So I've been reading the Mating Mind, which describes human evolution in terms of sexual selection (more on that later). Anyway, he emphasizes that humans evolved to devote a significant amount of their thinking to thinking about other people, and not really abstract concepts.
Now, after the death of Anna Nicole Smith, it's not hard to see it in practice. I am constantly amazed at the amount of attention people give to celebrities. There must be something in our head hard wired to be interested in drama. Men are a little different, with them focusing on sports to the same degree that women focus on celebrities.
On the SETI website, there is an interesting article on the decline of science.
http://www.seti.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=194993&ct=3558987
There is also an amazing picture of galaxy cluster Abell S7040, 450 million light years away.
If people are incapable of appreciating such things, and can't unless their media forces them too, they won't. So called "oppressed," groups probably can't either. Maybe it's from dysgenics in our society, I don't know.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Barack "Hussein" Obama
Yes, his middle name is Hussein. Why the are people going gaga over this guy? Because of his charisma?
People argue if he is African-American. Technically, yes, because he is half white and half black. However, many blacks say that he does not have the background of "white oppression," that would make him relate to blacks more.
I think this issue is indicative of the generaly disparities between African immigrants to America and African Americans. African immigrants are the cream of the crop in African societies. The come to America because they are enterprising and intelligent. African Americans represent a general cross section of West African blood (most likely not royal blood).
Barack Obama's father is a Harvard educated economist, and his mother is pursuing a Phd. I think it would be fair to say that both of his parents have IQ's greater than 120. Well, that is why Obama gets along well with whites. He did well in life because of his merit, not affirmitive action. He doesn't suffer from "white oppression," because he is an intelligent person.
I really don't think it's about "hope." We can't all live holding hands-there are thugs in this world, and there are serious intelligence disparities. None of the democratic candidates seem able to confront this. While Giuliani won't directly say Islam is evil, he'll fight them, and he won't let blacks make excuses. The best part is that he'll also resist Christian fundamentalists.
Ha, good luck to a reasonable person getting elected!
People argue if he is African-American. Technically, yes, because he is half white and half black. However, many blacks say that he does not have the background of "white oppression," that would make him relate to blacks more.
I think this issue is indicative of the generaly disparities between African immigrants to America and African Americans. African immigrants are the cream of the crop in African societies. The come to America because they are enterprising and intelligent. African Americans represent a general cross section of West African blood (most likely not royal blood).
Barack Obama's father is a Harvard educated economist, and his mother is pursuing a Phd. I think it would be fair to say that both of his parents have IQ's greater than 120. Well, that is why Obama gets along well with whites. He did well in life because of his merit, not affirmitive action. He doesn't suffer from "white oppression," because he is an intelligent person.
I really don't think it's about "hope." We can't all live holding hands-there are thugs in this world, and there are serious intelligence disparities. None of the democratic candidates seem able to confront this. While Giuliani won't directly say Islam is evil, he'll fight them, and he won't let blacks make excuses. The best part is that he'll also resist Christian fundamentalists.
Ha, good luck to a reasonable person getting elected!
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Valentine's Day
I don't know if I'm cursed or something, but I always happen to be single and pissed on Valentine's day. I'm single today, but not pissed. Why? Because this year I've realized how empty our consumerist society is, and, essentially, how love is a lie. Combine those two, and you have the most bullshit holiday ever.
Commercials convince girls that they have to waste money in order to prove to each other that they love each other. And that relationship, which is based off of unfullfilled psychological needs from the past and insecurity, is now fed by consumerism.
I find it morally despicable the way women's emotions are manipulated into feeling totally dependent on the spending habits of guys for their self esteem.
Why must people find it so necessary to advertise their wealth? To make those who make less (not because of laziness, but most likely because of low genetic intellectual endowment) feel like shit. To you people who embrace status symbols, do something good with your lives.
To so many who have someone, why do they have to feel like Valentine's Day is a burden to 'plan' something? And to those who are single? Why feel as if you are not complete unless you are with someone? People should not rely on others for happiness. If that is the case, then you need to start thinking outside the cubicle. Relationships add to life when they are two people mutually improving each other. Dependence is unfortunate.
Commercials convince girls that they have to waste money in order to prove to each other that they love each other. And that relationship, which is based off of unfullfilled psychological needs from the past and insecurity, is now fed by consumerism.
I find it morally despicable the way women's emotions are manipulated into feeling totally dependent on the spending habits of guys for their self esteem.
Why must people find it so necessary to advertise their wealth? To make those who make less (not because of laziness, but most likely because of low genetic intellectual endowment) feel like shit. To you people who embrace status symbols, do something good with your lives.
To so many who have someone, why do they have to feel like Valentine's Day is a burden to 'plan' something? And to those who are single? Why feel as if you are not complete unless you are with someone? People should not rely on others for happiness. If that is the case, then you need to start thinking outside the cubicle. Relationships add to life when they are two people mutually improving each other. Dependence is unfortunate.
