National IQ and National Productivity: The Hive Mind Across Asia Options

[richasiankid]

Nah, I got warned as well.
Also I never said I was oppressed. We just have different beliefs and that's fine. We do on agree more than it would seem.


1. There has never been an African sanctioned IQ test, what percentage of IQ tests have been sanctioned by Europeans vs any other race? I've already acknowledged that I don't think it's inconceivable that some groups may be predisposed toward cognitive prowess . I read a lot of these hereditarian studies you've posted and find they are also aware that health/nutrition is an undeniable causation of the differences. Low Economy =Low Nutrition = Low scores.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/d...20060619_IQ.pdf (Again you have to replace the ! with an i)
This credits what I've said in my original post that nations with healthy economies will produce higher IQ tests. This is from a hereditarian study that you posted in your other thread regarding IQ.

Regarding why there is no counter data. That's like me saying "Why are there no good Chinese MMA fighters?". "Chinese are bad fighters, you have no counter data". It's Because Chinese people don't care about MMA (It's a western thing), that doesn't mean they're bad fighters they just don't place value on Mixed Martial Arts.. They do however place value in testing well in IQ (Also a western thing).

2. Those tests can be studied for as well and are not measures of "innate intelligence" by any means.
Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence from
Standardization Samples
Forthcoming: Psychological Science, October 2006

William T. d!ckens
1
and James R. Flyn
I don't know why the link isn't working but you can just google it. Doesn't mean there aren't conflicting studies and you know this.

3. It isn't really about faith, it's more about exposing shoddy science than being a liberal or conservative.

4. Are you serious? No I don't believe blacks are less evolved than anyone, they may have evolved different traits but I've known too many intelligent dark-skinned people to believe that dark skin is equal to low innate intelligence.

5. Yes there is more to survival and success than being 'smart' even in this modern world.

6. New link should work (Change the "!" to an i, then hit enter again, I don't know why it's doing that)
http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/d...20060619_IQ.pdf change the ! to an i

7. See I think this is where we are different in our beliefs the most. You compare Black Intellect with Women's athleticism as if Blacks are out of their league intellectually or something (Maybe only the top 5-10 women could even get a spot on a team in the NBA). I'd say it's more comparable to Black Intellect on par with White athleticism. Also It's only a matter of time before you see a lot more Asians/Whites in the NBA with the whole international thing we have going. AND you don't need to only "jump high" to be a great player, look at Paul Pierce (I don't know how into Basketball you are but..) he's not insanely talented, he's not a peak physical specimen. He was a top 10 player for many years IMO. He has good form, technique etc.


White Man Can't Jump?
Asians Can't Jump?
that's the big problem I have with misinformation/racial stereotypes like this because they discourage people from Trying

8. Wasn't an excuse. You CAN study for IQ exams.

9. I'm not religious, not by a long shot. But I won't get into that now. That's funny. I could say the same thing about IQ tests you do about religion: "it’s true to the stupid, false to the wise, but useful for the elite". What makes pseudoscience geared to promote racial superiority any different?

10. That sentence doesn't make sense to me.

11. That's okay, I'm not trying to convert you.. But trying to get you to understand my points. I think we've both gained better insight into both sides which is good.

12.
equal- as great as; the same as

Like I've said I don't think we're all the same, I just know we're not as different as you think.

Edit: Oops that point 12 was in response to the wrong post.

12*: I think the historical success of certain cultures/peoples is an entirely different discussion. I'll post this video I saw a few years back on that subject though.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4008293090480628280

Also, there is nothing desperate about my arguments. I think what is desperate is clinging to notions of being vastly cognitively superior to other races.. So superior in fact that you would liken their intelligence to a woman's physical prowess.

Look at the bigger picture (and before I answer you points). After the 1960s, it's just naïve to attribute environment as prime determinant of social outcomes given environmental differences have been narrowing, often mandated by government or by social norms. I am still waiting for a reply as to why, for example:

a. blacks continue score lower on the SAT (which correlates with IQ at ~0.90 level) in spite of 10x the parental income, compared to whites? Again, in spite of 10 times the parental income blacks can't equalize outcome on the SAT.

b. This continues to the post-grad level, onto the question of blacks/Asians. Are you aware that there is an exponential rise in Asian:black ratio in postgrad disciplines with increasing GRE scores? Hmmmm.



c. BTW, secondary point, Singapore and Korea were poorer than many countries than colonized Africa. Yet barely a generation later, African countries continue to tank after liberation. Environmental (read: colonization) argument doesn’t hold at all; compare HK and Singapore under different circumstances, and yet both once colonized, both now have higher GDP than the UK. Contrast 95% black Haiti which is the world's first black republic - it's nowhere - let alone near France. Why do I bring this topic up? In an increasingly knowledge-based post-industrial economy, it is at least reasonable to hypothesize the capacity to understand and read data commands a premium and IQ is an index of human capital and strong predictor of economic growth as data reveal:



d. Internationally, IQ and TIMSS are strongly correlated at the national level, all above a 0.90 level. Why are Africans so below the Korean mean anyway as demonstrated by internationally recognized TIMSS? If poverty drives low IQ, what drives poverty?



e. In the context of the above I ask a question: why is diverse environment so universally hostile to blacks anyway that they virtually always end up at the bottom of society, whether it’s in the US, Canada, South America, UK; and when they have a chance to flower like Haiti or Zimbabwe (i.e. former Rhodesia, and now what, with a 6-digit inflation rate???) they seem to founder.

f. Black-white differences increase when environments are equalized, not when they’re allowed to flower and flourish:



Hard questions you have to ask yourself.

But on your smaller points:

1. Why do Europeans when go to Asia find NE Asians have higher IQ but not SE Asians, let alone Africans? As I said, many of East Asian IQ studies have white first author surnames. Similarly, in America, East Asian IQs are either on par with white IQ or higher, and these are conducted by whites.

1b. I’ve already presented data to you (see above). All you’re merely saying is they’re imperfect, chipping away at corners. Equality, on the other hand, is lie.

1c. It’s difficult to see how African Americans aren’t more “Western” (language or culture) than some fresh-off-the-boat Asians.

2. Suddenly you’re presenting two studies by whites. Interesting! Gee, now these whites are suddenly not biased. hen it fits with your ideology, they’re worthy of quote? See evidence of black-white gap above, as well as selective bias:

(d!ckens and Flynn suggest that more ‘‘high quality’’ Whites than Blacks had taken the test.)
They excluded the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children
(K-ABC), which Murray (2005) described as showing a loss of 1
IQ point for Blacks between 1983 and 2004. (d!ckens and Flynn
say the data contained an inflated standard deviation.) They
excluded the very g-loaded Woodcock-Johnson test, which
Murray (2005; whom they cite) described as showing the conventional gap of 1.05 standard deviations for the third (2001)
standardization sample. (d!ckens and Flynn say the Blacks were
an unrepresentative ‘‘subsubsample.’’) They also excluded the
Differential Ability Scale, which in Lynn’s (1996) analysis
(which they cite) showed a maximum gain of 1.83 IQ points for
Blacks between 1972 and 1986. (d!ckens and Flynn say the
sample lacked ‘‘quality.’’) To be compelling, however, researchers must take the totality of available evidence into account (Gottfredson, 2005).

2b. Bias? Well, why rely on your white authors if they’re so biased? Flynn campaigns passionately for left-wing causes, and became an initiating member of both the NewLabour Party and of the Alliance, and served as chairman of the congress for Racial equality? Oh so that's why?

2c. BTW no less than Steven Jay Gould, and no one can accuse him of being racist, please note:




3. Preponderance of outcome and evidence suggests equality of outcome so expected not only between groups but also between nations are pretty much asserted (don’t forget – even “human rights” are DECLARED in 1948) – and when evidence threatens it renders it not more absurd but at the same time ironically even more "necessary" to defend.

4. Population groups are different and not interchangeable especially if one expects equal results

5. See above. Blacks (some muslims) have adopted a reproductive strategy and perhaps that’s why they’re conquering Europe not by the sword but by their womb.

6. See 2

7. False hope can be equally cruel. If you start giving people unreal expectations it can lead them down the path of disappointment - and blame - at the end. People stop taking responsibility when they responsibility is denuded.

8. Never confuse partial malleability with equality. If you have 1000 black kids studying for an IQ test compared to 1000 Chinese or Japanese or Ashkenazi Jewish kids do you think they will score identically?

9. One’s empirically falsifiable.

10. Sure.

11. Like I’ve said I’ve been in your shoes before. You can go on crusading for fashionable illusion, probably for your whole life, and end up ultimately consumed by it --- or you can at least try to understand the world a little better.

12. Environmental differences are potent selection for downstream genetic differences. Think of hundreds of thousands of years of selection that separates the various population groups in Africa vs Eurasia. Or even think of a trait such as lactose intolerance which are at best a few thousand years old.

BTW Darwin is merely a successor of the Arabic proverb if that makes you happier: me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousin against the world. As I said many times before, it's the principle of biological concentricity, not equality.

Family, nation, and race are one such fundamental.





Quoting and in reply to Reutty

Arab countries, from libya, syria, lebanon, to the gulf states, all have filipinow workers and maids. But they aren't worried about them, since the arabs themselves have a high birthrate, and most filipino maids don't raise children in the host country.

in Hong Kong, the fertility rate for women is freaking negative, with extreme population decline forcasted. This is the fault of the hong kong women/culture themselves, not filipinos. If these hong kongers don't like filipinos, then don't hire filipino labor!

those filipino maids never applied to move to Hong Kong. It was the Hong kong people, who hired and looked for maids abroad, for cheap labor, and then the filipino maids were hired by them.

if they hate filipinos living in hong kong, why don't hong kong hire chinese maids? if filipinos take over hong kong, it is doubly the Hong konger's fault themselves, #1 for hiring the filipino maids, #2 for having a low birthrate, which they themselves caused

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4286723.stm

The quoted BBC article would argue even more against Filipino immigration, as HK’ers are even more vulnerable to demographic dispossession.

But yes, in case this point is missed, I agree with you. My take is that ultimately it is not the Filipinos’ fault. As I indicated before, many are indeed hardworking, and only seek to make a better living. They may also, collectively, have less cognitive capital to begin with. These statements are not incompatible. I think Hong Kong people should become more like, say, Japanese or Koreans who are able to maintain a stronger sense of their own peoplehood and in spite of lower birth rates, compared to the HK Chinese. See post #13 on this thread.

