This isn't an "Honest Aryan" rant, honest.
I hadn't heard the furore about this Watson - DNA discoverer - and his
statements, but the first witness on the programme quoted average IIQs
as follows:
Sino-Japanese 106
Europeans 100
Arabs 85
Africans 70.
(or near enough.)
He claimed there had been many similar studies.  The second witness, a
fluffy, rose-tinted moron got torn to pieces by wanting to suppress
such information, rightly so.
The point is that this information should be available and discussed.
IQ tests, (and I used to do very well at such things,) are about as
unbiased and unskewed as the Body Mass Index and the wafflings of Tony
Bliar, and have been designed to test those with a Western education,
so there is almost certainly a disadvantage to those of different
backgrounds.
(I once heard some moron on R4 claim proof that a dog was less
intelligent than man because it couldn't open doors.  Leaving aside
our former rottweiler who could indeed open any door, the reason, is,
like the IQ test, doors aren't designed with dogs in mind.)

If you accept that blacks are more susceptible to certain diseases
(sickle cell anaemia) and have other differences, then their brains
may well function differently, and this should be studied, and the
results published.

Tiddy Ogg.
http://www.tiddyogg.co.uk

On 25 Oct, 09:46, Tiddy Ogg  wrote:
> This isn't an "Honest Aryan" rant, honest.
> I hadn't heard the furore about this Watson - DNA discoverer - and his
> statements, but the first witness on the programme quoted average IIQs
> as follows:
> Sino-Japanese 106
> Europeans 100
> Arabs 85
> Africans 70.
> (or near enough.)
> He claimed there had been many similar studies.  The second witness, a
> fluffy, rose-tinted moron got torn to pieces by wanting to suppress
> such information, rightly so.
> The point is that this information should be available and discussed.
> IQ tests, (and I used to do very well at such things,) are about as
> unbiased and unskewed as the Body Mass Index and the wafflings of Tony
> Bliar, and have been designed to test those with a Western education,
> so there is almost certainly a disadvantage to those of different
> backgrounds.
> (I once heard some moron on R4 claim proof that a dog was less
> intelligent than man because it couldn't open doors.  Leaving aside
> our former rottweiler who could indeed open any door, the reason, is,
> like the IQ test, doors aren't designed with dogs in mind.)
>
> If you accept that blacks are more susceptible to certain diseases
> (sickle cell anaemia) and have other differences, then their brains
> may well function differently, and this should be studied, and the
> results published.

People in outside of the west are often smaller, more prone to
disease, and shorter-lived. We have
no hesitation in those phenomena to the environment. Well, brains are
built out of what you eat and
what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
conclusion that IQ differnces must have
a racial explanation?

1Z wrote:

> what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
> conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> a racial explanation?
> 
> 

I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have 
lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other 
factors such as those 1Z have cited.

Also, could it not be the fact that IQ is related to how much you use 
your brain to solve problems? Could it not be that African culture(s), 
which are subsistence cultures simply don't *push* people to develop 
intelligence?

Similarly, I would be very surprised if the white underclass in Britain, 
third of fourth generation unemployed and state dependent people, don't 
exhibit lower IQ as well.

However, could it also be the fact that non-African women in more 
culturally and technologically advanced society "select" for 
intelligence in a way that African women don't, because intelligence 
isn't much of an advantage?

There's all kinds of complications with this kind of science. I remember 
a few years back going on TV and radio trying to raise awareness about 
height discrimination. There is, for example, a stronger correlation 
between salary and height than salary and sex. But is it all down to 
discrimination? There's also a correlation between height and 
intelligence. But on the other hand, ceteris paribus, shorter people get 
paid less than taller people, and there is strong evidence that people 
practise height discrimination. But then, could some if it be 
self-fulfilling?