Monday, February 12, 2007
A Debate
Recently, I listened to a podcast by tariq nasheed on the differences between light and dark skinned women. Basically, lighter skinned women were of higher status and easier to get along with than dark skinned women. Lighter skinned women also have more white blood in them.
So, out of curiosity, I went onto an african american forum to read about what had to be said. Nothing surprising, with some people being forthcoming about their preferences, but plenty of PC rhetoric on "I like all colors equally, they don't mean anything." Yeah, right. Anyway, I wrote my two cents on genetics, race, and behavior, and generated some serious coverage. Here it is:
I saw someone write this:
"i think this whole subject should be put to rest. time has already proven that the light skinned/dark skinned thing is an untruth created by much lighter people than us. why are we still giving this credibility by debating it? We are all beautiful, light, dark or in between. white people know this, even if thay will never admit it, so why don't we?"
and had to comment
"Biology determines personality.
Mixed Race individuals have IQ’s intermediate between those of the two parents races. For African Americans, there is a statistically significant association between light skin and intelligence. This also holds for Aborigines and Native Americans (especially in Latin America)
1. When sub-populations of a species become geographically isolated and occupy different environments, they become genetically differentiated, eventually diverging into different species. By this process, the races have become differentiated with respect to body shape/size, color, hair type, genetic diseases, blood groups. It is unlikely that intelligence is the exception, given that, among animals, populations that differ so remarkably in physical appearance also have different behavioral characteristics (but ARE still part of the same species and capable of reproduction ie; dogs):"
This started the debate. Here is the first post to respond to me:
Greeneyedsista: "John Smith: The Bell Curve must be your bible. Exactly what is the purpose of including a link to a blog that says the average black person's IQ is 85 (on a black forum, no less) which is funny because mine is 130? I am assuming to perpetuate stereotypes, namely genetic inferiority in regards to intelligence. That wasn't the basis of this thread. One should note that the "if you're lighter, you're smarter" concept would be convenient for a white person to believe because they have the least variance in complexion and are the lightest complected race. I also don't agree with the blog you referenced. You say intellect is impacted by complexion, and the blog says the same. The blog then goes further to say that intellect is inherited.(I do agree; village idiots usually don't produce progeny that are members of the Mensa Society.) These are two wildly divergent concepts. Two dark skinned black parents can have a light skinned black child, and vice versa. And how would it affect an albino? Would they be geniuses?(I'm being facetious.) So which would then be the dominant factor regarding intelligence, complexion or heredity? It's not Burger King; you can't have it your (both) ways! Black children's cognitive development is faster in certain areas during infancy through the earlier part of childhood. The general (white) population that is firmly ensconced in their own superiority would be highly upset if that became common knowledge! Education is highly valued in Asian and Jewish cultures, which are also mentioned as "smarter" races. This would explain their percieved intellectual superiority. My Asian friends in school said they had to study hard and failure was not an option. This is common in Asian culture. They were not genetically smarter. Due to poverty and lack of focus on education, black children fall behind academically early on. One can be extremely bright, and the potential is never realized if it is not nurtured, therefore the so-called "IQ" test may not be an accurate barometer of intellect or lack thereof. As for the testosterone/violence correlation, institutional racism is too prevalent to assume that testosterone is the primary factor for determining the likelihood of incarceration. Granted it plays a factor, but there are other forces at work as well. It's easier to blame hormones (which points to skin color) versus a flawed and racist judicial system.
If the physical differences among races were brought about due to geography, why would it be "unlikely that intelligence is the exception?" Do you need to be "smarter" to live in a colder part of the world, for example? If black people are intellectually inferior, I can reasonably infer this to be true. Physical differences would make sense such as dark skin providing natural sun protection in a sunny and hot climate, but why would intellect also be affected?
I'm just not buying what you're selling."
My reply
John Smith:
"Exactly what is the purpose of including a link to a blog that says the average black person's IQ is 85 (on a black forum, no less) which is funny because mine is 130? I am assuming to perpetuate stereotypes, namely genetic inferiority in regards to intelligence.�
-1. If your IQ is 130, then you will easily be able to understand my argument, though it would not mean you were less intelligent if you disagreed with what I am saying. Thousands of African Americans have IQ�s above 130. However, such is the nature of the Bell Curve. An average of 85 would guarantee that around .5% of the AA population has an IQ above 130. That is still 180,000 people, not a small amount. Just because you have an IQ of 130 does not mean that the average black IQ is not 85.
One should note that the "if you're lighter, you're smarter" concept would be convenient for a white person to believe because they have the least variance in complexion and are the lightest complected race.
The light skin=intelligent concept is not a convenience. It is a reality that has been demonstrated in Latin America, US, India, and Asia. The lighter the skin, the more white proportion in genes, and therefore the more intelligent genetic endowment.
The blog then goes further to say that intellect is inherited.(I do agree; village idiots usually don't produce progeny that are members of the Mensa Society.) These are two wildly divergent concepts. Two dark skinned black parents can have a light skinned black child, and vice versa. And how would it affect an albino? Would they be geniuses?(I'm being facetious.)