This post has been edited by richasiankid: Oct 7 2011, 02:17 AM

[AnybodyKiller]

Look at the bigger picture (and before I answer you points). After the 1960s, it's just naïve to attribute environment as prime determinant of social outcomes given environmental differences have been narrowing, often mandated by government or by social norms. I am still waiting for a reply as to why, for example:

a. blacks continue score lower on the SAT (which correlates with IQ at ~0.90 level) in spite of 10x the parental income, compared to whites? Again, in spite of 10 times the parental income blacks can't equalize outcome on the SAT.

b. This continues to the post-grad level, onto the question of blacks/Asians. Are you aware that there is an exponential rise in Asian:black ratio in postgrad disciplines with increasing GRE scores? Hmmmm.



c. BTW, secondary point, Singapore and Korea were poorer than many countries than colonized Africa. Yet barely a generation later, African countries continue to tank after liberation. Environmental (read: colonization) argument doesn’t hold at all; compare HK and Singapore under different circumstances, and yet both once colonized, both now have higher GDP than the UK. Contrast 95% black Haiti which is the world's first black republic - it's nowhere - let alone near France. Why do I bring this topic up? In an increasingly knowledge-based post-industrial economy, it is at least reasonable to hypothesize the capacity to understand and read data commands a premium and IQ is an index of human capital and strong predictor of economic growth as data reveal:



d. Internationally, IQ and TIMSS are strongly correlated at the national level, all above a 0.90 level. Why are Africans so below the Korean mean anyway as demonstrated by internationally recognized TIMSS? If poverty drives low IQ, what drives poverty?



e. In the context of the above I ask a question: why is diverse environment so universally hostile to blacks anyway that they virtually always end up at the bottom of society, whether it’s in the US, Canada, South America, UK; and when they have a chance to flower like Haiti or Zimbabwe (i.e. former Rhodesia, and now what, with a 6-digit inflation rate???) they seem to founder.

f. Black-white differences increase when environments are equalized, not when they’re allowed to flower and flourish:



Hard questions you have to ask yourself.

But on your smaller points:

1. Why do Europeans when go to Asia find NE Asians have higher IQ but not SE Asians, let alone Africans? As I said, many of East Asian IQ studies have white first author surnames. Similarly, in America, East Asian IQs are either on par with white IQ or higher, and these are conducted by whites.

1b. I’ve already presented data to you (see above). All you’re merely saying is they’re imperfect, chipping away at corners. Equality, on the other hand, is lie.

1c. It’s difficult to see how African Americans aren’t more “Western” (language or culture) than some fresh-off-the-boat Asians.

2. Suddenly you’re presenting two studies by whites. Interesting! Gee, now these whites are suddenly not biased. hen it fits with your ideology, they’re worthy of quote? See evidence of black-white gap above, as well as selective bias:

(d!ckens and Flynn suggest that more ‘‘high quality’’ Whites than Blacks had taken the test.)
They excluded the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children
(K-ABC), which Murray (2005) described as showing a loss of 1
IQ point for Blacks between 1983 and 2004. (d!ckens and Flynn
say the data contained an inflated standard deviation.) They
excluded the very g-loaded Woodcock-Johnson test, which
Murray (2005; whom they cite) described as showing the conventional gap of 1.05 standard deviations for the third (2001)
standardization sample. (d!ckens and Flynn say the Blacks were
an unrepresentative ‘‘subsubsample.’’) They also excluded the
Differential Ability Scale, which in Lynn’s (1996) analysis
(which they cite) showed a maximum gain of 1.83 IQ points for
Blacks between 1972 and 1986. (d!ckens and Flynn say the
sample lacked ‘‘quality.’’) To be compelling, however, researchers must take the totality of available evidence into account (Gottfredson, 2005).

2b. Bias? Well, why rely on your white authors if they’re so biased? Flynn campaigns passionately for left-wing causes, and became an initiating member of both the NewLabour Party and of the Alliance, and served as chairman of the congress for Racial equality? Oh so that's why?

2c. BTW no less than Steven Jay Gould, and no one can accuse him of being racist, please note:




3. Preponderance of outcome and evidence suggests equality of outcome so expected not only between groups but also between nations are pretty much asserted (don’t forget – even “human rights” are DECLARED in 1948) – and when evidence threatens it renders it not more absurd but at the same time ironically even more "necessary" to defend.

4. Population groups are different and not interchangeable especially if one expects equal results

5. See above. Blacks (some muslims) have adopted a reproductive strategy and perhaps that’s why they’re conquering Europe not by the sword but by their womb.

6. See 2

7. False hope can be equally cruel. If you start giving people unreal expectations it can lead them down the path of disappointment - and blame - at the end. People stop taking responsibility when they responsibility is denuded.

8. Never confuse partial malleability with equality. If you have 1000 black kids studying for an IQ test compared to 1000 Chinese or Japanese or Ashkenazi Jewish kids do you think they will score identically?

9. One’s empirically falsifiable.

10. Sure.

11. Like I’ve said I’ve been in your shoes before. You can go on crusading for fashionable illusion, probably for your whole life, and end up ultimately consumed by it --- or you can at least try to understand the world a little better.

12. Environmental differences are potent selection for downstream genetic differences. Think of hundreds of thousands of years of selection that separates the various population groups in Africa vs Eurasia. Or even think of a trait such as lactose intolerance which are at best a few thousand years old.

BTW Darwin is merely a successor of the Arabic proverb if that makes you happier: me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousin against the world. As I said many times before, it's the principle of biological concentricity, not equality.

Family, nation, and race are one such fundamental.





Quoting and in reply to Reutty





The quoted BBC article would argue even more against Filipino immigration, as HK’ers are even more vulnerable to demographic dispossession.

But yes, in case this point is missed, I agree with you. My take is that ultimately it is not the Filipinos’ fault. As I indicated before, many are indeed hardworking, and only seek to make a better living. They may also, collectively, have less cognitive capital to begin with. These statements are not incompatible. I think Hong Kong people should become more like, say, Japanese or Koreans who are able to maintain a stronger sense of their own peoplehood and in spite of lower birth rates, compared to the HK Chinese. See post #13 on this thread.

Yeah, and minorities like Blacks and Mexicans are climbing the socioeconomic ladder here. They just tend to do it in a different fashion than through educational pursuits.

Though I will say that diversity can lead to internal friction. "Onto my smaller points" when you're just repeating the same stuff you have been using from the start. "Ok this time I'll talk about SATs and GRE instead of MCATS" . You're just using a multitude different tests none of which can be used accurately as a measure of innate intelligence; with the same message behind it. "Blacks continue to do poorly even when richer than whites". Income does not change the fact that Blacks come from a different culture than Whites and Asians who tend to care a lot more about studying on average. OF course there is a correlation between doing well on tests and success, this still doesn't prove they are any more innately intelligent. Could it be that Jews and Chinese are from a hardworking and studious culture and that is what causes them to do well? No, It must be that we are genetically superior! It is more in African-American culture to be into entertainment, entrepreneurship, vocational jobs.. Basketball etc. (See I can be racist too.. Jk Jk).. I'll address the rest of the points you keep repeating in so many different words after we do the original 12. =P

It's like the "Standard" (read: Eurocentric) view of Egypt.. 95% of anthropologists are white. They claim Egypt was white, "There's no counter data to prove otherwise".. Then when African scholars provide data, they are brushed off as "Afrocentric".

1) .I've already acknowledged the fact that certain groups score higher. NE Asians and Whites are raised from a very early age to do well in tests no matter what the implications of the test. Most people in the United States with a modern education view IQ tests like they do astrology. As in "nice to know" but extremely flawed "pop corn science". There are a few leftover from the eugenics era still trying to give IQ a 'last hurrah' though.

One Researcher of IQ gets caught trying to adjust Asian IQ.
Here was a question tailor-made for James Flynn's accounting skills. He looked first at Lynn's data, and realized that the comparison was skewed. Lynn was comparing American I.Q. estimates based on a representative sample of schoolchildren with Japanese estimates based on an upper-income, heavily urban sample. Recalculated, the Japanese average came in not at 106.6 but at 99.2. Then Flynn turned his attention to the Chinese-American estimates. They turned out to be based on a 1975 study in San Francisco's Chinatown using something called the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test. But the Lorge-Thorndike test was normed in the nineteen-fifties. For children in the nineteen-seventies, it would have been a piece of cake. When the Chinese-American scores were reassessed using up-to-date intelligence metrics, Flynn found, they came in at 97 verbal and 100 nonverbal. Chinese-Americans had slightly lower I.Q.s than white Americans. (Gladwell 2007)
White people biasing the tests for Asians? Hmm what possible reason could they have for doing that? (Hint: The answer is causing friction between Asians and promoting a kinship with Europeans)


2. That's rich, you're implying I'm the hypocrite now because I'm using White researchers? Newsflash: They're the only ones who care enough to do studies on this. When most modern White scientists discredit IQ and race as accurate in modern biology you call 'White bull$hit'. Yet because IQ and the existence of race fits into your ideals of racial superiority it doesn't matter that it is conducted by Whites.

EDIT: Why don't you post some Chinese studies on biological existence of race or an IQ study conducted by Chinese scientists..if you can find any? Or are we just going to assume the West has no reason to lie like they have done throughout history. I have a sneaking suspicion that Chinese scientists realize it is pointless to try and define.

2B. Both sides are obviously biased, one toward racial elitists... One toward 'liberal degenerates'. That's what this issue really comes down to, the new liberal scientists trying to discredit the old school eugenicists.

2C. That was cherry picked out of the book and taken out of context and you know it.

3. 1948 Human rights declared, that's also funny. You think things were equal that far back? Things weren't equal for minorities in the 90s when I grew up. You think that by passing a law that all the Whites in America gave up their racist ideology?

4. Yeah this is definitely true.. The real argument and what we really disagree on when it really gets down to it is How different are we in our predispositions? You seem to think there is this insurmountable difference between the 'races' inherent abilities and I know this is far from the truth.

5. Same thing with the Mexicans in California, but in this case it is their rightful land.

6. Yes. Post 2.

7. See you even agree that Blacks shouldn't even try to compete with Chinese is basically what you're saying.
Do you think that no Black person in the world is smarter than you? I think we need to start viewing peoples talents and predispositions individually and not stereotype. Not only would this be more efficient, it would also be morally just. Sorry, I forgot morals are not an issue for you.

8. I think 1000 African-Americans who study for an IQ exam will score higher than 1000 Chinese/Jew/Japanese etc. who are given a 'pop' quiz. You seem to value too much of this innate cognitive talent and not much into the work it takes to get there. Also I never said "equality" I've addressed this plenty of times, I do think certain populations are more predisposed to certain talents. Also, 20-30 points is not slight, 2 SD's I believe. I'm more into trying to further invalidate IQ as a measure of innate cognitive function, which has already been done.

9. Both are tools of the elite.

10. When I initially read the sentence I thought A) He meant to type 'accepted' not exception..? B) He's resorting to calling me a "n-gger lover" in so many words? I think B is the right answer because you didn't edit the sentence.

11. I'm not crusading BTW, you specifically addressed Filipinos and Filipino-Americans in your posts implying that we are below you in terms of our innate cognitive prowess. I merely use blacks in most my because they are the perceived lowest on the totem pole. Again you are assuming that these Eurocentric tests are telling you the "truth" because it's what you want to hear, who is the one being delusional if you really think about it?

12. Yeah I know the counter arguments to 'nurture'. They don't invalidate each other, It's really both.


Anyways on to your "new" points.
A+B I addressed earlier

C) You have to realize that unlike NE Asians and Whites, Blacks don't come from 1st world societies.. It's different trying to colonize societies that are advanced already than colonizing people who are from ones that are not so advanced. I have a feeling you know this too.

D) Many factors drive poverty.. Bad leadership, being under a puppet government (Philippines), culture, distrust/disunity of the populace etc. If you look at the map countries you can make just as strong a case if not stronger that it's the fact that these countries are still developing that they have low scores on Western Intelligence Tests. Not their skin color. Hereditarians even admit this themselves for the most part.