Either way, these aren't subjects that should be proscribed from debate 
or scientific research.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:15:34 +0100, turnitup <same@same> wrote:

>1Z wrote:
>
>> what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
>> conclusion that IQ differnces must have
>> a racial explanation?
>> 
>> 
>
>I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have 
>lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other 
>factors such as those 1Z have cited.
>
>Also, could it not be the fact that IQ is related to how much you use 
>your brain to solve problems? Could it not be that African culture(s), 
>which are subsistence cultures simply don't *push* people to develop 
>intelligence?
>

Exactly, it could be all sorts of things... but if you deny there is a
difference, we'll never find out.

Tiddy Ogg.
http://www.tiddyogg.co.uk

Tiddy Ogg wrote:

> This isn't an "Honest Aryan" rant, honest.

Could you quote an example of HA ranting?

> I hadn't heard the furore about this Watson - DNA discoverer - and his
> statements, but the first witness on the programme quoted average IIQs
> as follows:
> Sino-Japanese 106

Nonsense. The white racists responsible for the exploded notion of
"IQ" would never place the Sino-Japanese above whites.

> Europeans 100
> Arabs 85
> Africans 70.
> (or near enough.)
> He claimed there had been many similar studies.  The second witness, a
> fluffy, rose-tinted moron got torn to pieces by wanting to suppress
> such information, rightly so.
> The point is that this information should be available and discussed.
> IQ tests, (and I used to do very well at such things,) are about as
> unbiased and unskewed as the Body Mass Index and the wafflings of Tony
> Bliar, and have been designed to test those with a Western education,

You should do some research before you trot out the left's clichés.

> so there is almost certainly a disadvantage to those of different
> backgrounds.

Then why do the Sino-Japanese do better?

> (I once heard some moron on R4 claim proof that a dog was less
> intelligent than man because it couldn't open doors.  Leaving aside
> our former rottweiler who could indeed open any door, the reason, is,
> like the IQ test, doors aren't designed with dogs in mind.)
>
> If you accept that blacks are more susceptible to certain diseases
> (sickle cell anaemia) and have other differences, then their brains
> may well function differently, and this should be studied, and the
> results published.
>
> Tiddy Ogg.http://www.tiddyogg.co.uk

On Oct 25, 1:03 pm, 1Z  wrote:
> On 25 Oct, 09:46, Tiddy Ogg  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This isn't an "Honest Aryan" rant, honest.
> > I hadn't heard the furore about this Watson - DNA discoverer - and his
> > statements, but the first witness on the programme quoted average IIQs
> > as follows:
> > Sino-Japanese 106
> > Europeans 100
> > Arabs 85
> > Africans 70.
> > (or near enough.)
> > He claimed there had been many similar studies.  The second witness, a
> > fluffy, rose-tinted moron got torn to pieces by wanting to suppress
> > such information, rightly so.
> > The point is that this information should be available and discussed.
> > IQ tests, (and I used to do very well at such things,) are about as
> > unbiased and unskewed as the Body Mass Index and the wafflings of Tony
> > Bliar, and have been designed to test those with a Western education,
> > so there is almost certainly a disadvantage to those of different
> > backgrounds.
> > (I once heard some moron on R4 claim proof that a dog was less
> > intelligent than man because it couldn't open doors.  Leaving aside
> > our former rottweiler who could indeed open any door, the reason, is,
> > like the IQ test, doors aren't designed with dogs in mind.)
>
> > If you accept that blacks are more susceptible to certain diseases
> > (sickle cell anaemia) and have other differences, then their brains
> > may well function differently, and this should be studied, and the
> > results published.
>
> People in outside of the west

Like the Japanese and Chinese?

> are often smaller, more prone to
> disease, and shorter-lived.

Yes, malnutrition does reduce IQ. But when people from these races
live in the west and eat well their IQ still doesn't match that of
whites.

> We have
> no hesitation in those phenomena to the environment.

Bad governance plays its part.

> Well, brains are
> built out of what you eat

They're built by the body following instructions laid down in DNA.
These instructions differ significantly between races. That's why --
Gould lied about this -- black brains are smaller than whites' and
whites' are smaller than East Asians'.

