Jobs & Crime Reduction

These concepts are socially constructed and have been given much weight. What are your thoughts?
Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Sentenza » July 16th, 2010, 6:57 am

Azure9920 wrote:
You didn't answer the question. No need for diversion tactics.
I did answer the question. Cameroon and Mali and all these other states have low crime rates despite being poor and black for the same reason west virginia has. People dont commit crimes.
Azure9920 wrote: What I stated is a scientific fact, deduced from the very same work your beloved genome project is working on.
Then you didnt comprehend it or you didnt read their conclusion:

Human Genome Project Announces That "Race" Does Not Exist
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-ge ... -not-exist
Azure9920 wrote: Yes, there are physical and behavioral criteria that represent differences between racial groupings and sub-groupings,
That is exactly what is not the case but is one of the most basic pillars for the creation of legends in the "non pc" crowd.

Yes there are pmany physical traits that are different from each other, that is evident. Behavioral criteria in ethnic groups are not determined by genes. Another "Non-PC" myth.
The Nigger is Dumb, the Jew is greedy, Asians like to smile, the white man is brave and so on. Continue the list for yourself.
Azure9920 wrote: Again, you didn't answer my question.

What evidence do you have that suggests that there are no differences between people from say, Nigeria, and Mongolia?
Im tired of saying the same things over and over again, because this topic gets old, but so be it.
There are differences resulting from the adaption to the environment. However genetically these differences are so small that figuratively speaking there is not more difference between the two, then between a tall swedish guy with a big nose and green eyes and a small swedish guy with a small nose and blue eyes.
"Race is a social concept, not a scientific one," said Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corporation in Rockville, Md. "We all evolved in the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonized the world."

Dr. Venter and scientists at the National Institutes of Health recently announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race -- the human race. Dr. Venter and other researchers say that those traits most commonly used to distinguish one race from another, like skin and eye color, or the width of the nose, are traits controlled by a relatively few number of genes, and thus have been able to change rapidly in response to extreme environmental pressures during the short course of Homo Sapiens history.

Equatorial populations evolved dark skin, to protect against ultraviolet radiation, while people in northern latitudes evolved pale skin, in order to produce vitamin D from pale sunlight.

About .01 percent of our genes are reflected in our external appearances and because this tiny percent together with the high percentage of ignorance many humans were relegated to enslavement and genocide.
There is no scientific evidence to support substantial differences between groups using the popular European yardstick for evaluating intelligence. However if different groups of people, especially those that are considered the underclass, had access to a certain type of information about themselves then I can assure the scientists that even by their evaluative processes, these people will be seen as far more intelligent. However, ignorance is an equal opportunity affliction.

Since the African emigrations began, a mere 7,000 generations have passed. In addition, because the founding population of immigrants was small, it could only take so much genetic variation with it. Because of that combination, (a limited founder population and a short time since dispersal) humans are strikingly homogeneous, differing from one another only once in a thousand subunits of the genome.

"We are a small population grown large in the blink of an eye," Dr. Lander said. "We are a little village that's grown all over the world, and we retain the genetic variation seen in that little village."
http://www.trinicenter.com/sciencenews/ ... netics.htm
Azure9920 wrote: Yes, and that mere 15% is accountable for a wide variety of differences, physical or otherwise. You cannot sincerely sit here and argue the point that there are no identifiable variations between a Japanese person and an Italian, it's ludicrous.
Yes. There is slight variation in outside looks due to the adaption to the environment. Thats about it. A difference in intelligence and behaviour is not conclusively to be attributed to a certain group since there are way more factors influencing intelligence and behaviour than genes.

Race and intelligence: A sorry tale of shoddy science
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ ... iq-science
The idea that intellect had something to do with cranial capacity was – and to some people, still is – an attractive one, and generations of researchers tried to find new ways to measure brain size and shape, and match it with apparent intellectual performance. These experiments tended to prove that white people were cleverer than black people because they were bigger-brained.

In The Mismeasure of Man, Gould revealed that they could only prove this by massaging the results, cooking the data, and eliminating the unwelcome findings. One researcher found that German brains, on average, weighed 100 grams more than French brains. He was, of course, German. Measurements also produced inconsistencies: some Caucasian geniuses had very big brains, other intellectual giants had a quite modest cranial capacity.

Some 19th century biologists argued that black people were the product of a separate creation, others that black people were inferior varieties of the same human species. A physician from Louisiana even argued in scientific papers that the people of Africa were "unable to take care of themselves" because of a disease of inadequate breathing "conjoined with a deficiency of cerebral matter in the cranium".

So the anthropologists, anatomists and pioneer psychologists started looking for other things. They tried to grade the intellectual status of men, apes and women; of Nordic, Slavic and Mediterranean races; of long-headed and broad-headed peoples; they graded them according to the average distance between penis and navel, on the closeness of their eyes, on the lowness of their foreheads.

Then they began looking for ways to quantify the intellectual performance of different national and ethnic groups: and came up with bizarre results, which ought to have eliminated discrimination purely on the grounds of colour or race but somehow did not. In the early 20th century HH Goddard tried out his intelligence tests on new migrants and found, says Gould, that "83% of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians and 87% of the Russians were feeble-minded."

And so the whole, sorry, miserable story continues. These transparently silly and shameful "findings" were used to justify racial segregation in the American south, and to limit black youngsters' access to higher education. These limits, constraints and segregation laws continued well into the second half of the 20th century – well into Gould's lifetime, and mine.
Azure9920 wrote:
Absolutely incorrect, as I pointed out previously, the difference between a fully domesticated Chihuahua and a Grey wolf is roughly equal to the genetic distance between any European and the Bantu.
Well then provide a source that supports your claim that you are right and geneticists are wrong.
Azure9920 wrote: Firstly, the criteria used to classify humans based on race is not solely limited to physical features like skin color, but rather a wide variety of traits and gene expressions that differ slightly from group to group. The fact that Sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans are more closely related than Melanisians does not deny the fact that there are genetic differences between those populations.
Which are still too small and mixed to be able to speak of races. Thats the whole point.

Azure9920 wrote: Ethnic Belgians with no Sub-Saharan roots? I'd like to see that.
Yea, because the genetic variations within a population are sometimes bigger then those between two populations meaning that theoretically a fellow belgian could genetically be closer related to someone from africa then to his neighbour.
Im gonna dig out where i read it again in a few days.
Azure9920 wrote: I don't directly blame race for the troubles found in Africa or even African Americans; I blame dysfunctional people for those crimes. Unfortunately, a host of cultural variables have caused people of African descent to be plagued with problems such as low intelligence, mental disorder, high levels of testosterone, etc.

Obviously since the Eastern European nations have rebuilt themselves, the crime rates have substantially dropped. Russia's relatively recent upsurge in criminal activity stems from this transition as well and has been fostered due to a severely corrupted state. Russia is another country that I don't trust the crime stats from, I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually much higher than reported.
Russia has had a functioning state and a national identity long before the country had to rebuild itself.
A functioning government is the most efective tool to prevent crime. In Europes medieval societies where it was difficult to enforce laws crime and murder was through the roof, also because of poverty.
Crime and punishment in the Middle Ages
http://lcjb.cjsonline.gov.uk/Cambridgeshire/1534.html
When the states formed themselves and implemented effective law enforcement and a national identity crime went down.
In africa 99% of the countries are torn between dozens of identities wether it is religious or ethnic making it impossible to establish a homogenous society that acts in concert.
It is not surprising, that those african countries which have less of these problems are doing bettern then others.
South Africa has an enormous crime rate, but also considerable economic growth since Apartheid was ended.
Reason for the high crime rate is a high level of unemployment, that has also been caused by many blacks being held away from education systematically and now not being qualified enough for todays job market.
They werent born that way, they were made that way only for people to say afterwards: See, i knew they werent smart enough.
That is how the racist mind works. Kick an old man down the stairs and then ask him why he is running so fast.
Yet there is a growing midle class in South Africa. So there is hiope in the future. Also:
Gross Domestic Product (in million Rand):
1990 289,816
2005 1,523,254
Doesnt look like a failure to me, but more like substantial economic growth. Now fasten your seatbelts: Under Black governing. :shock:
Azure9920 wrote:
Well, if you take a glance at the countries with the highest murder rates(Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil), they also coincidentally happen to be the South American nations with the highest Black populations. Compare Brazil's murder rate of 25 or Jamaica's rate of 59 to predominately White nations like Uruguay, Peru or Argentina with their murder rates hovering at a modest 5 per 100,000 persons.
I was talking about the white people involved. The drug cartels, the militias and lets expand it to genocides committed on people. Really. The worst genocides have been committed by white people. The Holocaust, the Holodomor, Slavery, the extinction of native american tribes, the gulags in Russia, two world wars and the list goes on and on. I have an encyclopedia about serial killers. Half of that 500+ page book are white american males. How does that work out? Whats in their genes? Its all throughout history. Cant be a coincidence right. Just like with Africans and crime. No double standards please.

Personally i dont think that race or genes are involved in any of this.
Azure9920 wrote: The Holocaust wasn't motivated by racism in the sense that it targeted White people almost exclusively,
Jews werent considered white or european. They were the lowest scum on earth to the Nazis. You see how crazy racism can be.
Really, personally i have no use for it. Why judging a book by its cover? What is it supposed to be good for?
Even if there were races, whats the purpose of valuing humans in different categories (cause thats everything that racism is about at the and of the day)?
The only reasons for it are: To justify oppression, exploitation and discrimination.
Really thats what its all about. That is what the "Non-PC" crowd is about. Thats all folks.
Everything that is not like the 50s, when Niggers knew their place and spics were working on the field is "PC".
Because the "politcally incorrect" truth is....Exactly what? Everybody go figure for yourself.