E) Again you're assuming that Blacks have had the opportunities and respect given to people form 1st world countries like Korea, Japan etc. It's been the Wests goal to subtly (and not so subtly at times) make Blacks out to be monkeys only good for Brute force and labor. Justifying their oppression using tools like "unbiased" IQ tests. They did a good job also! I can tell by talking to you. I guess SEA with our "Abo" blood aren't fit for intellectual careers either or to be part of NEA intellectual society right? Only good for labor? These eurocentric tests make all non-NEAs (SEA, Polynesian, Australoid etc.) out to be the "n-ggers of Aisa" and you don't see the obvious attempt to divide us. -
Who is really the one poisoned by the West?

EDIT: Before contact with the west, China was a very accepting culture.. It was the West that convinced China in the superiority of certain "colors"
"Those who did not follow the
“Chinese ways” were regarded as “barbarians;” however, if they were to be culturally
assimilated into the Chinese ways, they could “become Chinese” and in the “Age of the
Great Peace,” the barbarians would be transformed and the world would once again be
unified"

"In the late nineteenth century, Chinese elites began utilizing racial nationalism to
unite the people when China was defeated in the Sino-Japanese war of 1894. This defeat
caused a surge of patriotic campaigning in China led by the intellectual elite whose main
concern was the “survival of China as a racial unit and as a sovereign state in the face of
foreign aggression” (Dikötter, 1990, p. 423). China also was aware of the strength of
Western nations and how it was under the threat of colonization and racial extinction,
causing Chinese intellectuals to be fixated with the concept of an international struggle
between the Whites and the “Yellows” (Teng, 2006)"

"Some Chinese scholars also were indoctrinated in Euro-American imperialistic
ideas of Caucasian superiority and the idea of hybridity. Late-nineteenth-century
Western racial theory was fixated with the amalgamation of races, arguing that “the
crossing of proximate races would produce fertile offspring, whereas that of distant races
would produce degeneration” (Teng, 2006, p. 135). Chinese intellectuals adopted the 34
Western racial theory in their own terms; rather than reflecting on the Euro-American
focus on White-Black amalgamation and the fear of racial decline, they focused on the
Yellow-White racial intermixing and how to move the Chinese race up the Social
Darwinian racial ladder (Teng, 2006)"

Does this sound familar? A lot like SEA is today yeah? Look at the SEA boards a lot of people fall victim to this stereotype and claim to be "Chinese, White, Japanese" ANYTHING but "Black or Brown".. Western poison is still very much in effect today.

http://csus-dspace.calstate.edu/xmlui/bits....pdf?sequence=1[/b] (Siok Kwan Teoh, 2011 Study)

F) Again assuming IQ testing is unbiased towards Western agenda, there are no cultural/environmental factors that come into play and that IQ actually measures intelligence.

Not really hard questions when you already know the answers.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Oct 7 2011, 03:46 PM

[fivers]

NE Asians and Whites are raised from a very early age to do well in tests no matter what the implications of the test.

I think we need to start viewing peoples talents and predispositions individually and not stereotype.

yup yup

[AnybodyKiller]

Actually, whenever anything happens all the Anglos from any country just gang up. It's like their brains get some broadcast message that normal humans just don't get!

I think all ethnicity have this honestly. It's like if you see a Chinese guy getting beat up by a Black guy, you might look at another Chinese you don't know and you know you are feeling the same thing; to help him.

[fireplant]

^Anglo hive mind is much more in my face IMHO.

[AnybodyKiller]

^Anglo hive mind is much more in my face IMHO.

Yeah, Manifest Destiny, basically it's destiny to conquer the world and rule over it.

I think this mindset is what causes these type of behavior.

[JakeCutter]

These types of threads are still going on?

[JaM]

And despite this, the blacks still get all the babes. Look at the Hispanic score, why is that so low? Hispanics can be any race. Obviously, Hispanic in California pretty much means Mexican. The score says nothing about Hispanics in general.

Those score show who's most lazy, and who work hardest, not who's inherently smartest - even if there's a correlation, this particular score means little. There could be all kinds of explanations which has nothing to do with inherent abilities.

This post has been edited by JaM: Oct 8 2011, 04:51 AM

[fireplant]

No girl wants to carry baby of blacks.

[AnybodyKiller]

And despite this, the blacks still get all the babes. Look at the Hispanic score, why is that so low? Hispanics can be any race. Obviously, Hispanic in California pretty much means Mexican. The score says nothing about Hispanics in general.

Those score show who's most lazy, and who work hardest, not who's inherently smartest - even if there's a correlation, this particular score means little. There could be all kinds of explanations which has nothing to do with inherent abilities.

Exactly, even looking back at some of his posts.. There is no uniform pattern in the scores of particular groups. For instance some show whites excelling others show whites doing poorly, this only goes to show that "intelligence" is just as much a skillset as an inherent talent. The only things these charts really do is just stroke egos that "Northeast Asians are the smartest race".

[richasiankid]

Yeah, and minorities like Blacks and Mexicans are climbing the socioeconomic ladder here. They just tend to do it in a different fashion than through educational pursuits.

Though I will say that diversity can lead to internal friction. "Onto my smaller points" when you're just repeating the same stuff you have been using from the start. "Ok this time I'll talk about SATs and GRE instead of MCATS" . You're just using a multitude different tests none of which can be used accurately as a measure of innate intelligence; with the same message behind it. "Blacks continue to do poorly even when richer than whites". Income does not change the fact that Blacks come from a different culture than Whites and Asians who tend to care a lot more about studying on average. OF course there is a correlation between doing well on tests and success, this still doesn't prove they are any more innately intelligent. Could it be that Jews and Chinese are from a hardworking and studious culture and that is what causes them to do well? No, It must be that we are genetically superior! It is more in African-American culture to be into entertainment, entrepreneurship, vocational jobs.. Basketball etc. (See I can be racist too.. Jk Jk).. I'll address the rest of the points you keep repeating in so many different words after we do the original 12. =P

It's like the "Standard" (read: Eurocentric) view of Egypt.. 95% of anthropologists are white. They claim Egypt was white, "There's no counter data to prove otherwise".. Then when African scholars provide data, they are brushed off as "Afrocentric".

1) .I've already acknowledged the fact that certain groups score higher. NE Asians and Whites are raised from a very early age to do well in tests no matter what the implications of the test. Most people in the United States with a modern education view IQ tests like they do astrology. As in "nice to know" but extremely flawed "pop corn science". There are a few leftover from the eugenics era still trying to give IQ a 'last hurrah' though.

One Researcher of IQ gets caught trying to adjust Asian IQ.
Here was a question tailor-made for James Flynn's accounting skills. He looked first at Lynn's data, and realized that the comparison was skewed. Lynn was comparing American I.Q. estimates based on a representative sample of schoolchildren with Japanese estimates based on an upper-income, heavily urban sample. Recalculated, the Japanese average came in not at 106.6 but at 99.2. Then Flynn turned his attention to the Chinese-American estimates. They turned out to be based on a 1975 study in San Francisco's Chinatown using something called the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test. But the Lorge-Thorndike test was normed in the nineteen-fifties. For children in the nineteen-seventies, it would have been a piece of cake. When the Chinese-American scores were reassessed using up-to-date intelligence metrics, Flynn found, they came in at 97 verbal and 100 nonverbal. Chinese-Americans had slightly lower I.Q.s than white Americans. (Gladwell 2007)
White people biasing the tests for Asians? Hmm what possible reason could they have for doing that? (Hint: The answer is causing friction between Asians and promoting a kinship with Europeans)


2. That's rich, you're implying I'm the hypocrite now because I'm using White researchers? Newsflash: They're the only ones who care enough to do studies on this. When most modern White scientists discredit IQ and race as accurate in modern biology you call 'White bull$hit'. Yet because IQ and the existence of race fits into your ideals of racial superiority it doesn't matter that it is conducted by Whites.

EDIT: Why don't you post some Chinese studies on biological existence of race or an IQ study conducted by Chinese scientists..if you can find any? Or are we just going to assume the West has no reason to lie like they have done throughout history. I have a sneaking suspicion that Chinese scientists realize it is pointless to try and define.

2B. Both sides are obviously biased, one toward racial elitists... One toward 'liberal degenerates'. That's what this issue really comes down to, the new liberal scientists trying to discredit the old school eugenicists.

2C. That was cherry picked out of the book and taken out of context and you know it.

3. 1948 Human rights declared, that's also funny. You think things were equal that far back? Things weren't equal for minorities in the 90s when I grew up. You think that by passing a law that all the Whites in America gave up their racist ideology?

4. Yeah this is definitely true.. The real argument and what we really disagree on when it really gets down to it is How different are we in our predispositions? You seem to think there is this insurmountable difference between the 'races' inherent abilities and I know this is far from the truth.

5. Same thing with the Mexicans in California, but in this case it is their rightful land.

6. Yes. Post 2.

7. See you even agree that Blacks shouldn't even try to compete with Chinese is basically what you're saying.
Do you think that no Black person in the world is smarter than you? I think we need to start viewing peoples talents and predispositions individually and not stereotype. Not only would this be more efficient, it would also be morally just. Sorry, I forgot morals are not an issue for you.

8. I think 1000 African-Americans who study for an IQ exam will score higher than 1000 Chinese/Jew/Japanese etc. who are given a 'pop' quiz. You seem to value too much of this innate cognitive talent and not much into the work it takes to get there. Also I never said "equality" I've addressed this plenty of times, I do think certain populations are more predisposed to certain talents. Also, 20-30 points is not slight, 2 SD's I believe. I'm more into trying to further invalidate IQ as a measure of innate cognitive function, which has already been done.

9. Both are tools of the elite.

10. When I initially read the sentence I thought A) He meant to type 'accepted' not exception..? B) He's resorting to calling me a "n-gger lover" in so many words? I think B is the right answer because you didn't edit the sentence.

11. I'm not crusading BTW, you specifically addressed Filipinos and Filipino-Americans in your posts implying that we are below you in terms of our innate cognitive prowess. I merely use blacks in most my because they are the perceived lowest on the totem pole. Again you are assuming that these Eurocentric tests are telling you the "truth" because it's what you want to hear, who is the one being delusional if you really think about it?

12. Yeah I know the counter arguments to 'nurture'. They don't invalidate each other, It's really both.


Anyways on to your "new" points.
A+B I addressed earlier

C) You have to realize that unlike NE Asians and Whites, Blacks don't come from 1st world societies.. It's different trying to colonize societies that are advanced already than colonizing people who are from ones that are not so advanced. I have a feeling you know this too.

D) Many factors drive poverty.. Bad leadership, being under a puppet government (Philippines), culture, distrust/disunity of the populace etc. If you look at the map countries you can make just as strong a case if not stronger that it's the fact that these countries are still developing that they have low scores on Western Intelligence Tests. Not their skin color. Hereditarians even admit this themselves for the most part.

E) Again you're assuming that Blacks have had the opportunities and respect given to people form 1st world countries like Korea, Japan etc. It's been the Wests goal to subtly (and not so subtly at times) make Blacks out to be monkeys only good for Brute force and labor. Justifying their oppression using tools like "unbiased" IQ tests. They did a good job also! I can tell by talking to you. I guess SEA with our "Abo" blood aren't fit for intellectual careers either or to be part of NEA intellectual society right? Only good for labor? These eurocentric tests make all non-NEAs (SEA, Polynesian, Australoid etc.) out to be the "n-ggers of Aisa" and you don't see the obvious attempt to divide us. -
Who is really the one poisoned by the West?