> and
> what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
> conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> a racial explanation?

Why jump to the conclusion that they don't? Because if they do, the
"equality" policies of True Believers like you will continue failing
as they have for decades.

On Oct 25, 2:15 pm, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
> > conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> > a racial explanation?
>
> I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> factors such as those 1Z have cited.
>
> Also, could it not be the fact that IQ is related to how much you use
> your brain to solve problems? Could it not be that African culture(s),
> which are subsistence cultures simply don't *push* people to develop
> intelligence?

Yes, but "push" means evolve. That's why blacks are genetically less
intelligent than whites and East Asians, who evolved in different
environments.

> Similarly, I would be very surprised if the white underclass in Britain,
> third of fourth generation unemployed and state dependent people, don't
> exhibit lower IQ as well.
>
> However, could it also be the fact that non-African women in more
> culturally and technologically advanced society "select" for
> intelligence in a way that African women don't, because intelligence
> isn't much of an advantage?
>
> There's all kinds of complications with this kind of science. I remember
> a few years back going on TV and radio trying to raise awareness about
> height discrimination. There is, for example, a stronger correlation
> between salary and height than salary and sex. But is it all down to
> discrimination? There's also a correlation between height and
> intelligence. But on the other hand, ceteris paribus, shorter people get
> paid less than taller people, and there is strong evidence that people
> practise height discrimination. But then, could some if it be
> self-fulfilling?
>
> Either way, these aren't subjects that should be proscribed from debate
> or scientific research.

Yes they should. A One True Faith cannot tolerate heresy. As a
Christian, you should know this from the church's own history.

"Tiddy Ogg"  wrote in message
news:7mh1i3l2auc5566jcndurlvqp78p020u5n@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:15:34 +0100, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>
>>1Z wrote:
>>
>>> what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
>>> conclusion that IQ differnces must have
>>> a racial explanation?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
>>lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
>>factors such as those 1Z have cited.
>>
>>Also, could it not be the fact that IQ is related to how much you use
>>your brain to solve problems? Could it not be that African culture(s),
>>which are subsistence cultures simply don't *push* people to develop
>>intelligence?
>>
>
> Exactly, it could be all sorts of things... but if you deny there is a
> difference, we'll never find out.
>
> Tiddy Ogg.
> http://www.tiddyogg.co.uk

 This bloke Rushton is suposed to be an expert on the subject
www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_insight.html

RJR

On 25 Oct, 18:16, Gaijouw 
wrote:

> They're built by the body following instructions laid down in DNA.
> These instructions differ significantly between races.

There is no evidence for that. Marginalised white communities have
lower
IQ's too.

On 25 Oct, 14:15, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
> > conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> > a racial explanation?
>
> I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> factors such as those 1Z have cited.

And individual variation are much more significant anyway.  This
subject
fascinates people who are disposed to think in group terms. What kind
of
people are those? People with no achievements as individuals.

In message , 1Z 
 writes
>On 25 Oct, 14:15, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>> 1Z wrote:
>> > what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
>> > conclusion that IQ differnces must have
>> > a racial explanation?
>>
>> I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
>> lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
>> factors such as those 1Z have cited.
>
 >And individual variation are much more significant anyway.  This
 >subject fascinates people who are disposed to think in group terms. 
What kind
 >of people are those? People with no achievements as individuals.

In the 1960s or thereabouts Hans Eysenck spun a theory that tribal 
headmen in Africa palmed off their thickos onto the slave traders. He 
suggested that this resulted in a black gene pool of the terminally 
stupid working the plantations.

I've an idea that Mr Eysenck may have been lynched, and that that wasn't 
the way he spelt his name.

-- 
James Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk
Bloody Earthsearch on BBC7 every weekend for nearly six months and now Power
Corp are to make a movie of Follett's ICE.
http://scripts.digicc.com/powtv/prog_synopsis.php?id=655

> The point is that this information should be available and discussed.
> IQ tests, (and I used to do very well at such things,) are about as
> unbiased and unskewed as the Body Mass Index and the wafflings of Tony
> Bliar,


there's a huge literature on IQ tests, and major controversies stirred up by
Janov, and Herrnstein etc.  Those IQ scores are no longer controversial, the
debate tends to be about what IQ measures and whether you should be allowed
to say so in public.