-Intelligence is absolutely inherited. Twin adoption studies have found correlations of .6-.8 for adult IQ. Two dark skinned parents will not have a light skinned child unless the parent carries recessive light skinned genes. Albinos are albinos because of a genetic defect, not because of a general correlation between light skin and intelligence. They would not be geniuses. Skin color only means something because it indicates geographic origin. Higher latitude origins usually mean higher intelligence.
Black children's cognitive development is faster in certain areas during infancy through the earlier part of childhood. The general (white) population that is firmly ensconced in their own superiority would be highly upset if that became common knowledge!
-I absolutely agree. Experts have found that black children can hold their neck up at an earlier age than whites and asians. Guess what, you just proved my point. There are genetic, racial differences in brain development.
Education is highly valued in Asian and Jewish cultures, which are also mentioned as "smarter" races. This would explain their percieved intellectual superiority. My Asian friends in school said they had to study hard and failure was not an option. This is common in Asian culture. They were not genetically smarter.
-It could be cultural. However, one could very well make the argument that Asian cultures promote higher academic achievement because they are smarter, and therefore have placed a greater emphasis on education. Failure was not an option because parents know their kids are smart enough to do well."
"Due to poverty and lack of focus on education, black children fall behind academically early on. One can be extremely bright, and the potential is never realized if it is not nurtured, therefore the so-called "IQ" test may not be an accurate barometer of intellect or lack thereof."
-Black children actually fall behind early on because of intelligence disparities, not because of poverty. Programs such as head start find that “White children, who were the most disadvantaged, showed larger and longer lasting improvements than African-American children.” And many of these improvements disappeared after the students became older and left the program."
As for the testosterone/violence correlation, institutional racism is too prevalent to assume that testosterone is the primary factor for determining the likelihood of incarceration. Granted it plays a factor, but there are other forces at work as well. It's easier to blame hormones (which points to skin color) versus a flawed and racist judicial system."
-I am not claiming that the racial system is perfect. There unquestionably is racism. However, if blacks commit more crimes (due to higher testosterone levels-just look at genetalia size discrepancies), then is it really so much of a stretch for police officers to scrutinize them more closely?
"If the physical differences among races were brought about due to geography, why would it be "unlikely that intelligence is the exception?" Do you need to be "smarter" to live in a colder part of the world, for example? If black people are intellectually inferior, I can reasonably infer this to be true. Physical differences would make sense such as dark skin providing natural sun protection in a sunny and hot climate, but why would intellect also be affected?"
-Intellect would absolutely be affected by climate. The capabilities required to build fires, hunt game, and utilize scarce resources require much higher intelligence than simple gathering, which one could do in sub-saharan africa. Asians evolved in an even colder climate than whites, which explains why they are smarter than whites.
I don’t expect you to believe what I say after this. If you think I am a racist, I can understand why. However, I care deeply about national and international political issues, and we cannot have a serious discussion unless we look at these issues squarely. That means leaving censorship and political correctness at the door. Considering that Al Sharpton and the NY Times editorial board are happy to cry racism every time a white cop shoots a black man, the system can't be blatantly racist without people making a fuss about it.
Her reply:
Greeneyedsista: "John Smith: We will agree to disagree on this one. I do not trust so called "studies" because studies can not only be slanted to agree with a viewpoint, but the study you are referring to is blatantly racist. I brought up development in black infants to confirm my belief that the masses know what the person conducting these "studies" want them to know, as opposed to complete disclosure. I don't believe everything I read anyway, as I am suspicious by nature. This forum is about colorism and disparity of treatment among black people within the black community which is a very real issue. Your post seems an attempt to create further division.
Black families can absolutely have two darker parents and produce a lighter child. I know genetics plays a part in complexion. The black race is racially mixed and recessive genes can pop up anywhere. This explains why me and both of my brothers have light eyes, and neither my parents nor grandparents have them. The same is applicable in regards to complexion. I don't know of a dark skinned family that is 100% dark skinned (maybe Africans) so as long as there are people of varying complexions, the offspring can potentially be any complexion."The light skin=intelligent concept is not a convenience. It is a reality that has been demonstrated." Please show this study by someone other than a white person (who may likely have a hidden agenda.) So the white race has minimal variance in intellect (I am not saying all white people are smart) but all other races do?
I did not say you were racist, and you may very well not be. I am not racist either but I have to consider the source in deciding whether to believe everything I read (Bell Curve)."
cont...Another thing to consider: Black people have been told since they were brought here to America that they are less than human, and that white is superior. Can intellect be compared between races when one has been disadvantaged for hundreds of years? And after hearing this absolutely untrue garbage about inferiority, someone else wants to perpetuate the belief that white is superior via "studies" and I am supposed to take it as gospel? That would make ME the idiot that white people (the ones who believe they are superior) think I am.