Motion
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 65
Joined: August 7th, 2009, 10:34 am
What city do you live in now?: Carrollton

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Motion » July 16th, 2010, 8:52 am

Azure9920 wrote: I don't directly blame race for the troubles found in Africa or even African Americans; I blame dysfunctional people...
I think it can be argued that this has more to do with the types of policies adopted by both Black-Americans and Africans. Both groups have a recent history of adopting socialistic approaches to development that in many ways has hampered them. Black-American leadership since the 60's has viewed welfare as the primary way to deal with poverty and since independence various post-colonial African governments have attached themselves to socialist/marxist approaches for developing their countries. Both groups should have put more emphasis on market oriented approaches for their development.

Black-Americans should be making business ownership,recycling Black dollars and better personal financial management the primary approach to dealing with poverty. Welfare should be viewed as secondary. African governments should adopt more market oriented and pro business policies combined with democratic reforms to develop their countries. Both groups have suffererd the negative results of puting too much focus on government to deal with poverty and development. To this day I still run into Africans who still think state run socialism is the way to go and Black-Americans who want government to solve every Black problem.

Azure9920
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2284
Joined: March 7th, 2008, 5:47 pm
What city do you live in now?: --

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Azure9920 » July 16th, 2010, 9:36 am

Sentenza wrote:People dont commit crimes.
Oh no?
Then you didnt comprehend it or you didnt read their conclusion:

People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.
That conclusion does not deny the existence of different groupings among the human population. An allele does not have to be individual to a certain race in order to be expressed differently, or in a different combination that separates those individuals from others. This is highly similar to "Lewontin’s Fallacy".
Yes there are pmany physical traits that are different from each other, that is evident. Behavioral criteria in ethnic groups are not determined by genes. Another "Non-PC" myth.
The Nigger is Dumb, the Jew is greedy, Asians like to smile, the white man is brave and so on. Continue the list for yourself.
See, now you're misrepresenting my argument by posting a bunch of illogical stereotypes and claiming that's what I'm presenting. How about the nearly 20% higher amount of testosterone found in people of African descent? That leads to earlier physical development and a higher degree of aggressiveness.
There are differences resulting from the adaption to the environment. However genetically these differences are so small that figuratively speaking there is not more difference between the two, then between a tall swedish guy with a big nose and green eyes and a small swedish guy with a small nose and blue eyes.
Absolutely incorrect and there is absolutely no basis for what you are saying. There is a high degree of expression that arises from the individual, but the differences between racial groupings is far more significant than within an individual ethnic group.
"Race is a social concept, not a scientific one," said Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corporation in Rockville, Md. "We all evolved in the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonized the world."
Actually, Africans and Whites/Asians evolved quite independently of one another.

The population that later became Sub-Saharan Africans first split off from the group and populated south and west Africa, while the other group remained in Africa for a while, later leaving via Saudi Arabia. It was not until around 60,000 years after the African group split from the Asian/White group that the group finally split, Asians populating east and Whites remaining in the Middle East/populating Europe. The more recent Asian/White split explains the closer cultural affinities of Whites and Asians compared to Africans, with Asians averaging near the top of the traits I mentioned earlier(gestation time, slower development, longer lifespan, etc), Whites hovering in the middle, slightly behind Asians and Blacks averaging toward the bottom of the list for those traits.

Image
Yes. There is slight variation in outside looks due to the adaption to the environment. Thats about it. A difference in intelligence and behaviour is not conclusively to be attributed to a certain group since there are way more factors influencing intelligence and behaviour than genes.
Okay, so variation is limited to physical characteristics, is it? How does that substantiate the difference in gestation time, IQ, the different levels of hormones, different rates of maturation, etc?
The idea that intellect had something to do with cranial capacity was – and to some people, still is – an attractive one, and generations of researchers tried to find new ways to measure brain size and shape, and match it with apparent intellectual performance. These experiments tended to prove that white people were cleverer than black people because they were bigger-brained.
You are aware there is a strong positive correlation(.44) between cognitive function and brain size, right? Asians average a cubic inch higher than Whites(amounting to roughly 100 million more brain cells), and Whites average roughly 4-500 million more brain cells than Blacks. Whites and Asians are also found at autopsy to have more brain surface folding than Blacks, as well as larger frontal lobes, the part of the brain used for self control and long term planning.
And so the whole, sorry, miserable story continues. These transparently silly and shameful "findings" were used to justify racial segregation in the American south, and to limit black youngsters' access to higher education. These limits, constraints and segregation laws continued well into the second half of the 20th century – well into Gould's lifetime, and mine.
It's interesting that these findings were used well into the second half of the 20th century when not a single study I've referenced is older than I am, and I'm certainly not that old. Perhaps Mr.Gould is referring to older, less scientific studies based on methods such as cranial stuffing, rather than magnetic resonance imaging and cell analysis.
Well then provide a source that supports your claim that you are right and geneticists are wrong.
Which claim in particular? The claims I am making are not my own, but rather those of respected geneticists and scientists in other fields. Attempting to pit me against "geneticists" does not work because many of the studies I reference are the work of geneticists.
Which are still too small and mixed to be able to speak of races. Thats the whole point.
Why is this the case for humans but no other species? We're all animals. Note that the difference between a Labrador and Wolf is as slight as the differences between human populations, yet that difference is responsible for a HUGE change in behavioral and physical traits, much as the small genetic differences between humans translate into noticeably different physical attributes and behavioral functions. There's no difference other than the "everyone's equal" spin people attempt to put on it.
Yea, because the genetic variations within a population are sometimes bigger then those between two populations meaning that theoretically a fellow belgian could genetically be closer related to someone from africa then to his neighbour.
Im gonna dig out where i read it again in a few days.
Theoretically, or they actually found an individual? Anyways, you go and find that article.
Russia has had a functioning state and a national identity long before the country had to rebuild itself.
A functioning government is the most efective tool to prevent crime. In Europes medieval societies where it was difficult to enforce laws crime and murder was through the roof, also because of poverty.
In the modern era, Russia has long suffered from corruption and a failed state, particularly from the mid 80's to late 90's, when the country was undergoing the transition I mentioned earlier. Obviously a strong central government and respected police force are huge deterrents to crime, hence the Somali/Congo example I posted earlier.
It is not surprising, that those african countries which have less of these problems are doing bettern then others.
South Africa has an enormous crime rate, but also considerable economic growth since Apartheid was ended.
Reason for the high crime rate is a high level of unemployment, that has also been caused by many blacks being held away from education systematically and now not being qualified enough for todays job market.
Rape, one of the crimes South Africa is infamous for, is not a crime that has been conclusively linked to poverty in any study I've ever read. Nor is murder, another crime South Africa tops the charts for. Their high rates of violence against tourists and car theft are explainable by this theory though. During apartheid, corruption was lower, and the country had a unified, respected police force that properly handled criminals; now it does not, and the democratic government is so overburden with bureaucratic BS that it takes months or even years to get something as simple as a drivers license renewal; this partly explains the massive upsurge in criminal activity following the transition to democracy.
Doesnt look like a failure to me, but more like substantial economic growth. Now fasten your seatbelts: Under Black governing. :shock:
I hate to burst your bubble, but the country is still run by White people. Jake Zuma might be Black, but the people who control the banks, media, major corporations, etc, etc, etc, etc, are still from the 10% minority.
I was talking about the white people involved. The drug cartels, the militias and lets expand it to genocides committed on people. Really. The worst genocides have been committed by white people. The Holocaust, the Holodomor, Slavery, the extinction of native american tribes, the gulags in Russia, two world wars and the list goes on and on. I have an encyclopedia about serial killers. Half of that 500+ page book are white american males. How does that work out? Whats in their genes? Its all throughout history. Cant be a coincidence right. Just like with Africans and crime. No double standards please.
The drug cartels emerged out of circumstance; South America happens to be the only place that the worlds most popular drug can be produced. Result of genetics? No more so than than the wars between rebels in Africa or Asia over diamonds or any other resource. In a sense, the pillaging of North America, etc, can be linked to genetic affinities of Whites simply because the combination of traits that distinguish them from other sub-groupings allowed them to build an advanced culture capable of producing weaponry, etc that was required for the slaughter of Native Americans.
Jews werent considered white or european. They were the lowest scum on earth to the Nazis. You see how crazy racism can be.
Well, the Nazi's weren't exactly the most racially enlightened people on earth, were they? Hell, Hitler considered Germans to be Aryans, while subsequently destroying a people that are quite similar to the real Aryan peoples.
Really, personally i have no use for it. Why judging a book by its cover? What is it supposed to be good for?
Even if there were races, whats the purpose of valuing humans in different categories (cause thats everything that racism is about at the and of the day)?
Because there are substantial differences between different groups found within the human population?

What is the purpose of obstructing scientific advancement to perpetrate the myth that all people are created equal?