IQ tests are **very** reliable these days. They are precise scientific
instruments and yes! people have even thought to make them non culturally
biased!!   Whatever it measures IQ seems to correlate with success. People
with high IQs tend to succeed, in most areas of their lives.  Low IQ
suggests an explanation why Africa does so badly economically, why certain
groups do badly in British schools etc.  It makes sense to investigate these
suggestions if we seriously want to understand the phenomena and counter
them, but nobody will because it's not politically correct.



I think I sent this to Tiddy personally, sorry Tid

On Oct 25, 10:28 pm, 1Z  wrote:
> On 25 Oct, 14:15, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>
> > 1Z wrote:
> > > what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
> > > conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> > > a racial explanation?
>
> > I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> > lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> > factors such as those 1Z have cited.
>
> And individual variation are much more significant anyway.

No, it isn't, or Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the state it's in.

> This
> subject
> fascinates people who are disposed to think in group terms. What kind
> of
> people are those? People with no achievements as individuals.

Yes, losers like the world-famous Nobel laureate James Watson and the
second-most-cited psychologist in history, Hans Eysenck. That was not
only an ad hom, it was a stupid one.

On Oct 25, 10:21 pm, 1Z  wrote:
> On 25 Oct, 18:16, Gaijouw 
> wrote:
>
> > They're built by the body following instructions laid down in DNA.
> > These instructions differ significantly between races.
>
> There is no evidence for that.

There's plenty of evidence for that, which is why you cut the fact
that black brains are smaller, on average, than white ones.

> Marginalised white communities have
> lower
> IQ's too.

But the most marginalised "white" community of all has the highest
average IQ: Jews. Marginalised whites do not have the same average IQ
as marginalised blacks, and their children revert to the white average.

On 26 Oct, 12:42, Gaijouw 
wrote:
> On Oct 25, 10:28 pm, 1Z  wrote:
>
> > On 25 Oct, 14:15, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>
> > > 1Z wrote:
> > > > what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
> > > > conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> > > > a racial explanation?
>
> > > I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> > > lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> > > factors such as those 1Z have cited.
>
> > And individual variation are much more significant anyway.
>
> No, it isn't, or Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the state it's in.

We are waiting for you explanation of how the Balkans got into a
"state"

> > This
> > subject
> > fascinates people who are disposed to think in group terms. What kind
> > of
> > people are those? People with no achievements as individuals.
>
> Yes, losers like the world-famous Nobel laureate JamesWatsonand the
> second-most-cited psychologist in history, Hans Eysenck.

and...well, that's about it. Hordes of knuckle draggers and two
eccentric boffins.

> That was not
> only an ad hom, it was a stupid one.

1Z wrote:

> Gaijouw  wrote:
>>1Z  wrote:
>>>turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>>>>1Z wrote:

>>>>>Why jump to the conclusion that IQ differnces must have
>>>>>a racial explanation?

>>>>I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
>>>>lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
>>>>factors such as those 1Z have cited.

>>>And individual variation are much more significant anyway.

>>No, it isn't, or Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the state it's in.

> We are waiting for you explanation of how the Balkans got into a
> "state"

Interesting stuff.

Is/was "the Balkans" in anything like the same state as Zimbabwe?

On 3 Nov, 16:07, JNugent 
wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > Gaijouw  wrote:
> >>1Z  wrote:
> >>>turnitup <same@same> wrote:
> >>>>1Z wrote:
> >>>>>Why jump to the conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> >>>>>a racial explanation?
> >>>>I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> >>>>lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> >>>>factors such as those 1Z have cited.
> >>>And individual variation are much more significant anyway.
> >>No, it isn't, or Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the state it's in.
> > We are waiting for you explanation of how the Balkans got into a
> > "state"
>
> Interesting stuff.
>
> Is/was "the Balkans" in anything like the same state as Zimbabwe?