EDIT: Before contact with the west, China was a very accepting culture.. It was the West that convinced China in the superiority of certain "colors"
"Those who did not follow the
“Chinese ways” were regarded as “barbarians;” however, if they were to be culturally
assimilated into the Chinese ways, they could “become Chinese” and in the “Age of the
Great Peace,” the barbarians would be transformed and the world would once again be
unified"

"In the late nineteenth century, Chinese elites began utilizing racial nationalism to
unite the people when China was defeated in the Sino-Japanese war of 1894. This defeat
caused a surge of patriotic campaigning in China led by the intellectual elite whose main
concern was the “survival of China as a racial unit and as a sovereign state in the face of
foreign aggression” (Dikötter, 1990, p. 423). China also was aware of the strength of
Western nations and how it was under the threat of colonization and racial extinction,
causing Chinese intellectuals to be fixated with the concept of an international struggle
between the Whites and the “Yellows” (Teng, 2006)"

"Some Chinese scholars also were indoctrinated in Euro-American imperialistic
ideas of Caucasian superiority and the idea of hybridity. Late-nineteenth-century
Western racial theory was fixated with the amalgamation of races, arguing that “the
crossing of proximate races would produce fertile offspring, whereas that of distant races
would produce degeneration” (Teng, 2006, p. 135). Chinese intellectuals adopted the 34
Western racial theory in their own terms; rather than reflecting on the Euro-American
focus on White-Black amalgamation and the fear of racial decline, they focused on the
Yellow-White racial intermixing and how to move the Chinese race up the Social
Darwinian racial ladder (Teng, 2006)"

Does this sound familar? A lot like SEA is today yeah? Look at the SEA boards a lot of people fall victim to this stereotype and claim to be "Chinese, White, Japanese" ANYTHING but "Black or Brown".. Western poison is still very much in effect today.

http://csus-dspace.calstate.edu/xmlui/bits....pdf?sequence=1[/b] (Siok Kwan Teoh, 2011 Study)

F) Again assuming IQ testing is unbiased towards Western agenda, there are no cultural/environmental factors that come into play and that IQ actually measures intelligence.

Not really hard questions when you already know the answers.

And the answer is here as to blacks and browns are climbing the social ladder:



(Why not at the 750 and 800 level you ask? Because there are virtually no blacks or browns there at that level and representing it either as 1% or 0% would be inaccurate)

Data and time are against concocted notions of equality given practically everything that can be done to eradicate inequality in the US has been done - including affirmative action, No Child Left Behind, Race To The Top etc. I mean, just look at the above.

And on your comment on diversity therefore bring it to its logical conclusion. Of course affirmative action is needed. You can't have a campus filled with almost majority Asians even if they number way fewer than blacks!!!! Unless you don't believe in it?

Now, to return to your post - the deeper point and shorter answer anyone can hide or rail against what’s presented – perhaps even censor and ignore - but can't refute - and have to make up excuses. Simply refusing to see it (not necessarily just you) and covering your eyes will not make it go away. Think even Brazil.

The longer answer is this one. I actually do sympathize. Once (in mid grade school and as I said before) I was in the same situation. At some point in time I grew up ("liberated"?) and did get a chance to have a better perspective of who we are and how we are not the same.

We can go on this forever and ever and I notice you’ve now slid into the gene vs environment mode, ie not just talking about IQ which I’ll only say again it's not 100% environmental. Everything else follows. If you are desperate for equality of outcome there is one tried-and-true way of doing so: bring everyone equally down. You just won’t be able to bring everyone equally up. Period. That's what you already admitted and conceded when you conceded inequality. And who can blame you?

Onto those 12 points (finally!) again, funny how the media keeps saying it’s black-white are not merely not narrowing if not widening as noted here before which you now seem to disagree:

1. Now, as for IQ testing, here’s a spread of black-white differences over the past century. Some are up to 2SD differences, other none. Median is roughly 1 SD.



This is not the case for Asian studies. Two HK studies are above 120+ but I will never claim that HK’ers have IQs over 120. Preponderance takes precedence.

2. You seem to think white scientists are biased while at the same time you’re quoting white scientists to support your points. Funny.

2b. One side is biased against data, old or new.
2c. Gould’s own corrected values of Morton - if you had read the book you'd know

3. “Declaration of human rights” It’s like declaring the world is flat. Maybe it’s uplifiting; but hey we lie even to ourselves all the time, right?

4. Differences are relative, no pun intended: Asians and whites are more similar to each other than each are to, say, blacks (genetic separation-wise). Asian and blacks are more similar to each other to each other than each are to chimpanzees etc. Similarly Koreans and Chinese are more similar to each other than either are to both Irish and Scots. Brothers are more similar to each other than 1st cousins etc, whereas identical twins are more similar than brothers etc. You get the picture.


5. What do Native Americans now feel?

6. I’m not the first to pick up on some guy’s selective cherry-picking of data

7. The Indian by the name of Dinesh D’Souza famously asked the question what if stereotypes are reversed if they're equally "seductive": Men love gossiping and knitting while women love b-ball and beer; browns are nerds and taciturn while blacks are stingy or frugal etc. No, stereotypes are not always true of course, just as men are not always taller than women. But to imagine otherwise is pure fantasy.

8. You’re now reduced to invaliding IQ because you cannot find data which show groups are equal. You can make this a bottomless project of your life. And there are plenty who will continue to be consumed, desperate to find that holy grail. My position is that ideology should not trump outcome.

9. Equality can easily be falsified. And if what you said is true, reality is one of the best allies ever.

10. Are you suggesting you’re not black?

11. If the evidence points a certain way I go with the flow. I think ideology is worse - and more destructive - than sheer ignorance.

12. One asymmetry: environment has at best a few decades to reshape an individual; within Homo Sapiens nature has hundreds of thousands of years. Who against whom?

Cheers,

PS - on your point E I make one analogy - neoconservatism. In America this proposition nation you think you are and therefore you are? Just look where this is now getting it into.

[AnybodyKiller]

And the answer is here as to blacks and browns are climbing the social ladder:



(Why not at the 750 and 800 level you ask? Because there are virtually no blacks or browns there at that level and representing it either as 1% or 0% would be inaccurate)

Data and time are against concocted notions of equality given practically everything that can be done to eradicate inequality in the US has been done - including affirmative action, No Child Left Behind, Race To The Top etc. I mean, just look at the above.

And on your comment on diversity therefore bring it to its logical conclusion. Of course affirmative action is needed. You can't have a campus filled with almost majority Asians even if they number way fewer than blacks!!!! Unless you don't believe in it?

Now, to return to your post - the deeper point and shorter answer anyone can hide or rail against what’s presented – perhaps even censor and ignore - but can't refute - and have to make up excuses. Simply refusing to see it (not necessarily just you) and covering your eyes will not make it go away. Think even Brazil.

The longer answer is this one. I actually do sympathize. Once (in mid grade school and as I said before) I was in the same situation. At some point in time I grew up ("liberated"?) and did get a chance to have a better perspective of who we are and how we are not the same.

We can go on this forever and ever and I notice you’ve now slid into the gene vs environment mode, ie not just talking about IQ which I’ll only say again it's not 100% environmental. Everything else follows. If you are desperate for equality of outcome there is one tried-and-true way of doing so: bring everyone equally down. You just won’t be able to bring everyone equally up. Period. That's what you already admitted and conceded when you conceded inequality. And who can blame you?

Onto those 12 points (finally!) again, funny how the media keeps saying it’s black-white are not merely not narrowing if not widening as noted here before which you now seem to disagree:

1. Now, as for IQ testing, here’s a spread of black-white differences over the past century. Some are up to 2SD differences, other none. Median is roughly 1 SD.



This is not the case for Asian studies. Two HK studies are above 120+ but I will never claim that HK’ers have IQs over 120. Preponderance takes precedence.

2. You seem to think white scientists are biased while at the same time you’re quoting white scientists to support your points. Funny.

2b. One side is biased against data, old or new.
2c. Gould’s own corrected values of Morton - if you had read the book you'd know

3. “Declaration of human rights” It’s like declaring the world is flat. Maybe it’s uplifiting; but hey we lie even to ourselves all the time, right?

4. Differences are relative, no pun intended: Asians and whites are more similar to each other than each are to, say, blacks (genetic separation-wise). Asian and blacks are more similar to each other to each other than each are to chimpanzees etc. Similarly Koreans and Chinese are more similar to each other than either are to both Irish and Scots. Brothers are more similar to each other than 1st cousins etc, whereas identical twins are more similar than brothers etc. You get the picture.


5. What do Native Americans now feel?

6. I’m not the first to pick up on some guy’s selective cherry-picking of data

7. The Indian by the name of Dinesh D’Souza famously asked the question what if stereotypes are reversed if they're equally "seductive": Men love gossiping and knitting while women love b-ball and beer; browns are nerds and taciturn while blacks are stingy or frugal etc. No, stereotypes are not always true of course, just as men are not always taller than women. But to imagine otherwise is pure fantasy.

8. You’re now reduced to invaliding IQ because you cannot find data which show groups are equal. You can make this a bottomless project of your life. And there are plenty who will continue to be consumed, desperate to find that holy grail. My position is that ideology should not trump outcome.

9. Equality can easily be falsified. And if what you said is true, reality is one of the best allies ever.

10. Are you suggesting you’re not black?

11. If the evidence points a certain way I go with the flow. I think ideology is worse - and more destructive - than sheer ignorance.

12. One asymmetry: environment has at best a few decades to reshape an individual; within Homo Sapiens nature has hundreds of thousands of years. Who against whom?

Cheers,

PS - on your point E I make one analogy - neoconservatism. In America this proposition nation you think you are and therefore you are? Just look where this is now getting it into.

Again resorting to test scores to prove a point (Which is?). We get it bro, Northeast Asians are good at taking tests that's all that really tells us.

Yeah, this can go on and on.. I told you so, that's why I was almost ready to ignore your first post because I know how these discussions go. I stopped talking about IQ because I've been saying since my 1st or 2nd post that IQ is NOT viewed as a valid method to measure "general" intelligence let alone intelligence potential in this day and age. It's pretty much viewed as popcorn science nowadays by most people let alone scientists. This has been my main point because you used it as the main reason to insult Filipinos as "poor cognitive capital" and I was merely trying to show that IQ was not a valid measure of "cognitive capital", especially when talking about well educated Filipinos. You were basically using this to say including Filipinos will degrade our country which was pretty ignorant honestly.

1. So because they don't do well on tests they aren't climbing out of the low class? Why does test score = low class? They are climbing the socioeconomic ladder because they are more financially secure/successful, viewed more as equals by the rest of society and are gaining ground in Politics


2nd Generation Hispanics doing better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFj0HdW2iDs...player_embedded
You'll see soon enough my privileged young friend, things may never be 100% equal, but as countries develop things will be more equal


2. You're quoting all white studies, like I've said the west is the only one who even cares about this. BTW some of the studies and scholars I've quoted were by Asian-Americans too.



3. Umm Ok.. you were the one who said

(don’t forget – even “human rights” are DECLARED in 1948

As if this was guaranteed rights or fair treatment.