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Sentenza » July 19th, 2010, 12:52 pm

Azure9920 wrote: That conclusion does not deny the existence of different groupings among the human population. An allele does not have to be individual to a certain race in order to be expressed differently, or in a different combination that separates those individuals from others. This is highly similar to "Lewontin’s Fallacy".
The problem is, that neither you or any of your quoted geneticists can present a consistent definiton of the term race.
Almost all populations have overlapping traits and they blend into each other, making it impossible to distinguish genuine groups. Hell there are even Europeans with Sickle Cell anemia.
As a biological rather than a social construct, “race” has ceased to be seen as a fundamental reality characterizing the human species. Nevertheless, there appear from time to time claims that racial categories represent not arbitrary socially and historically defined groups but objective biological divisions based on genetic differences.
[...]
This imprecision in assigning the proportion of variation assigned to differences among population within ”races” as compared to variation among “races,” arises precisely because there is no objective way to assign the various human populations to clear-cut races. Into which “race” do the Hindi and Urdu speakers of the Indian sub-continent fall? Should they be grouped with Europeans or with Asians or should a separate race be assigned to them? Are the Lapps of Finland and the Hazari of Afghanistan really Europeans or Asians? What about Indonesians and Melanesians? Different biologists have made different assignments and the number of “races” assigned by anthropologists and geneticists has varied from 3 to 30.
Humanity does not fit into separated boxes. That is false, simple and plain.
Or like a geneticist said who also shares your opinion: "I firmly believe that human races exist and they are varyingly intelligent, we can not prove that yet, but i believe some day in the future we will."
At least he was honest about the situation right now.
Azure9920 wrote: See, now you're misrepresenting my argument by posting a bunch of illogical stereotypes and claiming that's what I'm presenting. How about the nearly 20% higher amount of testosterone found in people of African descent? That leads to earlier physical development and a higher degree of aggressiveness.
I dont know what your view on this is, you havent expressed it so far. But i do know that that is exactly what 99.9% of all people who believe in races think. Of course it all leads to "one race is superior" and it has the right and the duty to rule over all others by all means necessary.
That is what racism has brought to this planet so far. Why should it be different in the future?
As for the testosterone...What about this:
Although several studies have suggested that African-American men have higher serum testosterone levels than white men, these differences were noted only in men 40 years of age or younger. As was noted in our study, after age 40, African-American and white men have comparable serum testosterone levels.
Azure9920 wrote: Absolutely incorrect and there is absolutely no basis for what you are saying. There is a high degree of expression that arises from the individual, but the differences between racial groupings is far more significant than within an individual ethnic group.
Negative. The differences within a population are bigger.
The large majority of observed genetic variation occurs within a population in any geographic region and not between populations in different regions, although it is still usually possible to accurately identify the geographic origins of any individual's ancestors by genetic means.
85% of all variations are within a population.
The geographical maps of principal component values constructed by Cavalli, Menozzi and Piazza in their famous The History and Geography of Human Genes show continuous variation over the whole world with no sharp boundaries and with no greater similarity occurring between Western and Eastern Europeans than between Europeans and Africans!
Azure9920 wrote: Okay, so variation is limited to physical characteristics, is it? How does that substantiate the difference in gestation time, IQ, the different levels of hormones, different rates of maturation, etc?
Rates of maturation have always differed, also in Europe. This has to do with the average life expectation (in socities with low life expectation people need to reproduce earlier) and also nutrition. In Europe the maturation rates have also changed over the last centuries.
In Europe and America, and probably in other cultures, the average age at which a girl first menstruates has gradually declined in recent historical times, the possible reasons being better nutrition and health (but see below).
http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm

The IQ difference has never been proven to be hereditary. IQ is heavily influenced by the environment and the way you are brought up, even supporters of the Hereditarian IQ Theory acknowledge that. The highest IQ can be messed up by your upbringing and vice versa. For example:
In the mid-1970s, for example, the Soviet psychologist Alexander Luria concluded that it was impossible to devise an IQ test to assess peasant communities in Russia because taxonomy was alien to their way of reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

That doesnt mean that Russians are stupid. They have some of the greatest geniuses in the world as we know.
Btw. with growing development the IQ of Africans is rising. Same applies to other third world places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Azure9920 wrote: You are aware there is a strong positive correlation(.44) between cognitive function and brain size, right? Asians average a cubic inch higher than Whites(amounting to roughly 100 million more brain cells), and Whites average roughly 4-500 million more brain cells than Blacks. Whites and Asians are also found at autopsy to have more brain surface folding than Blacks, as well as larger frontal lobes, the part of the brain used for self control and long term planning.
I am aware, that this theory exists, but i am also aware that its wrong. The Neandertal man had a considerably larger brain then Homo Sapiens. But he was less intelligent and died out.
Interestingly, the brain size (based on cranial capacity) of Neandertal man was actually larger than average for that of modern man, though this is rarely emphasized. Anthropologists have long attempted to correlate brain size with intelligence and some have even biased their measurements of cranial capacity in an apparent effort to down-grade the intelligence of “less favored” races, such as blacks and Indians (see The Mismeasure of Man by evolutionist Steven J. Gould, W.W. Norton & Company, 1981).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 8-2000.asp
Azure9920 wrote: Why is this the case for humans but no other species? We're all animals. Note that the difference between a Labrador and Wolf is as slight as the differences between human populations, yet that difference is responsible for a HUGE change in behavioral and physical traits, much as the small genetic differences between humans translate into noticeably different physical attributes and behavioral functions. There's no difference other than the "everyone's equal" spin people attempt to put on it.
After all, lots of animal and plant species are divided into races, so why not Homo sapiens? Yet the classification of animal and plant species into named races was at all times an ill-defined and idiosyncratic practice. There was no clear criterion of what constituted a race of animals or plants that could be applied over species in general. The growing realization in the middle of the twentieth century that most species had some genetic differentiation from local population to local population led finally to the abandonment in biology of any hope that a uniform criterion of race could be constructed. Yet biologists were loathe to abandon the idea of race entirely. In an attempt to hold on to the concept while make it objective and generalizable, Th. Dobzhansky, the leading biologist in the study of the genetics of natural populations, introduced the “geographical race,” which he defined as any population that differed genetically in any way from any other population of the species. But as genetics developed and it became possible to characterize the genetic differences between individuals and populations it became apparent, that every population of every species in fact differs genetically to some degree from every other population. Thus, every population is a separate “geographic race” and it was realized that nothing was added by the racial category. The consequence of this realization was the abandonment of “race” as a biological category during the last quarter of the twentieth century, an abandonment that spread into anthropology and human biology.
Azure9920 wrote:
Theoretically, or they actually found an individual? Anyways, you go and find that article.
Its german, ill have to translate. Gonna do it later.
Azure9920 wrote: During apartheid, corruption was lower, and the country had a unified, respected police force that properly handled criminals; .
During Apartheid the people whose country it was were systematically tortured and oppressed and South Africa was less developed then it is nowadays. Ask any black down there if he wants Apartheid back in exchange for less crime. I highly doubt you'll get positive answers.
Azure9920 wrote: I hate to burst your bubble, but the country is still run by White people. Jake Zuma might be Black, but the people who control the banks, media, major corporations, etc, etc, etc, etc, are still from the 10% minority.
You didnt burst it. All policy and econmical decisions are made by black folks. This allows an economy to grow or not to grow.
Azure9920 wrote: The drug cartels emerged out of circumstance; South America happens to be the only place that the worlds most popular drug can be produced. Result of genetics? No more so than than the wars between rebels in Africa or Asia over diamonds or any other resource. In a sense, the pillaging of North America, etc, can be linked to genetic affinities of Whites simply because the combination of traits that distinguish them from other sub-groupings allowed them to build an advanced culture capable of producing weaponry, etc that was required for the slaughter of Native Americans.
I am amazed at how many excuses and explanations you have when its about white people, but when its about blacks, its all in the Genes, no further explanation needed.
Azure9920 wrote: Well, the Nazi's weren't exactly the most racially enlightened people on earth, were they? Hell, Hitler considered Germans to be Aryans, while subsequently destroying a people that are quite similar to the real Aryan peoples.
That shows us how random concepts of race are. Races are what you believe they are. On a sidenote, North Americans were watered down half breeds to the Nazis aswell. They also measured skulls and brain size.
Azure9920 wrote: Because there are substantial differences between different groups found within the human population?

What is the purpose of obstructing scientific advancement to perpetrate the myth that all people are created equal?
I dont know, you are doing that.
The "substantial" differences are between a plethora of populations on this planet (some go as far as saying that there are 6 Billion races). None of it has been proven to be related with Intelligence or behaviour. Its all speculation. Also, if you wouldnt be planning on judging people by race you wouldnt insist on its existance. You simply wouldnt care. You can spot racists like that, its a guaranteed hit.
The next step is judging, separating, oppressing, killing. In that order. This is how it went in history every single time.
Like i said, Racism is like a religion, cant argue with it, people need it like they need air to breathe. That also explains why poor people most of the times are the worst racists (West Virginia e.g.).
Even if you are a failure in life, you are still white and somehow entitled to something and that Nigger and Wetback is below you. Again, thats what its all about.
It doesnt take superior technology to kill people (like native americans as you said) but also a murderous ideology, like Nazism, Fascism, Communism or Racism. Its all part of the same dysfunctional personality and insane human mind.

Azure9920
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2284
Joined: March 7th, 2008, 5:47 pm
What city do you live in now?: --

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Azure9920 » July 19th, 2010, 3:06 pm

Sentenza wrote:The problem is, that neither you or any of your quoted geneticists can present a consistent definiton of the term race.
Almost all populations have overlapping traits and they blend into each other, making it impossible to distinguish genuine groups. Hell there are even Europeans with Sickle Cell anemia.
Incorrect. Just because certain traits aren't exclusive to a single race(very few traits would be indigenous to a single cluster, seeing as we're all humans), however certain combinations of inheritable traits and allele expressions form the basis of what we refer to as "race". You seem to be under the impression that in order for there to be any difference in grouping there has to be a different species, which is obviously not the case.