Has Zim descended into civil war and genocide, yet?

On Nov 4, 1:21 pm, 1Z  wrote:
> On 3 Nov, 16:07, JNugent 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 1Z wrote:
> > > Gaijouw  wrote:
> > >>1Z  wrote:
> > >>>turnitup <same@same> wrote:
> > >>>>1Z wrote:
> > >>>>>Why jump to the conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> > >>>>>a racial explanation?
> > >>>>I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> > >>>>lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> > >>>>factors such as those 1Z have cited.
> > >>>And individual variation are much more significant anyway.
> > >>No, it isn't, or Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the state it's in.
> > > We are waiting for you explanation of how the Balkans got into a
> > > "state"
>
> > Interesting stuff.
>
> > Is/was "the Balkans" in anything like the same state as Zimbabwe?
>
> Has Zim descended into civil war and genocide, yet?

Like Rwanda, you mean? You obviously don't know much about Mugabe but
let me explain: Whites are perfectly capable of violence and mass
murder. Their higher intelligence in fact makes them better at these
things. The Rwandan genocide was low-tech.

On Nov 3, 3:52 pm, 1Z  wrote:
> On 26 Oct, 12:42, Gaijouw 
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 25, 10:28 pm, 1Z  wrote:
>
> > > On 25 Oct, 14:15, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>
> > > > 1Z wrote:
> > > > > what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
> > > > > conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> > > > > a racial explanation?
>
> > > > I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> > > > lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> > > > factors such as those 1Z have cited.
>
> > > And individual variation are much more significant anyway.
>
> > No, it isn't, or Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the state it's in.
>
> We are waiting for you explanation of how the Balkans got into a
> "state"

Or the rest of Europe at other times. New concept for you: necessary-
but-not-sufficient (NBNS). For example, oxygen is NBNS for human life.
The Balkans are more proof of the bankruptcy of your One True Faith:
their diversity led to their breaking apart. See? High average
intelligence is NBNS for peaceful advanced civilisation, which is why
blacks can't have it at all and why some white regions, like the
Balkans, temporarily lose it.

> > > This
> > > subject
> > > fascinates people who are disposed to think in group terms. What kind
> > > of
> > > people are those? People with no achievements as individuals.
>
> > Yes, losers like the world-famous Nobel laureate JamesWatsonand the
> > second-most-cited psychologist in history, Hans Eysenck.
>
> and...well, that's about it. Hordes of knuckle draggers and two
> eccentric boffins.

Much more than two: those are merely the most prominent. You're
ignorant of the field and are merely bleating One True Faith dogmas to
comfort yourself. Yes, there are knuckle-draggers like me too, but
there are also plenty of knuckle-draggers on the One True Faith's
side. Blacks, for example.

> > That was not
> > only an ad hom, it was a stupid one.

1Z wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:
>>1Z wrote:
>>>Gaijouw  wrote:
>>>>1Z  wrote:
>>>>>turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>>>>>>1Z wrote:

>>>>>>>Why jump to the conclusion that IQ differnces must have
>>>>>>>a racial explanation?

>>>>>>I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
>>>>>>lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
>>>>>>factors such as those 1Z have cited.

>>>>>And individual variation are much more significant anyway.

>>>>No, it isn't, or Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the state it's in.

>>>We are waiting for you explanation of how the Balkans got into a
>>>"state"

>>Interesting stuff.

>>Is/was "the Balkans" in anything like the same state as Zimbabwe?

> Has Zim descended into civil war and genocide, yet?

Is "civil war and genocide" the sort of "state" to which the poster 
was referring when he mentioned Zimbabwe?

I rather thought he meant corruption, malfeasance and incompetence on 
the part of the Zimbabwean government.