Then I basically say that's bull$hit there wasn't even equal rights in the 90s.. then you say

“Declaration of human rights” It’s like declaring the world is flat. Maybe it’s uplifiting; but hey we lie even to ourselves all the time, right?

You're contradicting yourself


4.Yeah, you're saying that you still think that the reason for inequality in the world is solely being intellectually outclassed by Whites and Asians. If you think about it just a few hundred years ago a lot of these countries from Low IQ areas had great civilizations.

5. Why don't you go ask one?

6. Yeah, then stop cherry picking white studies clinging onto outdated science and Western fascist politics.. Oh wait you can't.

7. Yes but stereotypes are dangerous because if you don't give Filipinos a chance then scholars like this end up cleaning up the trash.

A YOUNG Cebuano put the Philippines again on the world map when he topped the prestigious Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) examination given in May this year in Florida.

Duke M. Bajenting, 22, topped 9,400 other examinees from 78 countries to become the first Filipino to receive the international William S. Smith Gold Medal Award.

Bajenting finished his Bachelor of Science in Business Administration degree, summa cum laude, from the University of the Philippines-Diliman in 2003. In the same year, he took and topped the board examination for certified public accountants.

The CIA designation is the recognized professional credential for internal auditors worldwide. More than 47,000 professionals have been certified since the inception of the program in August 1974.

Duke, who now works for Procter and Gamble as its regional auditor covering several countries in Asia, is the eldest son of Rey and Elizabeth Bajenting, and grandson of the late veteran newsman Clod K. Bajenting. He is a humble and jolly kuya to his siblings Ace, Contessa, Reyna and Quennie.

While at UP, Duke was a consistent scholar and became the editor in chief of the UP Collegian.

He completed his secondary education valedictorian at the Holy Rosary School in Pardo, Cebu City, and was chosen one of the 10 Most Outstanding High School Students of Cebu by Kiwanis Cebu Chapter and Rhine Marketing.

His other academic achievements include: Most Outstanding Graduate, male category, awarded by UP Alumni Association; delegate, Singapore Investment Foundation under the ASEAN cultural exchange program; chosen outstanding accounting student of the Philippines by Gestetner, Philippines; recipient of Student Excellence Award of the Procter and Gamble Philippines; and Leadership awardee, UP Diliman, BSBAA Batch 2003.

Job Bonotan Tabada

That's why you judge people on talents, not "race"



8.
Of course because of how silly the idea of IQ is nowadays, I find it hilarious that your still trying to use "IQ" in your points because it's plain to see they are far from a measure of "innate intelligence" or potential cognitive ability... AND are far from being unbiased Endless holy grail? Bottomless project of my life? Please.. Most scientists just find disproving outdated eugenics a nuisance if anything. I think it's entertaining to talk to people still claiming these studies as "truth", and debunking them is "fantasy". Every 10 years there are less and less United States scientists giving credibility to IQ tests and the accuracy of race as a scientific classification. Outside of the states and UK they don't even bother with these studies at all, this should tell you something. The Flynn Effect alone invalidates IQ as a credible measure of "innate intelligence". Am I really supposed to believe that someone of average intelligence today would be near genius level in the 50s - 60s because of genetic selection? It's just more proof that there is more reason to believe that the causation is poverty/poor education/bad nutrition leads to Low IQ than the other way around... Which was the initial topic of our discussion Scientists are realizing that there are many different types of intelligence that need to be tested for individually, and even these tests don't get into potential intelligence.

9. What you call reality and fact may just be a "Western" Illusion.

10. I'm dropping this point in the future

11. I see what you're saying but the test parameters are atrocious and very obviously politically motivated. The fact that all the tests are in the end submitted by Westerners is suspect enough to warrant a second guess.

12. Yeah, nature vs nurture etc. IMO its a combination of both equally important parts.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Oct 10 2011, 12:13 AM

[richasiankid]

Again resorting to test scores to prove a point (Which is?). We get it bro, Northeast Asians are good at taking tests that's all that really tells us.

Yeah, this can go on and on.. I told you so, that's why I was almost ready to ignore your first post because I know how these discussions go. I stopped talking about IQ because I've been saying since my 1st or 2nd post that IQ is NOT viewed as a valid method to measure "general" intelligence let alone intelligence potential in this day and age. It's pretty much viewed as popcorn science nowadays by most people let alone scientists. This has been my main point because you used it as the main reason to insult Filipinos as "poor cognitive capital" and I was merely trying to show that IQ was not a valid measure of "cognitive capital", especially when talking about well educated Filipinos. You were basically using this to say including Filipinos will degrade our country which was pretty ignorant honestly.

1. So because they don't do well on tests they aren't climbing out of the low class? Why does test score = low class? They are climbing the socioeconomic ladder because they are more financially secure/successful, viewed more as equals by the rest of society and are gaining ground in Politics


2nd Generation Hispanics doing better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFj0HdW2iDs...player_embedded
You'll see soon enough my privileged young friend, things may never be 100% equal, but as countries develop things will be more equal


2. You're quoting all white studies, like I've said the west is the only one who even cares about this. BTW some of the studies and scholars I've quoted were by Asian-Americans too.



3. Umm Ok.. you were the one who said
As if this was guaranteed rights or fair treatment.

Then I basically say that's bull$hit there wasn't even equal rights in the 90s.. then you say


You're contradicting yourself


4.Yeah, you're saying that you still think that the reason for inequality in the world is solely being intellectually outclassed by Whites and Asians. If you think about it just a few hundred years ago a lot of these countries from Low IQ areas had great civilizations.

5. Why don't you go ask one?

6. Yeah, then stop cherry picking white studies clinging onto outdated science and Western fascist politics.. Oh wait you can't.

7. Yes but stereotypes are dangerous because if you don't give Filipinos a chance then scholars like this end up cleaning up the trash.

That's why you judge people on talents, not "race"



8.
Of course because of how silly the idea of IQ is nowadays, I find it hilarious that your still trying to use "IQ" in your points because it's plain to see they are far from a measure of "innate intelligence" or potential cognitive ability... AND are far from being unbiased Endless holy grail? Bottomless project of my life? Please.. Most scientists just find disproving outdated eugenics a nuisance if anything. I think it's entertaining to talk to people still claiming these studies as "truth", and debunking them is "fantasy". Every 10 years there are less and less United States scientists giving credibility to IQ tests and the accuracy of race as a scientific classification. Outside of the states and UK they don't even bother with these studies at all, this should tell you something. The Flynn Effect alone invalidates IQ as a credible measure of "innate intelligence". Am I really supposed to believe that someone of average intelligence today would be near genius level in the 50s - 60s because of genetic selection? It's just more proof that there is more reason to believe that the causation is poverty/poor education/bad nutrition leads to Low IQ than the other way around... Which was the initial topic of our discussion Scientists are realizing that there are many different types of intelligence that need to be tested for individually, and even these tests don't get into potential intelligence.

9. What you call reality and fact may just be a "Western" Illusion.

10. I'm dropping this point in the future

11. I see what you're saying but the test parameters are atrocious and very obviously politically motivated. The fact that all the tests are in the end submitted by Westerners is suspect enough to warrant a second guess.

12. Yeah, nature vs nurture etc. IMO its a combination of both equally important parts.

On your point 12 here's something for you to think about: throughout eons of human history and throughout cultures – from China and Japan to India to Europe, the worldview has always been convergent onto a decidedly hereditarian one. It may not have explicitly Darwinist, but family tree and tribe are certainly one of the central pillars of society and most important consideration, as seen in elaborate marriage rituals (in the case of Chinese, "bamboo door is to bamboo door as wooden door is to wooden door 竹門對竹門，木門對木門]") or in just plain terms: zu (lineage, clan), zhong (seed, breed, type), zulei (type of lineage), minzu (lineage of people, nationality, race), zhongzu (breed of lineage, type of lineage, breed, race), renzhong (human breed, human race). In Japanese there is jinshu (human breed, human race), shuzoku (breed of lineage, type of lineage, breed, race)), and minzoku (lineage of people, nationality, race).

The environmental preponderance (let alone determinist) fantasy, on the other hand, is a very recent one and dates only back to the 60s and 70s in Western Europe/America or earliest to communism in East Europe/Russia. Furthermore it’s a very Western (i.e. white) phenomenon. In other words it’s an aberration against most of human history, across civilizations, practically travesty against human thought from all over the world. I’m surprised there are times that you seem to be espousing fashionable lies - Western or white no less - rather than adhering to time-honored principles.

Tell me it isn't so.

On the subject of scores, I post on them when you think IQ is useless or biased or whatever. Perhaps you think knowledge, science, reading, reasoning is hopelessly useless as well. Fact is, IQ correlates with SAT at a high level (see previous discussion) for individuals, and national IQ scores also correlates very well with international education attainments as measured by standardized tests. More international data for everyone:



You may choose to be deliberately blind and dismiss it; you just can't run and certainly can't hide.

Population groups are different.

Further comments on the 12 points:

1. If Hispanics are doing so well, why is it that per capita income of Hispanics is one half that of non-Hispanic whites, and their household net worth is barely one tenth?
2. Chinese studies have confirmed China’s IQ to be around 100-105 as well. (If you’re interested I can post separately.)
3. Rights and equality are simple lies. As they’re not based on reality, they have to be ‘declared’. Don’t believe in it.
4. You missed the point – my response immediately above has absolutely nothing to do with IQ. Try again.
5. Territory not defended is territory lost. That’s the whole HK vs Filipino thread in the first place.
6. Show us black coordinated studies where blacks have equal or higher IQ just for....“balance”. Where are they? I’m patiently waiting.
7. Hate to say this, sure there are some bright Filipinos, there are just not enough of them. Which is why there is stereotype in the first place. Just as there may be tall women - yet men are taller on average compared to women. Exceptions do not prove the rule.
8. Yes – but now you’re confronted with an even bigger contradiction: if poverty and poor ed and bad nutrition are everything, tell us what causes poverty and wealth in the first place?
9. The nurture assumption is probably as modernly Western as you can get.
10. Up to you.
11. Again, Chinese IQs record at 100-105 levels (closer to 105) by Chinese authors as well. Oh but wait that's even more bias. No, you’re reduced to blame blame blame (what Nietzsche calls “slave mentality”). When will blacks grow up and take responsibility for their own?

One more point: where are black studies that reveal equal or higher black IQ? Oh but now IQ is suddenly not valid either!! Wow, oh, OK. So the whole topic should be off the table. Very interesting. Like I said, refusing to look at it doesn't make it go away.

12. There are also times when opinion is not good enough.

[AnybodyKiller]

On your point 12 here's something for you to think about: throughout eons of human history and throughout cultures – from China and Japan to India to Europe, the worldview has always been convergent onto a decidedly hereditarian one. It may not have explicitly Darwinist, but family tree and tribe are certainly one of the central pillars of society and most important consideration, as seen in elaborate marriage rituals (in the case of Chinese, "bamboo door is to bamboo door as wooden door is to wooden door 竹門對竹門，木門對木門]") or in just plain terms: zu (lineage, clan), zhong (seed, breed, type), zulei (type of lineage), minzu (lineage of people, nationality, race), zhongzu (breed of lineage, type of lineage, breed, race), renzhong (human breed, human race). In Japanese there is jinshu (human breed, human race), shuzoku (breed of lineage, type of lineage, breed, race)), and minzoku (lineage of people, nationality, race).