Note that sickle cell anemia follows the historical distribution of malaria, including the Middle East and Southern Europe; of course they would possess the trait.
Into which “race” do the Hindi and Urdu speakers of the Indian sub-continent fall? Should they be grouped with Europeans or with Asians or should a separate race be assigned to them?
Indians are largely a mixture of Caucasian and Mongoloid people(not surprising given their location), with a top-down spread of Caucasoid/Mongoloid background(IE, those of higher castes have a higher degree of European ancestry, decreasing as you go down in castes)
Humanity does not fit into separated boxes. That is false, simple and plain.
Yeah, everybody is the same and there aren't any differences between people of different ethnic groups. It's all the racist media that makes us believe that people can be different.
Although several studies have suggested that African-American men have higher serum testosterone levels than white men, these differences were noted only in men 40 years of age or younger. As was noted in our study, after age 40, African-American and white men have comparable serum testosterone levels.
Not surprisingly, most crime in the United States is committed by males between the ages of 15-30 ish. This coincides with the early physical development of Black children and the later decrease in testosterone to levels equal to Caucasians.
Negative. The differences within a population are bigger.
Again you find yourself falling for the incorrect assumptions of Lewontin. Not all genomes are equal, for example many are completely blank and have no contribution to the physical makeup of a human.

The geographical maps of principal component values constructed by Cavalli, Menozzi and Piazza in their famous The History and Geography of Human Genes show continuous variation over the whole world with no sharp boundaries and with no greater similarity occurring between Western and Eastern Europeans than between Europeans and Africans!
I don't know who is responsible for this erroneous quote, however the bolded portion of the above quote is a complete lie, and the book the author quotes says absolutely nothing of the sort.

Wait, it appears that quote comes from Lewontin again. In fact, here's a real quote from the work:
All methods show a somewhat greater difference between Africans and non-Africans
I suggest you read Lewontin's Fallacy, it explains the errors made by Lewontin much better than I can.

http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf
Rates of maturation have always differed, also in Europe. This has to do with the average life expectation (in socities with low life expectation people need to reproduce earlier) and also nutrition. In Europe the maturation rates have also changed over the last centuries.
Sure, as society advances things like lifespan and rates of maturation will alter. Does that explain why African newborns are able to hold their heads up almost right away after birth, whereas White and Asian children take up to 6-8 weeks to develop to that point? 51% of Black children are born by week 39 of pregnancy, whereas only 33% of White and Asian children are. These Black babies are not born premature, but rather they develop much sooner in the womb. Black children begin walking earlier than White or Asian children, develop bone structure and begin permanent dental development as much as 2 years before White children. This early development carries on through ought the rest of development, with Black children reaching sexual maturity much sooner than White or Asian children as well.

Coincidentally, for all of those featured traits( all influenced by genetic heritability rather than differences in social upbringing) , Black children develop first, followed by White children and finally Asians, who develop the slowest.
In Europe and America, and probably in other cultures, the average age at which a girl first menstruates has gradually declined in recent historical times, the possible reasons being better nutrition and health (but see below).
http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm[/quote]

In Europe and America the average age at which a Black girl first menstruates is almost a year before that of White girls.
The median age at which black
female adolescents begin to menstruate is earlier (12.06
years of age) than the median age for Hispanic (12.25
years of age) and non-Hispanic white (12.55 years of
age) females
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg ... 5/2245.pdf
The IQ difference has never been proven to be hereditary. IQ is heavily influenced by the environment and the way you are brought up, even supporters of the Hereditarian IQ Theory acknowledge that. The highest IQ can be messed up by your upbringing and vice versa.
Have you heard of the Minnesota Transracial adoption study? It addresses human variability by examining twins in order to determine the influence of heritability and environment on IQ. I suggest you look into it.
I am aware, that this theory exists, but i am also aware that its wrong. The Neandertal man had a considerably larger brain then Homo Sapiens. But he was less intelligent and died out.
The Neanderthal didn't die out because they were less intelligent than homo sapiens, they died out because of an inability to communicate, among other reasons not linked to the size of their cranium. In fact, prior to a certain point in the development of Homo Sapiens, the Neanderthal had more advanced stone tools and art, however Homo Sapiens were able to communicate to each other in groups(a critical skill for hunting game) and quickly exceeded the Neanderthal.
During Apartheid the people whose country it was were systematically tortured and oppressed and South Africa was less developed then it is nowadays. Ask any black down there if he wants Apartheid back in exchange for less crime. I highly doubt you'll get positive answers.
Well its the Blacks committing the crimes, so no, I doubt they would appreciate their free reign over the country being taken away.
You didnt burst it. All policy and econmical decisions are made by black folks. This allows an economy to grow or not to grow.
No they aren't.
The "substantial" differences are between a plethora of populations on this planet (some go as far as saying that there are 6 Billion races). None of it has been proven to be related with Intelligence or behaviour.
You can continue to quote people who are shown to be incorrect in their assumptions and believe that all you'd like, that doesn't give it a single shred of truth, and don't be surprised when people call you an idiot for refusing to believe irrefutable proof that links genetic heritability and human behavior.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Sentenza » July 19th, 2010, 4:04 pm

Azure9920 wrote:
You can continue to quote people who are shown to be incorrect in their assumptions and believe that all you'd like, that doesn't give it a single shred of truth, and don't be surprised when people call you an idiot for refusing to believe irrefutable proof that links genetic heritability and human behavior.
Nobody ever called me an idiot about this, except for racist idiots. Which tells me im on the right path.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Sentenza » July 19th, 2010, 4:45 pm

Look man, to put this useless discussion to an end...
You have your bunch of theories that you want to believe in. Black people are less intelligent at average you say and you wanna judge them before even knowing if the individual in front of you has a higher IQ then you and is a good person. You cant know that, even if you go by your own - racist- theories. Maybe the guy in front of you doesnt have a higher testosterone level and is less aggressiv then you. You dont know it, but you prefer to judge before having seen a thing. You insist on it. Of course you do, cause you wanna be above them before even knowing them. Maybe that dude in front of you is a fucking rocket scientist, but you insist on putting him into a box, without having the slightest clues about his genetic makeup, his intelligence, his spirit.
Of course you are West Virginian in spirit and Canadian by your passport, no matter how much you hide behind shoddy science which you call up to date. Im not arguing with you about this anymore, because im not trying to tell a medieval pope that the world is not flat. Everybody is entitled to believe what he wants.
You said you are not that old. Maybe you are studying or you studied. Maybe my black Cousin in Canada who is a PHD and teaching there gave you some homework to do and helped educating you. We never know. And you always should make sure that you are down to earth, cause the harder they come, the harder they fall.

Azure9920
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2284
Joined: March 7th, 2008, 5:47 pm
What city do you live in now?: --

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Azure9920 » July 19th, 2010, 7:26 pm

Believing that the human race can be divided into individual groups has nothing to do with anything that you're saying.

You can keep your head up your ass and I'll stick to legitimate scientific inquiry.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Sentenza » July 20th, 2010, 4:55 pm

Azure9920 wrote:Believing that the human race can be divided into individual groups has nothing to do with anything that you're saying.

You can keep your head up your ass and I'll stick to legitimate scientific inquiry.
The need for racist theories doesnt grow out of scientific curiosity, it stems from a ignorant attitude. From a supremacist attitude.
You go and tuck your tail and scream "unfair" at me. But then please explain why you wanna judge people by the qaulity of their race and how you imagine that has to mirror in the real world.
I am assuming: You are gonna talk around it again. You are not "politically incorrect" enough to speak your mind openly, just like most people from that crowd.

So go ahead. Most of your science is outdated or are minority opinions. Go ahead and stick to that. You can also believe that the earth is a disc. Im sure you will find a scientist backing that up.

Btw. Did you know that the average IQ of Africans (in Africa) nowadays is about the same as that of the Netherlands in the 50's and all of Europe in the 1920's?
The scientists point out that the average African IQ is currently comparable to the average level in the Netherlands around 1950. However, IQ scores in Western countries have risen sharply over the course of the 20th century. In view of this trend, Wicherts and his colleagues claim there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that sub-Saharan countries are poor due to the lower IQ scores of their populations. As it turns out, the average IQ of African adults is seeing a similar rising trend, which is expected to continue if living conditions in Africa improve in future.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 155220.htm

Now what happened, did their brains grow or did education improve?

No:
This was the discovery by James Flynn that IQ in the developed world seemed to be rising at the rate of 10 points per generation. Flynn had simply given old intelligence tests to new children. His results showed that an average child in 1918 had an IQ of 85 or lower, whereas an average contemporary child would have an IQ of 100 or higher. But this did not really mean that within a few years we would be bumping into waves of Aristotles, Kants and Newtons on the street. It meant that the results of IQ tests are linked to educational and cultural factors.

IQ is not an absolute measurement, true at all times in all places.
It is culturally determined; it measures the ability of an individual to function within the culture that is setting the test. In these terms, it is an amazingly accurate indicator of success in life for inhabitants of the rich nations. Conversely, an entirely African IQ test would probably show Africans were the most intelligent people in the world.
http://bappleyard.blogspot.com/2006/11/ ... africa.php

And also did you know that male brains are bigger then female brains, but both have about the same results in IQ tests?
And that Dolphins have the biggest brains in relation to their body size but are not the most intelligent species on earth?
And did you know that African IQs are improving year by year, especially in the US, especially in the last 30 years when african-americans got access to higher education, which is what the Non-PC crowd hates so much?