On Nov 4, 7:44 pm, JNugent 
wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > JNugent  wrote:
> >>1Z wrote:
> >>>Gaijouw  wrote:
> >>>>1Z  wrote:
> >>>>>turnitup <same@same> wrote:
> >>>>>>1Z wrote:
> >>>>>>>Why jump to the conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> >>>>>>>a racial explanation?
> >>>>>>I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> >>>>>>lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> >>>>>>factors such as those 1Z have cited.
> >>>>>And individual variation are much more significant anyway.
> >>>>No, it isn't, or Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the state it's in.
> >>>We are waiting for you explanation of how the Balkans got into a
> >>>"state"
> >>Interesting stuff.
>
> >>Is/was "the Balkans" in anything like the same state as Zimbabwe?
> > Has Zim descended into civil war and genocide, yet?
>
> Is "civil war and genocide" the sort of "state" to which the poster
> was referring when he mentioned Zimbabwe?
>
> I rather thought he meant corruption, malfeasance and incompetence on
> the part of the Zimbabwean government.

You're right about incompetence, but corruption etc are bad in white
countries like Italy. New Lab's done its best to import their skills.
Rev. 1zbot doesn't know much about Mugabe and his massacres or he
wouldn't have brought in the Balkans.

Gaijouw wrote:
> On Nov 4, 7:44 pm, JNugent 
> wrote:
> 
>>1Z wrote:
>>
>>>JNugent  wrote:
>>>
>>>>1Z wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Gaijouw  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>1Z  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1Z wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Why jump to the conclusion that IQ differnces must have
>>>>>>>>>a racial explanation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
>>>>>>>>lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
>>>>>>>>factors such as those 1Z have cited.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And individual variation are much more significant anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it isn't, or Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the state it's in.
>>>>>
>>>>>We are waiting for you explanation of how the Balkans got into a
>>>>>"state"
>>>>
>>>>Interesting stuff.
>>
>>>>Is/was "the Balkans" in anything like the same state as Zimbabwe?
>>>
>>>Has Zim descended into civil war and genocide, yet?
>>
>>Is "civil war and genocide" the sort of "state" to which the poster
>>was referring when he mentioned Zimbabwe?
>>
>>I rather thought he meant corruption, malfeasance and incompetence on
>>the part of the Zimbabwean government.
> 
> 
> You're right about incompetence, but corruption etc are bad in white
> countries like Italy.

Perhaps.

Italy isn't really like a lot of people seem to think.

But even if it were true, it wouldn't excuse the corruption of 
Mugabe's mob. Two wrongs, etc.

On Oct 25, 1:15 pm, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
> > conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> > a racial explanation?
>
> I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> factors such as those 1Z have cited.
>
> Also, could it not be the fact that IQ is related to how much you use
> your brain to solve problems? Could it not be that African culture(s),
> which are subsistence cultures simply don't *push* people to develop
> intelligence?
>
> Similarly, I would be very surprised if the white underclass in Britain,
> third of fourth generation unemployed and state dependent people, don't
> exhibit lower IQ as well.
>
> However, could it also be the fact that non-African women in more
> culturally and technologically advanced society "select" for
> intelligence in a way that African women don't, because intelligence
> isn't much of an advantage?
>
> There's all kinds of complications with this kind of science. I remember
> a few years back going on TV and radio trying to raise awareness about
> height discrimination. There is, for example, a stronger correlation
> between salary and height than salary and sex. But is it all down to
> discrimination? There's also a correlation between height and
> intelligence. But on the other hand, ceteris paribus, shorter people get
> paid less than taller people, and there is strong evidence that people
> practise height discrimination. But then, could some if it be
> self-fulfilling?
>
> Either way, these aren't subjects that should be proscribed from debate
> or scientific research.