The environmental preponderance (let alone determinist) fantasy, on the other hand, is a very recent one and dates only back to the 60s and 70s in Western Europe/America or earliest to communism in East Europe/Russia. Furthermore it’s a very Western (i.e. white) phenomenon. In other words it’s an aberration against most of human history, across civilizations, practically travesty against human thought from all over the world. I’m surprised there are times that you seem to be espousing fashionable lies - Western or white no less - rather than adhering to time-honored principles.

Tell me it isn't so.

On the subject of scores, I post on them when you think IQ is useless or biased or whatever. Perhaps you think knowledge, science, reading, reasoning is hopelessly useless as well. Fact is, IQ correlates with SAT at a high level (see previous discussion) for individuals, and national IQ scores also correlates very well with international education attainments as measured by standardized tests. More international data for everyone:



You may choose to be deliberately blind and dismiss it; you just can't run and certainly can't hide.

Population groups are different.

Further comments on the 12 points:

1. If Hispanics are doing so well, why is it that per capita income of Hispanics is one half that of non-Hispanic whites, and their household net worth is barely one tenth?
2. Chinese studies have confirmed China’s IQ to be around 100-105 as well. (If you’re interested I can post separately.)
3. Rights and equality are simple lies. As they’re not based on reality, they have to be ‘declared’. Don’t believe in it.
4. You missed the point – my response immediately above has absolutely nothing to do with IQ. Try again.
5. Territory not defended is territory lost. That’s the whole HK vs Filipino thread in the first place.
6. Show us black coordinated studies where blacks have equal or higher IQ just for....“balance”. Where are they? I’m patiently waiting.
7. Hate to say this, sure there are some bright Filipinos, there are just not enough of them. Which is why there is stereotype in the first place. Just as there may be tall women - yet men are taller on average compared to women. Exceptions do not prove the rule.
8. Yes – but now you’re confronted with an even bigger contradiction: if poverty and poor ed and bad nutrition are everything, tell us what causes poverty and wealth in the first place?
9. The nurture assumption is probably as modernly Western as you can get.
10. Up to you.
11. Again, Chinese IQs record at 100-105 levels (closer to 105) by Chinese authors as well. Oh but wait that's even more bias. No, you’re reduced to blame blame blame (what Nietzsche calls “slave mentality”). When will blacks grow up and take responsibility for their own?

One more point: where are black studies that reveal equal or higher black IQ? Oh but now IQ is suddenly not valid either!! Wow, oh, OK. So the whole topic should be off the table. Very interesting. Like I said, refusing to look at it doesn't make it go away.

12. There are also times when opinion is not good enough.

Still Desperately clinging to IQ I see.


Yeah those are cultural/political definitions not scientific studies. I have already revealed when and why those "Time honored traditions" have come into play. (Hint: From Slave trading Arabs and Whites) Tests do not equate to success as much as you'd like to believe it lol! They may correlate but that's about it.

1. You missed the point entirely. Second generation Hispanics do much better in terms of success than new immigrants. The reason for this stereotype is because of a constant flow of new immigrants from Mexico who come from more impoverished environments.

"For example, in California the share of
Latino immigrants who are homeowners rises from
16.4 percent of those who have been in the United
States for less than 10 years to 64.6 percent of those
who have been here for 30 years or more. Similarly,
English proficiency more than doubles from 33.4
percent of those who have been in the country for less
than 10 years to 73.5 percent of those who have been
here for 30 years or more."

2. Post it here why don't you? I'm patiently waiting as well.

3. Yeah, we're not the same I agree.. And I agree rights are nothing without respect. However the point we still disagree on and will probably never agree on is how much nature or nurture effects a persons intellect, but it is really irrelevant for us to try and prove here when professional scientists are still debating this anyway.

4. I see. You're talking about clustering. You know Filipinos cluster very close to Chinese right?

This is taken from a genetic study run by Chinese-American
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...ncluding-easia/

Modern Western study of clustering
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...senberg2007.png

Here's an old (Early 90s) Western study that basically implies Blacks are furthest away from Everyone while Whites are relatively close.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...luster_Tree.png

It actually shows we cluster closer to Chinese when Chinese are running the study or when modern Western scientists do the study rather than the study done in the early 90s.

5. Yeah, I understand HK for HKs, I honestly don't care about the citizenship issue that much, It's up to the HKs honestly. I just didn't like you spreading the lie that low IQ = stupid or low IQ = reason for poverty, that's just outdated ignorance.

6. IQ is meaningless, modern scientists acknowledge it as a remnant of Eugenics.

Show me studies or "results" which show a Chinese fighter can beat a top tier Fighter in an MMA match?. "If you can't provide this data it proves Chinese are bad fighters" (I know this isn't the case but I just pointed this out Again to show how silly this argument is)

7. Yes, but then isn't it more accurate and more efficient then to judge individually than on a 'stereotype of race'?

8. Umm, no I didn't . You're just repeating yourself now.. I've already addressed the causes of poverty in previous posts (Corruption, Famine, Apathy, Dependence on other countries etc. just off the top of my head.) . The Flynn effect states that researchers basically have to make the test more difficult every 10 years or so because people start scoring higher as time progresses. Researchers agree that this is too little time for natural selection to increase innate intelligence by this much. Schooling, Test Familiarity, Generally more stimulating environments, Nutrition, Less infectious diseases, Less inbreeding are usually listed as causes for this effect.. NONE of them allow the possibility that IQ is a valid measure of innate intelligence. This effect also shows that with these factors normalize so does IQ In other words an African American today would be "smarter" than a Chinese American 50 years ago if they took the same test.

9. I believe Both nature and nurture play a role as I've stated for the 3rd or 4th time. Also I don't identify with liberals or conservatives per say. I agree with points from both parties.

10.-

11. You should have posted the study. This still doesn't validate IQ as a valid measure of innate intelligence. Like I've said before scientists are developing tests which measure a more accurate form of various different intelligences. It wouldn't matter to me if Blacks scored higher on IQ, IQ would still be worthless.

12. Again, top scientists are still trying to find out how much is nurture and nature. It's pointless for us to discuss this here. We can go back and forth quoting both sides "it is virtually impossible to understand how biology works, outside the context of environment." etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w Here watch this and argue with the people in comments about Nature vs Nurture or something.

EDIT: Just realized that wasn't a study done in China but by a Chinese American, my mistake.. There is a study available through amazon that is 80$ though.

Joint Chinese, Chinese-American Study (Beat you to it)

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/3531/46...3.png(Unrelated clustering chart showing different results than the western study from the 90s)

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Oct 11 2011, 10:33 AM

[richasiankid]

Still Desperately clinging to IQ I see.


Yeah those are cultural/political definitions not scientific studies. I have already revealed when and why those "Time honored traditions" have come into play. (Hint: From Slave trading Arabs and Whites) Tests do not equate to success as much as you'd like to believe it lol! They may correlate but that's about it.

1. You missed the point entirely. Second generation Hispanics do much better in terms of success than new immigrants. The reason for this stereotype is because of a constant flow of new immigrants from Mexico who come from more impoverished environments.

"For example, in California the share of
Latino immigrants who are homeowners rises from
16.4 percent of those who have been in the United
States for less than 10 years to 64.6 percent of those
who have been here for 30 years or more. Similarly,
English proficiency more than doubles from 33.4
percent of those who have been in the country for less
than 10 years to 73.5 percent of those who have been
here for 30 years or more."

2. Post it here why don't you? I'm patiently waiting as well.

3. Yeah, we're not the same I agree.. And I agree rights are nothing without respect. However the point we still disagree on and will probably never agree on is how much nature or nurture effects a persons intellect, but it is really irrelevant for us to try and prove here when professional scientists are still debating this anyway.

4. I see. You're talking about clustering. You know Filipinos cluster very close to Chinese right?

This is taken from a genetic study run by Chinese-American
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...ncluding-easia/

Modern Western study of clustering
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...senberg2007.png

Here's an old (Early 90s) Western study that basically implies Blacks are furthest away from Everyone while Whites are relatively close.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...luster_Tree.png

It actually shows we cluster closer to Chinese when Chinese are running the study or when modern Western scientists do the study rather than the study done in the early 90s.

5. Yeah, I understand HK for HKs, I honestly don't care about the citizenship issue that much, It's up to the HKs honestly. I just didn't like you spreading the lie that low IQ = stupid or low IQ = reason for poverty, that's just outdated ignorance.

6. IQ is meaningless, modern scientists acknowledge it as a remnant of Eugenics.

Show me studies or "results" which show a Chinese fighter can beat a top tier Fighter in an MMA match?. "If you can't provide this data it proves Chinese are bad fighters" (I know this isn't the case but I just pointed this out Again to show how silly this argument is)

7. Yes, but then isn't it more accurate and more efficient then to judge individually than on a 'stereotype of race'?

8. Umm, no I didn't . You're just repeating yourself now.. I've already addressed the causes of poverty in previous posts (Corruption, Famine, Apathy, Dependence on other countries etc. just off the top of my head.) . The Flynn effect states that researchers basically have to make the test more difficult every 10 years or so because people start scoring higher as time progresses. Researchers agree that this is too little time for natural selection to increase innate intelligence by this much. Schooling, Test Familiarity, Generally more stimulating environments, Nutrition, Less infectious diseases, Less inbreeding are usually listed as causes for this effect.. NONE of them allow the possibility that IQ is a valid measure of innate intelligence. This effect also shows that with these factors normalize so does IQ In other words an African American today would be "smarter" than a Chinese American 50 years ago if they took the same test.

9. I believe Both nature and nurture play a role as I've stated for the 3rd or 4th time. Also I don't identify with liberals or conservatives per say. I agree with points from both parties.

10.-

11. You should have posted the study. This still doesn't validate IQ as a valid measure of innate intelligence. Like I've said before scientists are developing tests which measure a more accurate form of various different intelligences. It wouldn't matter to me if Blacks scored higher on IQ, IQ would still be worthless.

12. Again, top scientists are still trying to find out how much is nurture and nature. It's pointless for us to discuss this here. We can go back and forth quoting both sides "it is virtually impossible to understand how biology works, outside the context of environment." etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w Here watch this and argue with the people in comments about Nature vs Nurture or something.

EDIT: Just realized that wasn't a study done in China but by a Chinese American, my mistake.. There is a study available through amazon that is 80$ though.

Joint Chinese, Chinese-American Study (Beat you to it)

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/3531/46...3.png(Unrelated clustering chart showing different results than the western study from the 90s)

Once again the utopian belief (or assertion, or declaration) of “equality” is a very recent notion and Western one. You might be fighting whitey when in fact you’re not yourself aware you’re merely parroting same propaganda again and is already been poisoned by fad and fashion.

On the 12 points:

1. So it’s merely “stereotype” if per capita income of Hispanics and household net worth are roughly ½ and 1/10? Well, why is it that Hispanics after 3 generations are dropping out of high school at rates greater than even blacks? Is welfare kings and queens one potential option for browns?

2. See China forum (if moderator allows) post. I just posted there. If not I will (try to) post here.

3. White liberals give blacks most respect. How much is that worth to you? Isn’t respect earned? Based on how so many low IQ blacks behave in America it’s not exactly surprise if they’re not the first people who come to mind when respect is concerned.