You stick to legitimate scientific inquiry, well then stick to this:
All Brains Are the Same Color

Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q. differential is indirect. There is, for example, the evidence that brain size is correlated with intelligence, and that blacks have smaller brains than whites. But the brain size difference between men and women is substantially greater than that between blacks and whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
Likewise, a group of people in a community in Ecuador have a genetic anomaly that produces extremely small head sizes — and hence brain sizes. Yet their intelligence is as high as that of their unaffected relatives.

During World War II, both black and white American soldiers fathered children with German women. Thus some of these children had 100 percent European heritage and some had substantial African heritage. Tested in later childhood, the German children of the white fathers were found to have an average I.Q. of 97, and those of the black fathers had an average of 96.5, a trivial difference.

If European genes conferred an advantage, we would expect that the smartest blacks would have substantial European heritage. But when a group of investigators sought out the very brightest black children in the Chicago school system and asked them about the race of their parents and grandparents, these children were found to have no greater degree of European ancestry than blacks in the population at large.

The closest thing to direct evidence that the hereditarians have is a study from the 1970s showing that black children who had been adopted by white parents had lower I.Q.’s than those of mixed-race children adopted by white parents. But, as the researchers acknowledged, the study had many flaws; for instance, the black children had been adopted at a substantially later age than the mixed-race children, and later age at adoption is associated with lower I.Q.

A superior adoption study — and one not discussed by the hereditarians — was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist Elsie Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by middle-class families, either black or white, and found no difference in I.Q. between the black and mixed-race children. Most telling is Dr. Moore’s finding that children adopted by white families had I.Q.’s 13 points higher than those of children adopted by black families.

That environment can markedly influence I.Q. is demonstrated by the so-called Flynn Effect. James Flynn, a philosopher and I.Q. researcher in New Zealand, has established that in the Western world as a whole, I.Q. increased markedly from 1947 to 2002. In the United States alone, it went up by 18 points. Our genes could not have changed enough over such a brief period to account for the shift; it must have been the result of powerful social factors. And if such factors could produce changes over time for the population as a whole, they could also produce big differences between subpopulations at any given time.

In fact, we know that the I.Q. difference between black and white 12-year-olds has dropped to 9.5 points from 15 points in the last 30 years — a period that was more favorable for blacks in many ways than the preceding era. Black progress on the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows equivalent gains. Reading and math improvement has been modest for whites but substantial for blacks.
Btw. i looked something else up. Your front lobe Theory is pretty old. As a matter of fact its from 1906. That is also what i expected. Funny stuff. Now go ahead and call it pc again. Thats pretty much all you have left.

On the peculiarities of the Negro brain
http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/20 ... gro-brain/

Azure9920
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2284
Joined: March 7th, 2008, 5:47 pm
What city do you live in now?: --

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Azure9920 » July 20th, 2010, 10:27 pm

Sentenza wrote:Now go ahead and call it pc again. Thats pretty much all you have left.
You say that when you clearly just dodged a post containing scientific basis for my claims that you were obviously unable to reply to. I guess you were only done with that part of the argument.

Why don't you actually look into subjects before pretending to be an expert?

Azure9920
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2284
Joined: March 7th, 2008, 5:47 pm
What city do you live in now?: --

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Azure9920 » July 20th, 2010, 10:34 pm

Sentenza wrote:And also did you know that male brains are bigger then female brains, but both have about the same results in IQ tests?
The average brain volume of people European in background is 1273.6cc for men, ranging from 1052.9 to 1498.5cc, and 1131.1cc for women, ranging from 974.9 to 1398.1cc.

But do males and females score equivalently on IQ tests?
In this study we found that 17- to 18-year old males averaged 3.63 IQ points higher than did their female counterparts on the
1991 Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). We analysed 145 item responses from 46,509 males and 56,007 females (total
N=102,516) using a principal components procedure


http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushto ... ushton.pdf

No, they don't.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Sentenza » July 22nd, 2010, 2:59 pm

Azure9920 wrote:
Sentenza wrote:Now go ahead and call it pc again. Thats pretty much all you have left.
You say that when you clearly just dodged a post containing scientific basis for my claims that you were obviously unable to reply to. I guess you were only done with that part of the argument.

Why don't you actually look into subjects before pretending to be an expert?
Man, i'm not an expert on genetics. Just like you arent. You posted flawed studies and left points unanswered that i presented to you that didnt fit into your concept. I dont understand the Human Genome either. Im relying on what the scientists present to me. And even more importantly, my argument is a moral one.
As i said, racism has solely led to genocide, oppression and slaughter. It didnt serve any other purpose and never will. Thats why i reject it. Even if some day people would prove that blacks/native americans etc. are dumb i wouldnt care. Those i know arent. A homie of mine is native from Ecuador, studying politics, he studied with me. He looks like fucking Montezuma. Is he stupid? Nope. I got black and arab family. Both have members which are highly educated former or current university teachers.
What kind of man would i be not sticking to my family? A fucking traitor. What kind of man would i be acknowledging an ideology (racism) that has caused nothing but suffering and bloodshed? A fucking stupidass whimp. A supremacist asshole of the 50's(40's in Germany) Miss me with that shit.
All major scientific studies support my thesis and reject racism genetically. You made some points, but there are more that you couldnt disprove, that you simply avoided. It doesnt surprise me, cause when an ideologue is confronted with facts that blow up his ideology he wont take notice of them. Its lunacy. Racism is the cornerstone of supremacists mindset, designed to cause murder, mayhem and oppression no matter which color of skin the respective racist has. (black, white, yellow, i dont give a shit)

About your example about brain size. Yea dolphins and porpoises are the most intelligent species on earth. (Not mentioning whales which all have bigger brains then humans). It just doesnt work.

Azure9920
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2284
Joined: March 7th, 2008, 5:47 pm
What city do you live in now?: --

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Azure9920 » July 24th, 2010, 10:00 am

Sentenza wrote:You posted flawed studies
You couldn't give a logical explanation for any of those studies being flawed if your life depended on it. Your biggest argument against them isn't a scientific challenge, but a question of the morals behind the study; which doesn't disprove the information.
Even if some day people would prove that blacks/native americans etc. are dumb i wouldnt care.
That's nice, but that's not even the discussion we're having here. We're talking about genes and how they affect human behavior. Yes, certain genes directly or indirectly affect intelligence, and those genes are expressed differently in different groups of people, but the point of those MRI scans isn't to prove that people of African ancestry are dumb.
All major scientific studies support my thesis and reject racism genetically.
Absolutely incorrect. Please don't make wide, generalizing statements that you couldn't even come close to possibly proving. Not all scientific studies agree with you, and its a stupid claim to make in a thread in which I posted studies that support my claims that genes affect human behavior. Also, quit trying to drag racism into this as a saving point for your failing arguments; labeling someone a racist doesn't scientifically refute the information he presents, in fact that sort of thinking is frowned upon in academic circles.
You made some points, but there are more that you couldnt disprove, that you simply avoided.
Such as? The parts of your posts I deleted were off topic rambling that I didn't feel the need to reply to. For example, I cut out this babble here:
t doesnt surprise me, cause when an ideologue is confronted with facts that blow up his ideology he wont take notice of them. Its lunacy. Racism is the cornerstone of supremacists mindset, designed to cause murder, mayhem and oppression no matter which color of skin the respective racist has. (black, white, yellow, i dont give a shit)
Know why? Because it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
About your example about brain size. Yea dolphins and porpoises are the most intelligent species on earth. (Not mentioning whales which all have bigger brains then humans). It just doesnt work.
And again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge. Larger brains are required to control larger bodies, hence why whales have large brains. HOWEVER, whales and dolphins(along with just about every other animal) have smaller brains in proportion to body size compared to humans. However, despite their large brain mass, dolphins and whales have next to no cellular development in the frontal lobe(remember the discussion we had about this?) As well, these animals have a very undeveloped neocortex, which played a pivotal role in how humans evolved to the point we are at today.

NOW, unless you're going to argue that Black people have non-human brain structure, which arguably sounds a lot more racist than anything I've ever said - then your brain size/intelligence theory doesn't hold up.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Sentenza » July 24th, 2010, 4:33 pm

Azure9920 wrote:
Sentenza wrote:You posted flawed studies
You couldn't give a logical explanation for any of those studies being flawed if your life depended on it. Your biggest argument against them isn't a scientific challenge, but a question of the morals behind the study; which doesn't disprove the information.
Even if some day people would prove that blacks/native americans etc. are dumb i wouldnt care.
That's nice, but that's not even the discussion we're having here. We're talking about genes and how they affect human behavior. Yes, certain genes directly or indirectly affect intelligence, and those genes are expressed differently in different groups of people, but the point of those MRI scans isn't to prove that people of African ancestry are dumb.
All major scientific studies support my thesis and reject racism genetically.
Absolutely incorrect. Please don't make wide, generalizing statements that you couldn't even come close to possibly proving. Not all scientific studies agree with you, and its a stupid claim to make in a thread in which I posted studies that support my claims that genes affect human behavior. Also, quit trying to drag racism into this as a saving point for your failing arguments; labeling someone a racist doesn't scientifically refute the information he presents, in fact that sort of thinking is frowned upon in academic circles.
You made some points, but there are more that you couldnt disprove, that you simply avoided.
Such as? The parts of your posts I deleted were off topic rambling that I didn't feel the need to reply to. For example, I cut out this babble here:
t doesnt surprise me, cause when an ideologue is confronted with facts that blow up his ideology he wont take notice of them. Its lunacy. Racism is the cornerstone of supremacists mindset, designed to cause murder, mayhem and oppression no matter which color of skin the respective racist has. (black, white, yellow, i dont give a shit)
Know why? Because it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
About your example about brain size. Yea dolphins and porpoises are the most intelligent species on earth. (Not mentioning whales which all have bigger brains then humans). It just doesnt work.
And again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge. Larger brains are required to control larger bodies, hence why whales have large brains. HOWEVER, whales and dolphins(along with just about every other animal) have smaller brains in proportion to body size compared to humans. However, despite their large brain mass, dolphins and whales have next to no cellular development in the frontal lobe(remember the discussion we had about this?) As well, these animals have a very undeveloped neocortex, which played a pivotal role in how humans evolved to the point we are at today.