This might be the wrong forum if you are looking for someone to agree. That's tantamount to me going into a beauty forum about anti-aging serums and posting,"Well white skin ages faster. I can lay in the sun all day and not really show signs of photo aging until I am in my 50's. You guys might as well give it up!" How annoying would that be, though that is actually true.(I'm not convinced on intellectual inferiority based on race so my example is not the best one, but a decent one nonetheless.) First off all, it's rude, secondly that was not the topic, and thirdly is sounds like I think I am superior. Do you see where I am going?
My Reply:
Tabootruth: "I doubt I'll find a non white person conducting these studies, but at the same time, many of the "racist" statisticians have admitted that Asians and Jews have higher intelligence than whites, genetically.
When it comes to variance in intellect, all races have geniuses and those at the bottom end. For some races, a greater fraction are smarter.
In regard to society's attitudes, blacks were told a century ago that they were inferior. However, today, political correctness has totally silenced people with my views. The very fact that no child left behind exists is because our society ASSUMES that all races are intellectually equal.
You're probably right about the white skin. Anyway, the reason why I am posting here is because the topic, about light skinned and dark skinned women, is what I was originally commenting on. Because whites and blacks have different genes, which would make them behave differently, if someone was light skinned, they would more likely take on black behavioral characteristics. Just look at Colin Powell. Technically, he's black, but you can barely tell by the way he act-he acts white and he's very light skinned."
Someone else joined the debate
Noelani: "I didn't read the forementioned post before, but it's really not worth debating this individual. As you stated, it's a means to cause further division and tarnish the overall positive vibe of this thread.
Hmm the last paragraph of this post is bordering on extreme ignorance. What exactly is "acting" white."
Another joined
"You can't really ONLY see it this way? Or do you? Correlating myths and reality doesn't help any argument. You are using the part of the facts that can suggest plausibilty, but refuse to use the whole story to make a conclusion. It seems to be out of convenience I must say. It's funny you and sista put up references with theories that contradict one another. I wonder who thinks their right more."
Greeneyedsista: "Noelani: I picked up on that too. I suppose acting "white" is possessing a command of the English language and educating one's self, according to tabootruth. Maybe if Colin Powell listens to reggae (doesn't he have Jamaican heritage?) and smokes weed, then he'd be acting "black."
You're right...I need to fall back and not let generalizations upset me. Thanks for reminding me...LOL."
My reply:
Tabootruth: "It's actually African-Americans who have come up with the term "acting white." Just think about Joe Biden's comment with regard to Barack Obama being the first black politician to be articulate. And guess what? He's actually not as popular among African Americans as you would think, and he's quite popular among whites. There is a tradeoff between being popular with both groups, because the more one relates with whites (considered acting white) the more one less relates to blacks.
Are you really going to claim that the behavioral differences between light and dark skinned blacks are solely societally driven? That having more white genes doesn't make one act in a certain way?
Genetics matters."
Their reply:
Noelani: "I am not claiming anything, except the fact that your posts are obviously racist propaganda. Provided by white supremist organizations.
You are the new breed of racist. Armed with flimsy manipulated facts but no truth. You hide behind your "supposed" intellectualism, but you are a closet strom thurman who hides behind your computer screen and come on these forums to demoralize minorities.
Well sir or man, whatever you are, this one isn't buying your BS. Move along internet troll and leave the real debating to the truly, thoughtful, intelligent and honest people.
Skunk Anansie has a great song called "Intellectualise My Blackness" it's exactly how I feel toward people like you, spare me..no really, please...spare me!"
I decided to no longer debate-mainly because the points have been brought out and most of my points were not refuted. The only arguments thrown at me were that my facts were racist and that I shouldn't demoralize minorities.
So, out of curiosity, I went onto an african american forum to read about what had to be said. Nothing surprising, with some people being forthcoming about their preferences, but plenty of PC rhetoric on "I like all colors equally, they don't mean anything." Yeah, right. Anyway, I wrote my two cents on genetics, race, and behavior, and generated some serious coverage. Here it is:
I saw someone write this:
"i think this whole subject should be put to rest. time has already proven that the light skinned/dark skinned thing is an untruth created by much lighter people than us. why are we still giving this credibility by debating it? We are all beautiful, light, dark or in between. white people know this, even if thay will never admit it, so why don't we?"
and had to comment
"Biology determines personality.