Then there’s the issue of freedom of association etc; should we be forced to associate with blacks thru anti-discrimination laws etc when all else fails? Hmmm. You tell me.

4a. Actually there are great differences between Filipinos and Chinese compared to Chinese and Japanese and Koreans – North East Asians are very different from South East Asians:



When was the last time you hear Swedes are same as POrtuguese anyway?

4b. You’re correct the first bifurcation is that between blacks and non-blacks, consistent with the out-of-Africa hypothesis. The small band which “escaped” Africa has also probably undergone more selective pressure than those in Africa due to the ice ages. Out-Of-Africa actually is reason enough to suggest Africans are more primitive as all the more stupid ones survived itself. Confirming this Mongoloids/Caucasoids are much younger than Negroids – and monkeys have been here on earth before Homo Sapiens; and bacteria evolved long before mammals etc. The phylogenetic tree suggests Africans as a whole are more “primitive” than other populations.



Branching when it includes Chimpanzees look as above afterall.

And there are times you have to reap what you sow.

(I know there are more than a few who probably will say the above is inaccurate as Pygmies and many other Africans should be ranked closer to chimpanzee but I digress...)

5. Don’t you despise those spreading obvious & glaring lies of equality even more?

6. You can’t show me black-conducted studies which show equal or higher outcomes of blacks??? Gee, Thanks. But who can blame you. There might be a couple actually if I recall, but the preponderance of evidence is still quite simply overwhelmingly against it.

7a. Kelley’s paradox illustrates group averages are still not totally irrelevant
7b. On group level (e.g. mass immigration) it’s better and more accurate to judge a group based on knowledge rather than blind ideology of equality and population interchangeability.

8a. What causes corruption and apathy and dependence in the first place? Korea and China had their own share of famine afterall. And yet for example Zimbabwe – once breadwinner of Africa, now another breadbasket - didn't. Tough…..
8b. As I said before, malleability does not imply equality.

9. Good for you, but the nature assumption is more consistent with an understanding from most of human history in practically all cultures around the world – and judging from the rekindled interest in biology and genetics – is rapidly becoming wave of the future. The 1960s and 70s is merely aberration and interlude in longitudinal view as said before. Equality is not just a lie but a conspicuously short-lived deluded and denuded one.

10. –

11. See point 2 – posted there and reply there please - and yet funny based on your replies you certainly sound like you do really care blacks having 2-digit IQ. If it’s so false that blacks are stupid, tell me why you’re so hellbent on thrashing IQ in the first place? Because even deep deep down you know however imperfect IQ is achingly meaningful in some way. You can run from inequality - you just can't hide.

12.You cannot equalize nature – and the more you equalize nurture the greater remaining differences will be due to nature.

==========


BTW your study is not on Chinese IQ. Not a reflection of your own verbal reasoning of course but you seem to be confusing yourself here (perhaps deliberately so out of desperation).

I think you should try to take a step back. Take a big breath. Breathe. You may always lie to me or to other posters here – I hope you ultimately don't lie to yourself.

[AnybodyKiller]

Once again the utopian belief (or assertion, or declaration) of “equality” is a very recent notion and Western one. You might be fighting whitey when in fact you’re not yourself aware you’re merely parroting same propaganda again and is already been poisoned by fad and fashion.

On the 12 points:

1. So it’s merely “stereotype” if per capita income of Hispanics and household net worth are roughly ½ and 1/10? Well, why is it that Hispanics after 3 generations are dropping out of high school at rates greater than even blacks? Is welfare kings and queens one potential option for browns?

2. See China forum (if moderator allows) post. I just posted there. If not I will (try to) post here.

3. White liberals give blacks most respect. How much is that worth to you? Isn’t respect earned? Based on how so many low IQ blacks behave in America it’s not exactly surprise if they’re not the first people who come to mind when respect is concerned.

Then there’s the issue of freedom of association etc; should we be forced to associate with blacks thru anti-discrimination laws etc when all else fails? Hmmm. You tell me.

4a. Actually there are great differences between Filipinos and Chinese compared to Chinese and Japanese and Koreans – North East Asians are very different from South East Asians:



When was the last time you hear Swedes are same as POrtuguese anyway?

4b. You’re correct the first bifurcation is that between blacks and non-blacks, consistent with the out-of-Africa hypothesis. The small band which “escaped” Africa has also probably undergone more selective pressure than those in Africa due to the ice ages. Out-Of-Africa actually is reason enough to suggest Africans are more primitive as all the more stupid ones survived itself. Confirming this Mongoloids/Caucasoids are much younger than Negroids – and monkeys have been here on earth before Homo Sapiens; and bacteria evolved long before mammals etc. The phylogenetic tree suggests Africans as a whole are more “primitive” than other populations.



Branching when it includes Chimpanzees look as above afterall.

And there are times you have to reap what you sow.

(I know there are more than a few who probably will say the above is inaccurate as Pygmies and many other Africans should be ranked closer to chimpanzee but I digress...)

5. Don’t you despise those spreading obvious & glaring lies of equality even more?

6. You can’t show me black-conducted studies which show equal or higher outcomes of blacks??? Gee, Thanks. But who can blame you. There might be a couple actually if I recall, but the preponderance of evidence is still quite simply overwhelmingly against it.

7a. Kelley’s paradox illustrates group averages are still not totally irrelevant
7b. On group level (e.g. mass immigration) it’s better and more accurate to judge a group based on knowledge rather than blind ideology of equality and population interchangeability.

8a. What causes corruption and apathy and dependence in the first place? Korea and China had their own share of famine afterall. And yet for example Zimbabwe – once breadwinner of Africa, now another breadbasket - didn't. Tough…..
8b. As I said before, malleability does not imply equality.

9. Good for you, but the nature assumption is more consistent with an understanding from most of human history in practically all cultures around the world – and judging from the rekindled interest in biology and genetics – is rapidly becoming wave of the future. The 1960s and 70s is merely aberration and interlude in longitudinal view as said before. Equality is not just a lie but a conspicuously short-lived deluded and denuded one.

10. –

11. See point 2 – posted there and reply there please - and yet funny based on your replies you certainly sound like you do really care blacks having 2-digit IQ. If it’s so false that blacks are stupid, tell me why you’re so hellbent on thrashing IQ in the first place? Because even deep deep down you know however imperfect IQ is achingly meaningful in some way. You can run from inequality - you just can't hide.

12.You cannot equalize nature – and the more you equalize nurture the greater remaining differences will be due to nature.

==========


BTW your study is not on Chinese IQ. Not a reflection of your own verbal reasoning of course but you seem to be confusing yourself here (perhaps deliberately so out of desperation).

I think you should try to take a step back. Take a big breath. Breathe. You may always lie to me or to other posters here – I hope you ultimately don't lie to yourself.

It's not about "fighting whitey" lol.. It's more about exposing false science and ignorance.


1. Even still, education/tests don't always relate to success. I've already posted an article that shows that 2nd and 3rd generations have higher incomes, home ownership, are more of a political force etc. than 1st generation Mexicans.. But all that doesn't matter at all right? As long as you get a degree.

2. I checked it out, it still doesn't explain the Flynn Effect let alone the fact that Chinese Children who receive better schooling have higher IQs

This study actually helps my point! Thank you!


3. That is a good point, it is more the immigrants job to respect the host country than the host country to honor the immigrants.

4. Northern Chinese are pretty different. Southern Chinese aren't far at all and even overlap with us.
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2992/95561162bo6.png

5. Don’t you despise those spreading obvious & glaring lies of equality even more?

5. Again with equality, I've already said more than 3 times I know there are differences in populations, I just don't think that they're as great as you'd like to think.

Anyways isn't it a fools errand to believe anything you hear? I'm skeptical of everything I hear unless it's proven accurate and unbiased, not just because it stokes my ego.

6. Doesn't matter even if there was I wouldn't care. I've already shown that IQ doesn't measure innate intelligence not to mention potential intelligence.

7a. Kelley’s paradox illustrates group averages are still not totally irrelevant
7b. On group level (e.g. mass immigration) it’s better and more accurate to judge a group based on knowledge rather than blind ideology of equality and population interchangeability.

7. That's why you screen immigrants individually and not just let mass migrations into your country, where have you ever seen me pro-mass migration to HK in ANY of my posts

8a. What causes corruption and apathy and dependence in the first place? Korea and China had their own share of famine afterall. And yet for example Zimbabwe – once breadwinner of Africa, now another breadbasket - didn't. Tough…..
8b. As I said before, malleability does not imply equality.

8. What causes apathy, greed, corruption in the first place is usually a combination of being oppressed and having poor morals, It should be obvious but I wouldn't expect you to know about morals though . The Flynn effect invalidates IQ as a measure of innate intelligence. It also suggests that as Schooling, Test Familiarity, Generally more stimulating environments, Nutrition, Less infectious diseases, Less inbreeding etc. are major causes of rise/fall of IQ respectively. Which proves my first post

Good for you, but the nature assumption is more consistent with an understanding from most of human history in practically all cultures around the world – and judging from the rekindled interest in biology and genetics – is rapidly becoming wave of the future. The 1960s and 70s is merely aberration and interlude in longitudinal view as said before. Equality is not just a lie but a conspicuously short-lived deluded and denuded one.

9. Yes, I've already said that they're developing new tests accounting for variety of specialized intelligence, these tests will be more informative and useful than IQ. I'm just saying IQ is outdated it's very obvious.

10. -

11. See point 2 – posted there and reply there please - and yet funny based on your replies you certainly sound like you do really care blacks having 2-digit IQ. If it’s so false that blacks are stupid, tell me why you’re so hellbent on thrashing IQ in the first place? Because even deep deep down you know however imperfect IQ is achingly meaningful in some way. You can run from inequality - you just can't hide.

11. It is definitely meaningful, Just not meaningful to the point of the thread

IQ measures a combination of problem solving ability, memory retention, scholastic knowledge etc. It is not a measure of "general intelligence" however. I'm not hiding from anything, I seek the truth.
I'm not hellbent.. I'm thrashing IQ because it's flawed in theory and practice. Also it was the cornerstone of the study in the OP.

12. You cannot even begin to measure "nature", without first taking a look at environment.. They are intertwined.

Yeah you're right it was regarding genetics, it was not desperation though, I forgot I had asked you to post regarding IQ and not genetics which I requested in a similar thread.. I've already proven my point that your initial ignorant statement of "Filipinos =low intelligence because low IQ" and even the study in the OP that low innate intelligence is the causation of nations failure to be invalid. Even the Chinese study you yourself posted helps my points! The rest is really just for fun honestly.



EDIT: Basically, it boils down to you think I put too much value in the "nurture/environment aspect", I think you put too much value in the "nature/innate" aspect. And that's OK




This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Oct 12 2011, 02:08 AM

[richasiankid]

It's not about "fighting whitey" lol.. It's more about exposing false science and ignorance.


1. Even still, education/tests don't always relate to success. I've already posted an article that shows that 2nd and 3rd generations have higher incomes, home ownership, are more of a political force etc. than 1st generation Mexicans.. But all that doesn't matter at all right? As long as you get a degree.

2. I checked it out, it still doesn't explain the Flynn Effect let alone the fact that Chinese Children who receive better schooling have higher IQs

This study actually helps my point! Thank you!


3. That is a good point, it is more the immigrants job to respect the host country than the host country to honor the immigrants.