NOW, unless you're going to argue that Black people have non-human brain structure, which arguably sounds a lot more racist than anything I've ever said - then your brain size/intelligence theory doesn't hold up.
Ok, i really believe now that you truly believe in what you are saying. Look man, the human brain size theory that you are trying to sell us has never been proven. Women have the same IQ as men even though they have a proporitonally smaller brain then any other race. German brains have turned out to be bigger then french brains, IQs are the same. Dont ask me for links i already provided them.
Dolphins have a bigger brain then humans IN RELATION TO THEIR BODY SIZE. They have proportionally the biggest brains on earth.
Europes IQ was the same as that of Africans nowadays a couple of decades ago, which impossibly couldnt be linked to genetics. Its linked to education. Your theories about genes and race are outsiders positions and some of them are terribly outdated and emerged even before the Nazis. You can repeat the opposite as much as you like, the idea of race has been widely abandoned. You have the links, im not gonna post them again and play your game. The studies i provided are by the most reknown geneticists worldwide and they explicitly abandon the term race. They say it in their conclusions over and over. All you held up against it was the bell curve which ahs been proven to be founded by right wing racists that wanted to see a certain result. Its been proven wrong man, by true scientists.
It doesnt stop you from believing in it, cause you already know what you want to believe in, no matter what the facts are and you avoid any further statements concerning that, cause you know you would end up in deep shit speaking your mind. So lets leave it at that. I am not bothered by your fairy tale believes. Its part of freedom of expression. But dont try to sell it to us as fact when you have nothing but fabricated studies that are rejected by the vast majority of scientists.
Im out.

Azure9920
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2284
Joined: March 7th, 2008, 5:47 pm
What city do you live in now?: --

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Azure9920 » July 25th, 2010, 9:54 am

Sentenza wrote:Ok, i really believe now that you truly believe in what you are saying. Look man, the human brain size theory that you are trying to sell us has never been proven.
Incorrect, countless studies have shown that the size of the brain(particularly certain parts of it) are positively correlated with intelligence. You simply saying that it isn't true doesn't deny the work of actual scientists.
Women have the same IQ as men even though they have a proporitonally smaller brain then any other race.
Didn't you just read that the average IQ of a woman is 3 deviation points lower than the average male?

Here's another one that states the same thesis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2006 ... t=Abstract

and another

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 27aa618223

German brains have turned out to be bigger then french brains, IQs are the same. Dont ask me for links i already provided them.
Actually, according to most averages I've seen, Germany is a few points ahead of France. Again, wrong; however the amount of deviance between individual nations within Europe is likely very minimal.
Dolphins have a bigger brain then humans IN RELATION TO THEIR BODY SIZE. They have proportionally the biggest brains on earth.
Actually no, you're wrong yet again. Bottlenose dolphins have the largest brain size of any cetecean, but their overall brain mass is only slightly larger than a humans, and they are much, much heavier than humans are. The brain mass to body size for a dolphin is roughly half that of the human.

Come on man, if you're going to emphasize a point, at least make sure its correct.
Europes IQ was the same as that of Africans nowadays a couple of decades ago, which impossibly couldnt be linked to genetics.
Obviously as society advances, the people will as well.
Your theories about genes and race are outsiders positions and some of them are terribly outdated and emerged even before the Nazis.
Incorrect, all of the information I have posted in this discussion has been from this generation(1980 - ), all substantiated by proper scientific inquiry at the hands of experts. Sorry, but simply saying that its not true, or incorrectly claiming that the information is outdated doesn't refute the information.
All you held up against it was the bell curve which ahs been proven to be founded by right wing racists that wanted to see a certain result. Its been proven wrong man, by true scientists.
Care to show me where I quoted the Bell Curve?

Come on man, quit being such an idiot. Just because you don't understand the studies posted doesn't mean they're fairy tales.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Sentenza » July 26th, 2010, 5:45 pm

Azure9920 wrote:
Incorrect, countless studies have shown that the size of the brain(particularly certain parts of it) are positively correlated with intelligence. You simply saying that it isn't true doesn't deny the work of actual scientists.
So why did the Neandertal man die out? Why are africans not more intelligent then white women?
Why have shrews the biggest brain in relation to their body size (10%, humans have 7.44))? (we were both worng)

Again, just for you:
But the brain size difference between men and women is substantially greater than that between blacks and whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
Likewise, a group of people in a community in Ecuador have a genetic anomaly that produces extremely small head sizes — and hence brain sizes. Yet their intelligence is as high as that of their unaffected relatives.
Im also gonna tell you what i think of IQ tests. Here is a little anecdote, do with it what you want.

They say East Asians score the highest in IQ Tests.
An old friend of mine worked for Siemens in Shanghai/China. He worked in human ressources. They had a saying go around there: "Even the most stupid german is smarter then the smartest chinese." Why? The chinese people there didnt have any
skills to lead a company or even a section of it. Not only that, they didnt have any skills at languages. They were able to recite the whole Oxford dictionary, but couldnt say a sentence grammatically correct. Every african fared better then that in language tests.
Those Chinese they allowed into leading positions caused desasters and were fired. The kind of intelligence they had was memorizing and reproducing and math/logic. That is what is tested in IQ tests too. That is what was trained to them during 70 something years of Communism.
They had no economic or leadership or social intelligence whatsoever. At Siemens in Shanghai, they introduced a 5 stepped hiring procedure just for chinese and asians, to make sure they wouldnt hire any failures again. Any other people, including africans, europeans and whoever else had a 2 stepped procedure. That is what the results of these tests look like in reality.
So basically they tell us nothing, because only certain parts of intelligence are tested. Its a great tool for racism, but no tool to evaluate reality.
Didn't you just read that the average IQ of a woman is 3 deviation points lower than the average male?

Here's another one that states the same thesis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2006 ... t=Abstract

and another

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 27aa618223
Same shit:
In a 2008 study[19] paid for by the National Science Foundation in the United States, researchers found that "girls perform as well as boys on standardized math tests. Although 20 years ago, high school boys performed better than girls in math, the researchers found that is no longer the case. The reason, they said, is simple: Girls used to take fewer advanced math courses than boys, but now they are taking just as many."
These days more girls then boys attend College and High Schools. How come?

College gender gap widens: 57% are women
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/ ... over_x.htm

The Gender Gap: Boys Lagging
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/ ... 7678.shtml


Azure9920 wrote: Actually, according to most averages I've seen, Germany is a few points ahead of France. Again, wrong; however the amount of deviance between individual nations within Europe is likely very minimal.
So why did the Netherlands in the 50's had the average IQ of Africans today? Did Dutch brains grow? Or does it have to do with development and education?
Azure9920 wrote: Actually no, you're wrong yet again. Bottlenose dolphins have the largest brain size of any cetecean, but their overall brain mass is only slightly larger than a humans, and they are much, much heavier than humans are. The brain mass to body size for a dolphin is roughly half that of the human.
See above.
Azure9920 wrote: Come on man, if you're going to emphasize a point, at least make sure its correct.
Its funny that YOU say that.
Azure9920 wrote: Obviously as society advances, the people will as well.
Wow. We are getting closer to the real point.
Azure9920 wrote: Incorrect, all of the information I have posted in this discussion has been from this generation(1980 - ), all substantiated by proper scientific inquiry at the hands of experts. Sorry, but simply saying that its not true, or incorrectly claiming that the information is outdated doesn't refute the information.
Except for the Front lobe theory (1906).
Some racial peculiarities of the Negro brain is the title of a long and technical paper by the anthropologist Robert Bennett Bean, published in the American Journal of Anatomy in 1906.

Bean took this as evidence of the intellectual inferiority of blacks. More importantly, the size of the genu reflects the relative sixe of the frontal lobes. And, because the frontal lobes are the seat of higher cognitive functions, and of intelligence, blacks must be intellectually inferior to whites.
Yep. Let me wipe the dust of your scientific inquiry.


Azure9920 wrote: Care to show me where I quoted the Bell Curve?
You did before. Good that you realized that its wrong.

viewtopic.php?p=8719544#p8719544

The first answer is the answer i should have given you too in the first place.
Azure9920 wrote: Come on man, quit being such an idiot. Just because you don't understand the studies posted doesn't mean they're fairy tales.
Quit being such a poor excuse for white people. Quit being the reason why white people look like such idiots all around the world. Quit being the reason why i can even understand it. Its embarrassing. Quit being part of the problem if you are near as intelligent as you claim.
Now go put up a burning cross in your front yard, some eeeevil blacks might want to burglarize your house and steal your Prussian Blue CDs.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Sentenza » July 26th, 2010, 6:08 pm

Azure9920 wrote:
Here's another one that states the same thesis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2006 ... t=Abstract

and another

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 27aa618223
One more thing. Both studies refer to the results of Richard Lynn.