Mixed Race individuals have IQ’s intermediate between those of the two parents races. For African Americans, there is a statistically significant association between light skin and intelligence. This also holds for Aborigines and Native Americans (especially in Latin America)
1. When sub-populations of a species become geographically isolated and occupy different environments, they become genetically differentiated, eventually diverging into different species. By this process, the races have become differentiated with respect to body shape/size, color, hair type, genetic diseases, blood groups. It is unlikely that intelligence is the exception, given that, among animals, populations that differ so remarkably in physical appearance also have different behavioral characteristics (but ARE still part of the same species and capable of reproduction ie; dogs):"
This started the debate. Here is the first post to respond to me:
Greeneyedsista: "John Smith: The Bell Curve must be your bible. Exactly what is the purpose of including a link to a blog that says the average black person's IQ is 85 (on a black forum, no less) which is funny because mine is 130? I am assuming to perpetuate stereotypes, namely genetic inferiority in regards to intelligence. That wasn't the basis of this thread. One should note that the "if you're lighter, you're smarter" concept would be convenient for a white person to believe because they have the least variance in complexion and are the lightest complected race. I also don't agree with the blog you referenced. You say intellect is impacted by complexion, and the blog says the same. The blog then goes further to say that intellect is inherited.(I do agree; village idiots usually don't produce progeny that are members of the Mensa Society.) These are two wildly divergent concepts. Two dark skinned black parents can have a light skinned black child, and vice versa. And how would it affect an albino? Would they be geniuses?(I'm being facetious.) So which would then be the dominant factor regarding intelligence, complexion or heredity? It's not Burger King; you can't have it your (both) ways! Black children's cognitive development is faster in certain areas during infancy through the earlier part of childhood. The general (white) population that is firmly ensconced in their own superiority would be highly upset if that became common knowledge! Education is highly valued in Asian and Jewish cultures, which are also mentioned as "smarter" races. This would explain their percieved intellectual superiority. My Asian friends in school said they had to study hard and failure was not an option. This is common in Asian culture. They were not genetically smarter. Due to poverty and lack of focus on education, black children fall behind academically early on. One can be extremely bright, and the potential is never realized if it is not nurtured, therefore the so-called "IQ" test may not be an accurate barometer of intellect or lack thereof. As for the testosterone/violence correlation, institutional racism is too prevalent to assume that testosterone is the primary factor for determining the likelihood of incarceration. Granted it plays a factor, but there are other forces at work as well. It's easier to blame hormones (which points to skin color) versus a flawed and racist judicial system.
If the physical differences among races were brought about due to geography, why would it be "unlikely that intelligence is the exception?" Do you need to be "smarter" to live in a colder part of the world, for example? If black people are intellectually inferior, I can reasonably infer this to be true. Physical differences would make sense such as dark skin providing natural sun protection in a sunny and hot climate, but why would intellect also be affected?
I'm just not buying what you're selling."
My reply
John Smith:
"Exactly what is the purpose of including a link to a blog that says the average black person's IQ is 85 (on a black forum, no less) which is funny because mine is 130? I am assuming to perpetuate stereotypes, namely genetic inferiority in regards to intelligence.�
-1. If your IQ is 130, then you will easily be able to understand my argument, though it would not mean you were less intelligent if you disagreed with what I am saying. Thousands of African Americans have IQ�s above 130. However, such is the nature of the Bell Curve. An average of 85 would guarantee that around .5% of the AA population has an IQ above 130. That is still 180,000 people, not a small amount. Just because you have an IQ of 130 does not mean that the average black IQ is not 85.
One should note that the "if you're lighter, you're smarter" concept would be convenient for a white person to believe because they have the least variance in complexion and are the lightest complected race.
The light skin=intelligent concept is not a convenience. It is a reality that has been demonstrated in Latin America, US, India, and Asia. The lighter the skin, the more white proportion in genes, and therefore the more intelligent genetic endowment.
The blog then goes further to say that intellect is inherited.(I do agree; village idiots usually don't produce progeny that are members of the Mensa Society.) These are two wildly divergent concepts. Two dark skinned black parents can have a light skinned black child, and vice versa. And how would it affect an albino? Would they be geniuses?(I'm being facetious.)
-Intelligence is absolutely inherited. Twin adoption studies have found correlations of .6-.8 for adult IQ. Two dark skinned parents will not have a light skinned child unless the parent carries recessive light skinned genes. Albinos are albinos because of a genetic defect, not because of a general correlation between light skin and intelligence. They would not be geniuses. Skin color only means something because it indicates geographic origin. Higher latitude origins usually mean higher intelligence.
Black children's cognitive development is faster in certain areas during infancy through the earlier part of childhood. The general (white) population that is firmly ensconced in their own superiority would be highly upset if that became common knowledge!
-I absolutely agree. Experts have found that black children can hold their neck up at an earlier age than whites and asians. Guess what, you just proved my point. There are genetic, racial differences in brain development.
Education is highly valued in Asian and Jewish cultures, which are also mentioned as "smarter" races. This would explain their percieved intellectual superiority. My Asian friends in school said they had to study hard and failure was not an option. This is common in Asian culture. They were not genetically smarter.
-It could be cultural. However, one could very well make the argument that Asian cultures promote higher academic achievement because they are smarter, and therefore have placed a greater emphasis on education. Failure was not an option because parents know their kids are smart enough to do well."
"Due to poverty and lack of focus on education, black children fall behind academically early on. One can be extremely bright, and the potential is never realized if it is not nurtured, therefore the so-called "IQ" test may not be an accurate barometer of intellect or lack thereof."