Not proscribed but prioritised.  Race is extremely loose in genetic
terms, people are selected by appearance but the genes behind that
appearance may be different.  (For instance, a recent report describes
a gene in some "Neanderthal Man" DNA that would give its possessor red
hair, but that is different from the various modern human red hair
genes.)  Within any "race" there are many more genetic differences
than are identifiable even as majority elements differing between
"races".  A relationship between genes, health, and abilities can be
studied, but bringing "race" into it does not significantly help the
scientist.  For instance, drug efficacy by race: that black heart drug
works in a minority of black patients and in a smaller minority of
white patients, and is licensed for legal use in the black patients.
Whether it works or not is probably due to mgenetically governed
metabolic pathways, but the "works" and "doesn't work" pathways both
exist in each racial population.

As for brains, the case that I /will/ allow is that the hippocampus is
larger in black taxi drivers than in the general British population.

On Nov 7, 4:42 pm, Robert Carnegie  wrote:
> On Oct 25, 1:15 pm, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 1Z wrote:
> > > what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
> > > conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> > > a racial explanation?
>
> > I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> > lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> > factors such as those 1Z have cited.
>
> > Also, could it not be the fact that IQ is related to how much you use
> > your brain to solve problems? Could it not be that African culture(s),
> > which are subsistence cultures simply don't *push* people to develop
> > intelligence?
>
> > Similarly, I would be very surprised if the white underclass in Britain,
> > third of fourth generation unemployed and state dependent people, don't
> > exhibit lower IQ as well.
>
> > However, could it also be the fact that non-African women in more
> > culturally and technologically advanced society "select" for
> > intelligence in a way that African women don't, because intelligence
> > isn't much of an advantage?
>
> > There's all kinds of complications with this kind of science. I remember
> > a few years back going on TV and radio trying to raise awareness about
> > height discrimination. There is, for example, a stronger correlation
> > between salary and height than salary and sex. But is it all down to
> > discrimination? There's also a correlation between height and
> > intelligence. But on the other hand, ceteris paribus, shorter people get
> > paid less than taller people, and there is strong evidence that people
> > practise height discrimination. But then, could some if it be
> > self-fulfilling?
>
> > Either way, these aren't subjects that should be proscribed from debate
> > or scientific research.
>
> Not proscribed but prioritised.  Race is extremely loose in genetic
> terms, people are selected by appearance but the genes behind that
> appearance may be different.  

Yes, appearance isn't a wholly reliable guide. But you've just said
what is more reliable: genes.

(For instance, a recent report describes
> a gene in some "Neanderthal Man" DNA that would give its possessor red
> hair, but that is different from the various modern human red hair
> genes.)  

Yes, different genes, different races, or sub-species.

> Within any "race"

No need for quotes.

> there are many more genetic differences
> than are identifiable even as majority elements differing between
> "races".  

That old lefty line. There is more variation of intelligence among
whites or blacks than between whites and blacks. This does not mean
the inter-racial difference is less important than the intra-racial
difference, because there are significantly more very stupid blacks
and significantly more very intelligent whites. Compare sexual
differences in IQ.

> A relationship between genes, health, and abilities can be
> studied, but bringing "race" into it does not significantly help the
> scientist.  

Yes, it does. But it doesn't significantly help lefty social
engineers, which is why they pretend it doesn't exist.

> For instance, drug efficacy by race: that black heart drug
> works in a minority of black patients and in a smaller minority of
> white patients, and is licensed for legal use in the black patients.
> Whether it works or not is probably due to mgenetically governed
> metabolic pathways, but the "works" and "doesn't work" pathways both
> exist in each racial population.

But to different degrees, which is important. When you add up all the
genetic differences, race becomes very important.

> As for brains, the case that I /will/ allow is that the hippocampus is
> larger in black taxi drivers than in the general British population.

And in white taxi drivers.