He is pretty questionable too, just like your 1906 theory.

Well read for yourself:
Lynn's work on global racial differences in cognitive ability, mostly surveys, has been cited for misrepresenting the research of other scientists, and his work has been criticized for its associated measurement difficulties, distortion, and conclusions drawn from extremely poor and very limited samples.

For example, many of the data points in Lynn's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations were not based on residents of the named countries. The datum for Suriname was based on tests given to Surinamese who had emigrated to the Netherlands, and the datum for Ethiopia was based on the IQ scores of a highly selected group that had emigrated to Israel, and, for cultural and historical reasons, was hardly representative of the Ethiopian population. The datum for Mexico was based on a weighted averaging of the results of a study of “Native American and Mestizo children in Southern Mexico” with results of a study of residents of Argentina.[34]

The datum that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain.[35] Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ cohorts (the “Flynn” effect) on the assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved. While there appears to be rather little evidence on cohort effect upon IQ across the developing countries, one study in Kenya (Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, & Neumann, 2003) shows a substantially larger cohort effect than is reported for developed countries (p.?)[34]

In a critical review of The Bell Curve, psychologist Leon Kamin faulted Lynn for disregarding scientific objectivity, misrepresenting data, and for racism.[36] Kamin argues that the studies of cognitive ability of Africans in Lynn's meta-analysis cited by Herrnstein and Murray show strong cultural bias. Kamin also reproached Lynn for "concocting" IQ values from test scores that have no correlation to IQ.[37] Furthermore, Kamin argues Lynn selectively excluded a study that found no difference in White and Black performance, and ignored the results of a study which showed Black scores were higher than White scores.[38]

Journalist Charles Lane criticized Lynn's methodology in his New York Review of Books article "The Tainted Sources of 'The Bell Curve'" (1994),[39] to which then Pioneer Fund president Harry F. Weyher replied.[40]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn#Criticism

Flush it down the toilet. Just like the Bell Curve.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Sentenza » July 26th, 2010, 6:13 pm

The remaining studies cited by Lynn, and accepted as valid by Herrnstein and Murray, tell us little about African intelligence but do tell us something about Lynn's scholarship. One of the 11 entries in Lynn's table of the intelligence of "pure Negroids" indicates that 1,011 Zambians who were given the Progressive Matrices had a lamentably low average IQ of 75. The source for this quantitative claim is given as "Pons 1974; Crawford-Nutt 1976." A. L. Pons did test 1,011 Zambian copper miners, whose average number of correct responses was 34. Pons reported on this work orally; his data were summarized in tabular form in a paper by D. H. Crawford-Nutt. Lynn took the Pons data from Crawford-Nutt's paper and converted the number of correct responses into a bogus average "IQ" of 75. Lynn chose to ignore the substance of Crawford-Nutt's paper, which reported that 228 black high school students in Soweto scored an average of 45 correct responses on the Matrices--HIGHER than the mean of 44 achieved by the same-age white sample on whom the test's norms had been established and well above the mean of Owen's coloured pupils. Seven of the 11 studies selected by Lynn for inclusion in his "Negroid" table reported only average Matrices scores, not IQs; the other studies used tests clearly dependent on cultural content. Lynn had earlier, in a 1978 paper, summarized six studies of African pupils, most using the Matrices. The arbitrary IQs concocted by Lynn for those studies ranged between 75 and 88, with a median of 84. Five of those six studies were omitted from Lynn's 1991 summary, by which time African IQ had, in his judgment, plummeted to 69. Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity. Lynn is widely known among academics to be an associate editor of the racist journal "Mankind Quarterly" and a major recipient of financial support from the nativist, eugenically oriented Pioneer Fund. It is a matter of shame and disgrace that two eminent social scientists, fully aware of the sensitivity of the issues they address, take Lynn as their scientific tutor and uncritically accept his surveys of research.
http://web.archive.org/web/200710220439 ... llcrv.html

Sounds just like the way you try to debate.

Azure9920
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2284
Joined: March 7th, 2008, 5:47 pm
What city do you live in now?: --

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Azure9920 » July 26th, 2010, 6:54 pm

Sentenza wrote:So why did the Neandertal man die out? Why are africans not more intelligent then white women?
Why have shrews the biggest brain in relation to their body size (10%, humans have 7.44))? (we were both worng)
In a nutshell, the Neanderthal were unable to communicate with each other because they were unable to produce certain sounds in their vocal cords. In addition, climate changes in Europe caused much of their natural forested hunting grounds to convert into short grasslands, which prevented them from stalking prey(they were mostly carnivorous).
But the brain size difference between men and women is substantially greater than that between blacks and whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests. Likewise, a group of people in a community in Ecuador have a genetic anomaly that produces extremely small head sizes — and hence brain sizes. Yet their intelligence is as high as that of their unaffected relatives.
Brain size is not the sole determinant of intelligence, nor did I claim it as such; there are other factors involved obviously.

However, while the overall difference in brain size between a man and a woman is greater than that of a Black man and a White man, in proportion to body size this gap decreases significantly.
These days more girls then boys attend College and High Schools. How come?
That I would attribute to cultural factors in the United States rather than overall intelligence.
So why did the Netherlands in the 50's had the average IQ of Africans today? Did Dutch brains grow? Or does it have to do with development and education?
Education increases knowledge, not g or cognitive intelligence.
See above.
What? No matter what I look at, you're still incorrect.
Its funny that YOU say that.
Are you going to deny that your statement was entirely incorrect and foolish?
Except for the Front lobe theory (1906).
I never quoted Bennett Bean; his theories on the function of the frontal lobe, despite being somewhat on the right track, are outdated and incorrect. Nothing I say about the frontal lobe is quoted from his theory, but rather modern data collected by modern scientists using MODERN methods of inquiry. Just because someone had an idea 100 years ago, doesn't discount a slightly similar theory that is substantiated by science.
Quit being such a poor excuse for white people. Quit being the reason why white people look like such idiots all around the world. Quit being the reason why i can even understand it. Its embarrassing. Quit being part of the problem if you are near as intelligent as you claim.
Now go put up a burning cross in your front yard, some eeeevil blacks might want to burglarize your house and steal your Prussian Blue CDs.
So in the face of overwhelming evidence that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about you resort to childish interjections?

Clever.

OH! Another reply, excellent! It's rather unfortunate that you simply copy/paste without actually understanding the information contained, or without even having a general grasp of the study it is supposedly refuting. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd understand why Lynn chose to ignore the 1976 publication of Crawford/Nutt. In fact, he replies to it in the same response to Wicherts.

"A number of these studies have to be rejected as based on
clearly unrepresentative samples. These include five samples
of university students; Crawford Nutt's (1976) sample of high
school students (IQ 84) in math classes admission to which
“is dependent on the degree of excellence of the pupil's
performance in the lower classes” (p. 202) and described as “a
select segment of the population” (p. 204), and who were
coached on how to do the test; a sample of psychiatric
patients (IQ 86) because these had to pay fees, would have
been higher SES and are not a representative sample"

Azure9920
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2284
Joined: March 7th, 2008, 5:47 pm
What city do you live in now?: --

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Azure9920 » July 26th, 2010, 6:58 pm

Sentenza, I apologize if this is above your understanding;

MAOA (“monoamine oxidase A”), X Chromosome. This gene codes for an enzyme which sits on mitochondrial membranes in neurons and degrades several important neurotransmitters, including several believed to be important in the regulation of aggression and impulsivity. People with the short version of MAOA were found to be more violent and generally more antisocial than those with the long version.

(Source: Moran M.(Nov. 3, 2006). July still out on impact of genes on trial verdicts. Psychiatric News, 41(21):12)

"American black males are twice as likely than American white males to have MAOA-L which has been linked to crime, violence and aggression in scores of studies going back over fifteen years. Black males are also 13.5 times more likely to have a rare version of the gene associated with extreme violence and extreme aggression. Latinos and American Indians are also nearly twice as likely as whites to have the more common version of the gene. However they are only about one fourth as likely to have the extreme version compared to blacks. "

http://cofcc.org/2010/05/science-daily- ... al-abuse/

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Sentenza » July 28th, 2010, 4:42 pm