-Black children actually fall behind early on because of intelligence disparities, not because of poverty. Programs such as head start find that “White children, who were the most disadvantaged, showed larger and longer lasting improvements than African-American children.” And many of these improvements disappeared after the students became older and left the program."
As for the testosterone/violence correlation, institutional racism is too prevalent to assume that testosterone is the primary factor for determining the likelihood of incarceration. Granted it plays a factor, but there are other forces at work as well. It's easier to blame hormones (which points to skin color) versus a flawed and racist judicial system."
-I am not claiming that the racial system is perfect. There unquestionably is racism. However, if blacks commit more crimes (due to higher testosterone levels-just look at genetalia size discrepancies), then is it really so much of a stretch for police officers to scrutinize them more closely?
"If the physical differences among races were brought about due to geography, why would it be "unlikely that intelligence is the exception?" Do you need to be "smarter" to live in a colder part of the world, for example? If black people are intellectually inferior, I can reasonably infer this to be true. Physical differences would make sense such as dark skin providing natural sun protection in a sunny and hot climate, but why would intellect also be affected?"
-Intellect would absolutely be affected by climate. The capabilities required to build fires, hunt game, and utilize scarce resources require much higher intelligence than simple gathering, which one could do in sub-saharan africa. Asians evolved in an even colder climate than whites, which explains why they are smarter than whites.
I don’t expect you to believe what I say after this. If you think I am a racist, I can understand why. However, I care deeply about national and international political issues, and we cannot have a serious discussion unless we look at these issues squarely. That means leaving censorship and political correctness at the door. Considering that Al Sharpton and the NY Times editorial board are happy to cry racism every time a white cop shoots a black man, the system can't be blatantly racist without people making a fuss about it.
Her reply:
Greeneyedsista: "John Smith: We will agree to disagree on this one. I do not trust so called "studies" because studies can not only be slanted to agree with a viewpoint, but the study you are referring to is blatantly racist. I brought up development in black infants to confirm my belief that the masses know what the person conducting these "studies" want them to know, as opposed to complete disclosure. I don't believe everything I read anyway, as I am suspicious by nature. This forum is about colorism and disparity of treatment among black people within the black community which is a very real issue. Your post seems an attempt to create further division.
Black families can absolutely have two darker parents and produce a lighter child. I know genetics plays a part in complexion. The black race is racially mixed and recessive genes can pop up anywhere. This explains why me and both of my brothers have light eyes, and neither my parents nor grandparents have them. The same is applicable in regards to complexion. I don't know of a dark skinned family that is 100% dark skinned (maybe Africans) so as long as there are people of varying complexions, the offspring can potentially be any complexion."The light skin=intelligent concept is not a convenience. It is a reality that has been demonstrated." Please show this study by someone other than a white person (who may likely have a hidden agenda.) So the white race has minimal variance in intellect (I am not saying all white people are smart) but all other races do?
I did not say you were racist, and you may very well not be. I am not racist either but I have to consider the source in deciding whether to believe everything I read (Bell Curve)."
cont...Another thing to consider: Black people have been told since they were brought here to America that they are less than human, and that white is superior. Can intellect be compared between races when one has been disadvantaged for hundreds of years? And after hearing this absolutely untrue garbage about inferiority, someone else wants to perpetuate the belief that white is superior via "studies" and I am supposed to take it as gospel? That would make ME the idiot that white people (the ones who believe they are superior) think I am.
This might be the wrong forum if you are looking for someone to agree. That's tantamount to me going into a beauty forum about anti-aging serums and posting,"Well white skin ages faster. I can lay in the sun all day and not really show signs of photo aging until I am in my 50's. You guys might as well give it up!" How annoying would that be, though that is actually true.(I'm not convinced on intellectual inferiority based on race so my example is not the best one, but a decent one nonetheless.) First off all, it's rude, secondly that was not the topic, and thirdly is sounds like I think I am superior. Do you see where I am going?
My Reply:
Tabootruth: "I doubt I'll find a non white person conducting these studies, but at the same time, many of the "racist" statisticians have admitted that Asians and Jews have higher intelligence than whites, genetically.
When it comes to variance in intellect, all races have geniuses and those at the bottom end. For some races, a greater fraction are smarter.
In regard to society's attitudes, blacks were told a century ago that they were inferior. However, today, political correctness has totally silenced people with my views. The very fact that no child left behind exists is because our society ASSUMES that all races are intellectually equal.
You're probably right about the white skin. Anyway, the reason why I am posting here is because the topic, about light skinned and dark skinned women, is what I was originally commenting on. Because whites and blacks have different genes, which would make them behave differently, if someone was light skinned, they would more likely take on black behavioral characteristics. Just look at Colin Powell. Technically, he's black, but you can barely tell by the way he act-he acts white and he's very light skinned."
Someone else joined the debate
Noelani: "I didn't read the forementioned post before, but it's really not worth debating this individual. As you stated, it's a means to cause further division and tarnish the overall positive vibe of this thread.
