, and follow it with a link.

Posting one or more links and saying, "Here is the truth. Click on it," is a rather boring stumbler tactic. I post links to substantiate assertions that I make. It is rarely if ever necessary to click on the links to follow my argument.

 

I am not saying that the Tuskegee Airmen were below standards. I am saying that their example does not disprove the assertions of The Bell Curve. Any serious commentator on racial differences is careful to point out that they pertain to averages, and that there is considerable overlap between the races on characteristics like ability levels, crime, and so on.

Because blacks and whites were equally subject to the draft during the Second World War it would be more meaningful to compare average differences between all the whites and all the blacks in things like performance on aptitude tests, military proficiency, discipline, and so on.

 

If I might jump in. I will fully commit myself to the Bell Curve and its findings if you can simply follow me through a flower filled romp in the world of critical thinking, and give some reasonable answers on the other side.

1st premise: Blacks and aborigines are the least intelligent of the species. Whites are in the middle and Orientals are at the top.

Proof: Blacks tend to commit more murders than anyone. Whites commit less than blacks but more than orientals.

Rejected: This is arbitrary nonsense. You have given no reasoning as to why murder should be considered as a sign of intelligence. Why are most serial killers considered highly intelligent? In fact, throughout history, many of the most violent and murderous people have been those more knowledgeable and "civilized" peoples killing the "uncivilized" opposition. Examples: Rome and Greece to the barbarians, Japan to China, Europeans to the Americas etc...

Challenge: Explain, logically, how murder rates are indeed an indisputable sign of intelligence. If so, reconcile point with explanation of the more intelligent party often being the most violent and brutal.

2nd premise: IQ tests(oh dear...). A median measure of racial intelligence is an important finding which should be taken seriously and drive policy. It is not merely abstract drivel.

Proof: None.

Rejected.

Challenge: Explain how whites have been the driving force of civilization for such a long period of time, ahead of the supposedly smarter orientals. If a "dumber" race can clearly be "smarter" for long amounts of time, then the theory is flawed.

You will make an appeal to history. This is meaningless. Proving that orientals were more civilized at some point, has no bearing on where they have been in recent history and only supports my claim that ANY race can be the "smartest" at any given time for any number of reasons.

You may state that orientals are catching up and might soon take the lead. This is meaningless. Were they to catch up, it would simply be an acknowledgment that the so-called "smartest" race had fallen behind and was therefore not the smartest for some time. The theory is therefore flawed. If any race can get ahead, as whites did to orientals, then a guess as to who is objectively the "smartest" is not only useless and illusory, but also dangerous. If whites got ahead of orientals, even though you consider them to be less intelligent. Could not blacks surpass whites in the same manner for any given reason? Could not any race be the torchbearer? And so of what use is your theory?

End: In the end it is clear that a) Trusting a piece of paper which has been admitted to measure only a small amount of human "intelligence" is folly. And b) Any honest recollection of human history will be an acknowledgment that different races and peoples have been the "smartest", that is to say, the drivers of civilization, at different points in time. Therefore it is simply a fallacy and a fools mistake to assume that there is any hierarchy of intelligence among the species.

I look forward to your reasoned response.

 

I already pointed out that there are brilliant criminals. Intelligence and a propensity to engage in crime, particularly murder are two different characteristics, although there does seem to be a correlation.

 

There does "seem" to be a correlation? Well, it was certainly weaker than I expected, though at least honest enough to admit a complete lack of evidence beyond personal observation.

By the by, I take your snippet of a response to mean that you simply cannot answer the points as they have been put forward. If this is the case, then might you finally give up the ghost on this swiss cheese theory? Or will you simply ignore the holes, as plainly as they have been presented, and press on?

 

IQ and murder rate by country

Here is a chart of the results of IQ tests of various countries. They vary from one testing sample of Japan, where the average was 110, to one of Equatorial Guinea, where the average was 59. In South Africa blacks averaged 65; whites averaged 94. The tests and testing samples differed, but it is clear that Oriental populations tested the highest, followed by whites, followed by Hispanics, followed by blacks. Although the tests have been accused of having a cultural bias in favor of whites, Orientals tended to test better than whites.

http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm

Here is a website that includes a chart for murder rates by country. There clearly is a correlation between average IQ and murder rate, and between race and murder rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Here is another chart of murder rates by country that demonstrates the same thing, although I am skeptical of low rates for Sudan with the civil war there, and Botswana.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/murder_rate_of_countries_2000-2004.html

 

As I have pointed out previously, the relationship between race, IQ, and crime is too consistent to be casually dismissed. Those who maintain that in the right environment blacks would perform and behave as well as whites and Orientals maintain something for which there is no evidence.

The hopes raised by the independence of sub Saharan African countries, and by the civil rights legislation in the United States have been disappointed. It has never been easy to ignore black deficiencies. It is becoming increasingly difficult to blame these deficiencies on whites.

 

1. You post IQ tests and murder rates. Claiming that it is "proof" of a racial intelligence hierarchy.

2. I point out the obvious fallacies within trying to measure racial intelligence by IQ scores and murder rates. The whole theory falls to pieces.

3. I challenge you to give some logical argument to the contrary.

1. You post IQ tests and murder rates. Claiming that it is "proof" of a racial intelligence hierarchy.

Not to say that you missed something. But I believe 4 is supposed to follow 3 at some point, love. We can't stay at 1 forever.