Azure9920 wrote:
In a nutshell, the Neanderthal were unable to communicate with each other because they were unable to produce certain sounds in their vocal cords. In addition, climate changes in Europe caused much of their natural forested hunting grounds to convert into short grasslands, which prevented them from stalking prey(they were mostly carnivorous).
It is good that you acknowledge, that your claim that brain size is linked to intelligence is wrong. Even though in other words.
Even geneticists do not know it. At best there are suspicions. Which you take for a fact. I can take the opposite as fact and you dont have more evidence then i do, but you claim to have it.
There are intelligence tests in which blacks scored better or equal to whites. There are test in which women scored better or equal to men. All that tells me that we dont know for sure what IQ tests measure at all and how they should work.
See my example from China.
They measure certain types of intelligence, but not intelligence as a whole. That is their biggest weakness and that is what makes them vulnerable to abuse by racist fucks like Lynn.
Azure9920 wrote: However, while the overall difference in brain size between a man and a woman is greater than that of a Black man and a White man, in proportion to body size this gap decreases significantly.
And its still there. You never explained why the IQ of Europeans was the same as that of Africans nowadays some 50 years ago? Why did it rise? Why did it rise dramatically? We are talking about at least 30-40 points.
Azure9920 wrote: That I would attribute to cultural factors in the United States rather than overall intelligence.
Ok, we are getting closer to it. Intelligence and the availability of education are linked to cultural factors.
Azure9920 wrote: Education increases knowledge, not g or cognitive intelligence
We are not talking about knowledge, but about IQ. Africans have the same as the Netherlands of the 50's at average.
All geneticists agree, that even though there is some genetic influence to it, it is heavily influenced by nutrition, education and your environment. That it is linked with popualtions is even more questionable, aside the fact, that 90% of geneticists still reject the term race.
That is why Europeans had the same IQ as that measured of africans these days. And the African IQ is rising by the decades. Another proven fact.
Azure9920 wrote: I never quoted Bennett Bean; his theories on the function of the frontal lobe, despite being somewhat on the right track, are outdated and incorrect. Nothing I say about the frontal lobe is quoted from his theory, but rather modern data collected by modern scientists using MODERN methods of inquiry. Just because someone had an idea 100 years ago, doesn't discount a slightly similar theory that is substantiated by science.
True. You didnt quote anyone. You just claimed it. Probably because you knew that this claim is highly questionable. Not to say clearly wrong.
Azure9920 wrote: So in the face of overwhelming evidence that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about you resort to childish interjections?

Clever.
I must have missed somehting between the biased studies that have a "scandalous disregard for scientific objecitivity". Where?
Azure9920 wrote: OH! Another reply, excellent! It's rather unfortunate that you simply copy/paste without actually understanding the information contained, or without even having a general grasp of the study it is supposedly refuting. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd understand why Lynn chose to ignore the 1976 publication of Crawford/Nutt. In fact, he replies to it in the same response to Wicherts.

"A number of these studies have to be rejected as based on
clearly unrepresentative samples. These include five samples
of university students; Crawford Nutt's (1976) sample of high
school students (IQ 84) in math classes admission to which
“is dependent on the degree of excellence of the pupil's
performance in the lower classes” (p. 202) and described as “a
select segment of the population” (p. 204), and who were
coached on how to do the test; a sample of psychiatric
patients (IQ 86) because these had to pay fees, would have
been higher SES and are not a representative sample"
It is amazing how audacious these racist fucks are. He used selective samples to make his points. I stated it above. Again:
The remaining studies cited by Lynn, and accepted as valid by Herrnstein and Murray, tell us little about African intelligence but do tell us something about Lynn's scholarship. One of the 11 entries in Lynn's table of the intelligence of "pure Negroids" indicates that 1,011 Zambians who were given the Progressive Matrices had a lamentably low average IQ of 75. The source for this quantitative claim is given as "Pons 1974; Crawford-Nutt 1976." A. L. Pons did test 1,011 Zambian copper miners, whose average number of correct responses was 34. Pons reported on this work orally; his data were summarized in tabular form in a paper by D. H. Crawford-Nutt. Lynn took the Pons data from Crawford-Nutt's paper and converted the number of correct responses into a bogus average "IQ" of 75. Lynn chose to ignore the substance of Crawford-Nutt's paper, which reported that 228 black high school students in Soweto scored an average of 45 correct responses on the Matrices--HIGHER than the mean of 44 achieved by the same-age white sample on whom the test's norms had been established and well above the mean of Owen's coloured pupils. Seven of the 11 studies selected by Lynn for inclusion in his "Negroid" table reported only average Matrices scores, not IQs; the other studies used tests clearly dependent on cultural content. Lynn had earlier, in a 1978 paper, summarized six studies of African pupils, most using the Matrices. The arbitrary IQs concocted by Lynn for those studies ranged between 75 and 88, with a median of 84. Five of those six studies were omitted from Lynn's 1991 summary, by which time African IQ had, in his judgment, plummeted to 69. Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity. Lynn is widely known among academics to be an associate editor of the racist journal "Mankind Quarterly" and a major recipient of financial support from the nativist, eugenically oriented Pioneer Fund. It is a matter of shame and disgrace that two eminent social scientists, fully aware of the sensitivity of the issues they address, take Lynn as their scientific tutor and uncritically accept his surveys of research.
And this guy has the nerve to accuse others of being subjective.
Btw. this beloved geneticist of yours also believes that Jews are a race. Does that ring a bell? You dont have to be german for this to ring a bell for you.

The MAOA-L thing is a funny joke. Aggression is linked to the absence of this Gene, not the existance. Even your "objective source" called "conservative Council of citizens" acknowledges that, even though they clearly dont understand they got it twisted and talk shit:
American black males are twice as likely than American white males to have MAOA-L which has been linked to crime, violence and aggression in scores of studies going back over fifteen years.
http://cofcc.org/2010/05/science-daily- ... ual-abuse/

Also, tell any geneticist, that there is a gene lniked to credit card debt. :lol: :lol:
Studies have linked the gene to increased levels of sexual violence, alcoholism, crime, and even higher levels of credit card debt.
Probably its also linked to parking tickets, stepping into dog shit and worshipping satan.
Also alcoholism is mostly prevalent in Europa and Russia. Blacks have nothing to do with it. They dont even come close. We rule that segment.
Complete absence of this gene, though rare in humans, has been linked to aggressive behaviour in men, and mice engineered to lack MAOA are also unusually aggressive.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8 ... lence.html

Another great example of how racists deal with science. They just state wrong facts and make them sound scientific.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Jobs & Crime Reduction

Unread post by Sentenza » July 28th, 2010, 5:14 pm

Sentenza wrote:
The MAOA-L thing is a funny joke. Aggression is linked to the absence of this Gene, not the existance. Even your "objective source" called "conservative Council of citizens" acknowledges that, even though they clearly dont understand they got it twisted and talk shit:
American black males are twice as likely than American white males to have MAOA-L which has been linked to crime, violence and aggression in scores of studies going back over fifteen years.
http://cofcc.org/2010/05/science-daily- ... ual-abuse/

Also, tell any geneticist, that there is a gene lniked to credit card debt. :lol: :lol:
Studies have linked the gene to increased levels of sexual violence, alcoholism, crime, and even higher levels of credit card debt.
Probably its also linked to parking tickets, stepping into dog shit and worshipping satan.
Also alcoholism is mostly prevalent in Europa and Russia. Blacks have nothing to do with it. They dont even come close. We rule that segment.
Complete absence of this gene, though rare in humans, has been linked to aggressive behaviour in men, and mice engineered to lack MAOA are also unusually aggressive.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8 ... lence.html

Another great example of how racists deal with science. They just state wrong facts and make them sound scientific.
I have to correct myself. Increased levels of a variant of this Gene have shown a possible difference in brain structure:
Many more people, however, carry a low-activity variant of the gene, known as MAOA-L. A study in 2002 found that men with MAOA-L who had been maltreated as children were more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviour than those with a similar background who had the normal MAOA gene.

They looked at the genes of 142 healthy men and women with no history of criminality, violence or abuse, and found that 57 had the MAOA-L variant. Brain scans of the same group revealed that the amygdala and cingulate cortex, which are involved in the perception and regulation of emotion, were on average significantly smaller in men and women with the L variant.
However, Meyer-Lindenberg is careful to warn against usingMany more people, however, carry a low-activity variant of the gene, known as MAOA-L. A study in 2002 found that men with MAOA-L who had been maltreated as children were more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviour than those with a similar background who had the normal MAOA gene. as a predictor of whether someone is likely to become violent. Many other genes may be involved, not to mention social and environmental factors. "There is certainly not enough evidence to feel that a person who has a combination of risks should be weighed differently in a legal sense," he says.

Knowing whether someone is less likely to be able to control their emotional responses could, however, have enormous potential for tailoring drug or behavioural treatments for people who suffer trauma at an early age, says Essi Viding of University College London, a psychologist who studies psychopathic violence.
So again, no scientific proof here. Simple allegations, based on what the involved scientist did not say.

The study also refers to people who have been maltreated, saying:
Many more people, however, carry a low-activity variant of the gene, known as MAOA-L. A study in 2002 found that men with MAOA-L who had been maltreated as children were more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviour than those with a similar background who had the normal MAOA gene.
It doesnt say anything about people who have been treated normally. Now that africans and blacks in the US are being maltreated more frequently doesnt suprise me at all.
One third of white people has this Gene, yet they dont lean towards violent behaviour (mostly).

Here some more info, why this stuff is bogus:

The MAOA guide to misusing genetics
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... -genetics/

MAOA & aggression
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... ggression/

A hitchhiker's guide to the inherited mind:
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2010/04/a ... guide.html
However, the clearest sign yet that the gene is no ruthless determinant of behaviour came in 2002 when Avshalom Caspi and Terrie Moffitt of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, published their findings about a sample of 442 men from New Zealand who they had followed from birth. A third of these men carried the MAOA-L variant. Now, aged 26, this group was indeed more likely than the others to have developed antisocial disorders and violent behaviour - but only if they had been poorly treated or abused as children. Moffitt and Caspi concluded that the so-called "warrior gene" affects a child's sensitivity to stress and trauma at an early age. Childhood trauma "activates" bad behaviour, but in a caring environment its effect is quashed.

Post Reply

Return to “Race and Ethnicity, Racial Relations & Racism”