4. Northern Chinese are pretty different. Southern Chinese aren't far at all and even overlap with us.
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2992/95561162bo6.png



5. Again with equality, I've already said more than 3 times I know there are differences in populations, I just don't think that they're as great as you'd like to think.

Anyways isn't it a fools errand to believe anything you hear? I'm skeptical of everything I hear unless it's proven accurate and unbiased, not just because it stokes my ego.

6. Doesn't matter even if there was I wouldn't care. I've already shown that IQ doesn't measure innate intelligence not to mention potential intelligence.


7. That's why you screen immigrants individually and not just let mass migrations into your country, where have you ever seen me pro-mass migration to HK in ANY of my posts



8. What causes apathy, greed, corruption in the first place is usually a combination of being oppressed and having poor morals, It should be obvious but I wouldn't expect you to know about morals though . The Flynn effect invalidates IQ as a measure of innate intelligence. It also suggests that as Schooling, Test Familiarity, Generally more stimulating environments, Nutrition, Less infectious diseases, Less inbreeding etc. are major causes of rise/fall of IQ respectively. Which proves my first post



9. Yes, I've already said that they're developing new tests accounting for variety of specialized intelligence, these tests will be more informative and useful than IQ. I'm just saying IQ is outdated it's very obvious.

10. -



11. It is definitely meaningful, Just not meaningful to the point of the thread

IQ measures a combination of problem solving ability, memory retention, scholastic knowledge etc. It is not a measure of "general intelligence" however. I'm not hiding from anything, I seek the truth.
I'm not hellbent.. I'm thrashing IQ because it's flawed in theory and practice. Also it was the cornerstone of the study in the OP.

12. You cannot even begin to measure "nature", without first taking a look at environment.. They are intertwined.

Yeah you're right it was regarding genetics, it was not desperation though, I forgot I had asked you to post regarding IQ and not genetics which I requested in a similar thread.. I've already proven my point that your initial ignorant statement of "Filipinos =low intelligence because low IQ" and even the study in the OP that low innate intelligence is the causation of nations failure to be invalid. Even the Chinese study you yourself posted helps my points! The rest is really just for fun honestly.



EDIT: Basically, it boils down to you think I put too much value in the "nurture/environment aspect", I think you put too much value in the "nature/innate" aspect. And that's OK

If you lie to this forum or me that’s fine, you may just not want to lie to yourself. You’ve given more than a few hints about white “bias”…..and even you yourself labelled IQ tests as being “designed to prove White Supremacy” etc. Ask yourself this question say: how can you be objective if you're so clouded by white wickedness?

1. Tell us then what’s the mechanism of an en masse Hispanic upper middle class or wealth when they are themselves children of lliterate peasants who drop out of high school? It’s not like they have $$ to 'work' with. Not talking about (a) individuals but as a group – not talking about (b) getting a degree – but of dropping out of high school.

2. Wrong. In fact, the study took this into consideration and on table 5 it shows parental education rather than environment being more important than environment when “influential” factors have been taken into account.



Why make this familial vs institutional distinction? Because parents also pass on their genes to children. Stupid parents may simply have stupid children via environmental deprivation. One is cause, the other merely means.

3. Good idea and in American context too - insist on Hispanics speaking English not the other way round.

4. Second time you’ve said “we” and “us” – no wonder you didn’t want to touch point 10. Are you Filipino just trying to behave like black (but still smarter based on your replies – as I said you’re the exception which you took exception....or will point 4 soon be out as well?)

5. You’re banging away convergence which you admitted are merely imperfect but fail to blast away at blatant falsehoods. What does this reveal?

6. And if some groups are really so smart, they should win Oscars for a convincing performance they aren’t.

7. Short of population equilibrium (i.e. no immigration at all) discriminating against populations as a blunt instrument still makes sense when individual screening becomes impractical.

8. I notice that “corruption, apathy, and dependence” – your words “just off the top of your head” – are now so not accidentally read as “apathy, greed, corruption” -- when you pretend to answer….yourself. You know it and are merely trying to shift ground and which is why you’re also shifting towards the moral argument i.e. what should rather than what is.

9. Tell us what some of these tests show then. MRI, EEG, genes. Go look it up. Not equality but differences (which you acknowledged, thank you) increasingly at the biological and genetic level as we march on in the 21st century (which you haven't); not diluted or deluded or denuded by some 20th century clichés of kumbaya. The more you dig, the more different.

10. See point 4.

11. See China forum

12. Again, the more you equalize nurture the increasingly proportion will be due to nature. And this is what we're seeing today. Much like God is forever receding and progressively eroded.

PS - If you prefer - why not think new, why not think different (like Apple) – when you said you grew up in the 90s - why not think different today?

[AnybodyKiller]

If you lie to this forum or me that’s fine, you may just not want to lie to yourself. You’ve given more than a few hints about white “bias”…..and even you yourself labelled IQ tests as being “designed to prove White Supremacy” etc. Ask yourself this question say: how can you be objective if you're so clouded by white wickedness?

1. Tell us then what’s the mechanism of an en masse Hispanic upper middle class or wealth when they are themselves children of lliterate peasants who drop out of high school? It’s not like they have $$ to 'work' with. Not talking about (a) individuals but as a group – not talking about (b) getting a degree – but of dropping out of high school.

2. Wrong. In fact, the study took this into consideration and on table 5 it shows parental education rather than environment being more important than environment when “influential” factors have been taken into account.



Why make this familial vs institutional distinction? Because parents also pass on their genes to children. Stupid parents may simply have stupid children via environmental deprivation. One is cause, the other merely means.

3. Good idea and in American context too - insist on Hispanics speaking English not the other way round.

4. Second time you’ve said “we” and “us” – no wonder you didn’t want to touch point 10. Are you Filipino just trying to behave like black (but still smarter based on your replies – as I said you’re the exception which you took exception....or will point 4 soon be out as well?)

5. You’re banging away convergence which you admitted are merely imperfect but fail to blast away at blatant falsehoods. What does this reveal?

6. And if some groups are really so smart, they should win Oscars for a convincing performance they aren’t.

7. Short of population equilibrium (i.e. no immigration at all) discriminating against populations as a blunt instrument still makes sense when individual screening becomes impractical.

8. I notice that “corruption, apathy, and dependence” – your words “just off the top of your head” – are now so not accidentally read as “apathy, greed, corruption” -- when you pretend to answer….yourself. You know it and are merely trying to shift ground and which is why you’re also shifting towards the moral argument i.e. what should rather than what is.

9. Tell us what some of these tests show then. MRI, EEG, genes. Go look it up. Not equality but differences (which you acknowledged, thank you) increasingly at the biological and genetic level as we march on in the 21st century (which you haven't); not diluted or deluded or denuded by some 20th century clichés of kumbaya. The more you dig, the more different.

10. See point 4.

11. See China forum

12. Again, the more you equalize nurture the increasingly proportion will be due to nature. And this is what we're seeing today. Much like God is forever receding and progressively eroded.

PS - If you prefer - why not think new, why not think different (like Apple) – when you said you grew up in the 90s - why not think different today?

Eh, I go back and read the entire discussion and am satisfied with the outcome. The rest is really just semantics "trying to get the last word in"

many of your "points" are becoming nonsensical and more incendiary than anything.

6. And if some groups are really so smart, they should win Oscars for a convincing performance they aren’t.

4. Second time you’ve said “we” and “us” – no wonder you didn’t want to touch point 10. Are you Filipino just trying to behave like black (but still smarter based on your replies – as I said you’re the exception which you took exception....or will point 4 soon be out as well?)

Or Repeating yourself

8. I notice that “corruption, apathy, and dependence” – your words “just off the top of your head” – are now so not accidentally read as “apathy, greed, corruption” -- when you pretend to answer….yourself. You know it and are merely trying to shift ground and which is why you’re also shifting towards the moral argument i.e. what should rather than what is.

See, you have no knowledge of morals only statistics.. It is impossible for you to believe that something other than "low innate intelligence" could be the cause of struggle of the poor. And because these variables can't be measured scientifically you accuse me of "shifting the debate to moral ground".

But.. At least we agree on some

3. Good idea and in American context too - insist on Hispanics speaking English not the other way round.

Except in California where they rightfully own the land. But in general I agree.

7. Short of population equilibrium (i.e. no immigration at all) discriminating against populations as a blunt instrument still makes sense when individual screening becomes impractical.

Anyways..

I've already accomplished what I've set out to do; Show IQ as a laughable measure of "innate intelligence" therefore exposing your first statement of "Low IQ Filipinos = Innately Stupid Filipinos" as pure ignorance.
And provide more than enough evidence to back my first comparison of "Class and IQ" vs "Race and IQ". The explanations of the Flynn effect alone are enough to back this.

I've seen too much repetition and flaming from you to keep this interesting. zzz

PS- You can have the last word if it makes you feel better.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Oct 13 2011, 11:21 PM

[questionnaire]

It's just sad to hear a conservative blame liberals in the media for making fun of Asians and not Blacks, while a comedy by conservatives would just create parodies based on inequalities just as much. And America has not really been known to be far left, and lots of people sell out if money talks. Besides the comedy show Roast is all about racial jokes and inequalities. They've called the black guests on there more than once, illiterate. So I'm not sure why the right wing rhetoric says that the world is ignoring the inequalities in all races.

This post has been edited by questionnaire: Oct 14 2011, 11:43 AM

[richasiankid]

Eh, I go back and read the entire discussion and am satisfied with the outcome. The rest is really just semantics "trying to get the last word in"

many of your "points" are becoming nonsensical and more incendiary than anything.




Or Repeating yourself



See, you have no knowledge of morals only statistics.. It is impossible for you to believe that something other than "low innate intelligence" could be the cause of struggle of the poor. And because these variables can't be measured scientifically you accuse me of "shifting the debate to moral ground".

But.. At least we agree on some

Except in California where they rightfully own the land. But in general I agree.



Anyways..

I've already accomplished what I've set out to do; Show IQ as a laughable measure of "innate intelligence" therefore exposing your first statement of "Low IQ Filipinos = Innately Stupid Filipinos" as pure ignorance.
And provide more than enough evidence to back my first comparison of "Class and IQ" vs "Race and IQ". The explanations of the Flynn effect alone are enough to back this.

I've seen too much repetition and flaming from you to keep this interesting. zzz

PS- You can have the last word if it makes you feel better.

Well, as I will sign off I’ll make it quick: has it occurred to anyone here that I quite deliberately went on with the flow after you heaped on 9 consecutive replies on the OP? It shows what gnaws your mind.

As for “morals” don’t ever forget it’s ultimately secondary: the winner will never be asked whether he is right or wrong. In life but especially in economics let alone politics it’s not the right that wins but the winner who is right. Always remember that principle. In the context of population differences though, I doubt you’ll ever come across a figure as honest as Darwin.

As for Filipinos if they are whom you’re rooting for, if you’re Filipino-American you should. I have no objections and I say good for you. From my point of view FAs are productive in their own way in their own niche. They probably make better immigrants for many compared to the effluent that America gets (“give me the tired the poor the wretched refuse” etc) When you look at maids in Hong Kong where they often make in a month where the middle class makes in a day and where the upper-middle-class makes in an hour - their drudgery hardwork should be commended.

Unfortunately though this is not what this thread nor it’s ultimately about.

I very humbly sign off.