Hmm the last paragraph of this post is bordering on extreme ignorance. What exactly is "acting" white."
Another joined
"You can't really ONLY see it this way? Or do you? Correlating myths and reality doesn't help any argument. You are using the part of the facts that can suggest plausibilty, but refuse to use the whole story to make a conclusion. It seems to be out of convenience I must say. It's funny you and sista put up references with theories that contradict one another. I wonder who thinks their right more."
Greeneyedsista: "Noelani: I picked up on that too. I suppose acting "white" is possessing a command of the English language and educating one's self, according to tabootruth. Maybe if Colin Powell listens to reggae (doesn't he have Jamaican heritage?) and smokes weed, then he'd be acting "black."
You're right...I need to fall back and not let generalizations upset me. Thanks for reminding me...LOL."
My reply:
Tabootruth: "It's actually African-Americans who have come up with the term "acting white." Just think about Joe Biden's comment with regard to Barack Obama being the first black politician to be articulate. And guess what? He's actually not as popular among African Americans as you would think, and he's quite popular among whites. There is a tradeoff between being popular with both groups, because the more one relates with whites (considered acting white) the more one less relates to blacks.
Are you really going to claim that the behavioral differences between light and dark skinned blacks are solely societally driven? That having more white genes doesn't make one act in a certain way?
Genetics matters."
Their reply:
Noelani: "I am not claiming anything, except the fact that your posts are obviously racist propaganda. Provided by white supremist organizations.
You are the new breed of racist. Armed with flimsy manipulated facts but no truth. You hide behind your "supposed" intellectualism, but you are a closet strom thurman who hides behind your computer screen and come on these forums to demoralize minorities.
Well sir or man, whatever you are, this one isn't buying your BS. Move along internet troll and leave the real debating to the truly, thoughtful, intelligent and honest people.
Skunk Anansie has a great song called "Intellectualise My Blackness" it's exactly how I feel toward people like you, spare me..no really, please...spare me!"
I decided to no longer debate-mainly because the points have been brought out and most of my points were not refuted. The only arguments thrown at me were that my facts were racist and that I shouldn't demoralize minorities.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Biology Matters
In another blow to the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17029258/from/RS.5/
scientists have found that argumentative parents pass their genes onto their kids. It's the genetics, not the environment, that is responsible.
So...when discussing racial differences in behavior, this can shed light on many behavioral and crime tendencies among African Americans.
scientists have found that argumentative parents pass their genes onto their kids. It's the genetics, not the environment, that is responsible.
So...when discussing racial differences in behavior, this can shed light on many behavioral and crime tendencies among African Americans.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Comments on Current Events and China
Some disturbing news items:
A 14 year old girl threw her newborn baby out of the window of her apartment, killing him. Apparently, she never thought to leave the child in front of a church, give it to adoption, or fess up to her parents. Obviously, someone this young and inconsiderate is unfit to be a parent. What I further propose, is that such a person is unfit to REPRODUCE, at least at her age.
I believe in rights, especially those enshrined in the constitution. However, reproduction is NOT a right, because one is affecting consciousness outside one's own, and because one is imposing societal costs by having children.
Solution: sterilize ALL women when they hit puberty. As soon as they get married, or are financially able to support a child, they can opt to have the surgery reversed. This will solve a tremendous amount of problems, and offend plenty: the religious, and the low IQ. But you know what? That newborn baby did not deserve that gruesome death, nor all the countless children abandoned or murdered due to the irresponsibility of their parents.
Joe Biden's comments were quite on point about Barack Obama being the first mainstream, clean black politician. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are jokes. To freak out about what Biden said is censorship, plain and simple. I'm going for Biden.
And finally, on a whole different note, the CIA Factbook reports that China's GDP, when adjusting for PPP, is TEN TRILLION DOLLARS. The US's GDP is 12.9 trillion dollars. So, do the Math: China's GDP is 77% of the US GDP.
In 2003, China's GDP was 7.1 Trillion $ while the US GDP was 11.62 trillion, so China was 61% of US GDP.
That's three years ago. I find it extremely interesting that while the entire world is focusing on the evil of the United States, China is exploding with growth and pollution, funneling money into Sudan and Burma and North Korea.
Let us be honest here. While pollution, population imbalances, and a baby boomer crisis threaten China's stability, if the government were to loosen its 1 child policy and make a greater push for green energy, it will smoothen out many rough edges.
The economist http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RGQJSSG
recently had an article on China's exploitation of Africa's oil resources.
While China still has some of the poorest people on earth, how will the Marxists be able to explain a multipolar world, but with the United States as world #1? Considering China is supporting much worse regimes that the US, what will happen in the UN when people stop glaring at the US in envy, and start worrying about China? Already, Latin America and much of the world has lost significant export markets due to Chinese manufacturing boom. Soon their hatred of the US will turn to China. And so will that of the Islamic World, possibly.
I've studied China to death. The one thing about China that puts it over India and Latin America but no one mentions is quite simple: IQ. An average IQ of 100-105 will, in the long term, put the per person GDP at the same levels as Japan and South Korea/Taiwan. That means that total country GDP will be three times that of the United States. China will so dwarf anything ever seen in world politics.
Though the US has a high average IQ at 99, its proportion of the world's population is a measly (300M/6.5B) = 4.6%
However, China's IQ, at 103, and proportion of population, at 20% of the world's population
EU (with very low pop growth rates and a growing Muslim population) is 7.4% Europe's population ratio at the height of its power in 1900 may have been around 20%, and it dominated the world. And they fought with each other.
Now, picture a Europe in 1900, united to dominate the world.
Russia is about 3%, Japan about 2.5% of the world's population. These are all insignificant compared to the giant of China.
The only other country to compete is India, with 16% of the world's population. However, looking at the disarray in India, one does not have high hopes. In Uttar Pradesh, India's largest state, only 25% of girls older than 7 were literate.
China has three of the top 35 Universities in the World. Only 1 famous IIT made the top 67. An especially important note: China and India are the ONLY countries with GDP<15,000/capita that have universities in the international rankings.
Just wait. Once the cream of the crop stop coming to the US for study, and return to China, then the explosion will begin.
Be prepared. Especially considering how much prosperity in the US is due to Asian Americans (they make up a majority of the quants on Wall Street).
A 14 year old girl threw her newborn baby out of the window of her apartment, killing him. Apparently, she never thought to leave the child in front of a church, give it to adoption, or fess up to her parents. Obviously, someone this young and inconsiderate is unfit to be a parent. What I further propose, is that such a person is unfit to REPRODUCE, at least at her age.
I believe in rights, especially those enshrined in the constitution. However, reproduction is NOT a right, because one is affecting consciousness outside one's own, and because one is imposing societal costs by having children.
Solution: sterilize ALL women when they hit puberty. As soon as they get married, or are financially able to support a child, they can opt to have the surgery reversed. This will solve a tremendous amount of problems, and offend plenty: the religious, and the low IQ. But you know what? That newborn baby did not deserve that gruesome death, nor all the countless children abandoned or murdered due to the irresponsibility of their parents.
Joe Biden's comments were quite on point about Barack Obama being the first mainstream, clean black politician. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are jokes. To freak out about what Biden said is censorship, plain and simple. I'm going for Biden.
And finally, on a whole different note, the CIA Factbook reports that China's GDP, when adjusting for PPP, is TEN TRILLION DOLLARS. The US's GDP is 12.9 trillion dollars. So, do the Math: China's GDP is 77% of the US GDP.
In 2003, China's GDP was 7.1 Trillion $ while the US GDP was 11.62 trillion, so China was 61% of US GDP.
That's three years ago. I find it extremely interesting that while the entire world is focusing on the evil of the United States, China is exploding with growth and pollution, funneling money into Sudan and Burma and North Korea.
Let us be honest here. While pollution, population imbalances, and a baby boomer crisis threaten China's stability, if the government were to loosen its 1 child policy and make a greater push for green energy, it will smoothen out many rough edges.
The economist http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RGQJSSG
recently had an article on China's exploitation of Africa's oil resources.
While China still has some of the poorest people on earth, how will the Marxists be able to explain a multipolar world, but with the United States as world #1? Considering China is supporting much worse regimes that the US, what will happen in the UN when people stop glaring at the US in envy, and start worrying about China? Already, Latin America and much of the world has lost significant export markets due to Chinese manufacturing boom. Soon their hatred of the US will turn to China. And so will that of the Islamic World, possibly.
I've studied China to death. The one thing about China that puts it over India and Latin America but no one mentions is quite simple: IQ. An average IQ of 100-105 will, in the long term, put the per person GDP at the same levels as Japan and South Korea/Taiwan. That means that total country GDP will be three times that of the United States. China will so dwarf anything ever seen in world politics.
Though the US has a high average IQ at 99, its proportion of the world's population is a measly (300M/6.5B) = 4.6%
However, China's IQ, at 103, and proportion of population, at 20% of the world's population
EU (with very low pop growth rates and a growing Muslim population) is 7.4% Europe's population ratio at the height of its power in 1900 may have been around 20%, and it dominated the world. And they fought with each other.
Now, picture a Europe in 1900, united to dominate the world.
Russia is about 3%, Japan about 2.5% of the world's population. These are all insignificant compared to the giant of China.
The only other country to compete is India, with 16% of the world's population. However, looking at the disarray in India, one does not have high hopes. In Uttar Pradesh, India's largest state, only 25% of girls older than 7 were literate.
China has three of the top 35 Universities in the World. Only 1 famous IIT made the top 67. An especially important note: China and India are the ONLY countries with GDP<15,000/capita that have universities in the international rankings.
Just wait. Once the cream of the crop stop coming to the US for study, and return to China, then the explosion will begin.
Be prepared. Especially considering how much prosperity in the US is due to Asian Americans (they make up a majority of the quants on Wall Street).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)