On Nov 6, 10:41 pm, JNugent 
wrote:
> Gaijouw wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 7:44 pm, JNugent 
> > wrote:
>
> >>1Z wrote:
>
> >>>JNugent  wrote:
>
> >>>>1Z wrote:
>
> >>>>>Gaijouw  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>1Z  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>1Z wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>Why jump to the conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> >>>>>>>>>a racial explanation?
>
> >>>>>>>>I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> >>>>>>>>lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> >>>>>>>>factors such as those 1Z have cited.
>
> >>>>>>>And individual variation are much more significant anyway.
>
> >>>>>>No, it isn't, or Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the state it's in.
>
> >>>>>We are waiting for you explanation of how the Balkans got into a
> >>>>>"state"
>
> >>>>Interesting stuff.
>
> >>>>Is/was "the Balkans" in anything like the same state as Zimbabwe?
>
> >>>Has Zim descended into civil war and genocide, yet?
>
> >>Is "civil war and genocide" the sort of "state" to which the poster
> >>was referring when he mentioned Zimbabwe?
>
> >>I rather thought he meant corruption, malfeasance and incompetence on
> >>the part of the Zimbabwean government.
>
> > You're right about incompetence, but corruption etc are bad in white
> > countries like Italy.
>
> Perhaps.
>
> Italy isn't really like a lot of people seem to think.

I agree. It's better than here in a lot of ways. But it is very
corrupt, at least in the south.

> But even if it were true, it wouldn't excuse the corruption of
> Mugabe's mob. Two wrongs, etc.

True.

Gaijouw wrote:
> On Nov 7, 4:42 pm, Robert Carnegie  wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 1:15 pm, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 1Z wrote:
> > > > what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
> > > > conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> > > > a racial explanation?
> >
> > > I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> > > lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> > > factors such as those 1Z have cited.
> >
> > > Also, could it not be the fact that IQ is related to how much you use
> > > your brain to solve problems? Could it not be that African culture(s),
> > > which are subsistence cultures simply don't *push* people to develop
> > > intelligence?
> >
> > > Similarly, I would be very surprised if the white underclass in Britain,
> > > third of fourth generation unemployed and state dependent people, don't
> > > exhibit lower IQ as well.
> >
> > > However, could it also be the fact that non-African women in more
> > > culturally and technologically advanced society "select" for
> > > intelligence in a way that African women don't, because intelligence
> > > isn't much of an advantage?
> >
> > > There's all kinds of complications with this kind of science. I remember
> > > a few years back going on TV and radio trying to raise awareness about
> > > height discrimination. There is, for example, a stronger correlation
> > > between salary and height than salary and sex. But is it all down to
> > > discrimination? There's also a correlation between height and
> > > intelligence. But on the other hand, ceteris paribus, shorter people get
> > > paid less than taller people, and there is strong evidence that people
> > > practise height discrimination. But then, could some if it be
> > > self-fulfilling?
> >
> > > Either way, these aren't subjects that should be proscribed from debate
> > > or scientific research.
> >
> > Not proscribed but prioritised.  Race is extremely loose in genetic
> > terms, people are selected by appearance but the genes behind that
> > appearance may be different.
>
> Yes, appearance isn't a wholly reliable guide. But you've just said
> what is more reliable: genes.
>
> (For instance, a recent report describes
> > a gene in some "Neanderthal Man" DNA that would give its possessor red
> > hair, but that is different from the various modern human red hair
> > genes.)
>
> Yes, different genes, different races, or sub-species.
>
> > Within any "race"
>
> No need for quotes.
>
> > there are many more genetic differences
> > than are identifiable even as majority elements differing between
> > "races".
>
> That old lefty line. There is more variation of intelligence among
> whites or blacks than between whites and blacks. This does not mean
> the inter-racial difference is less important than the intra-racial
> difference, because there are significantly more very stupid blacks
> and significantly more very intelligent whites. Compare sexual
> differences in IQ.
>
> > A relationship between genes, health, and abilities can be
> > studied, but bringing "race" into it does not significantly help the
> > scientist.
>
> Yes, it does. But it doesn't significantly help lefty social
> engineers, which is why they pretend it doesn't exist.
>
> > For instance, drug efficacy by race: that black heart drug
> > works in a minority of black patients and in a smaller minority of
> > white patients, and is licensed for legal use in the black patients.
> > Whether it works or not is probably due to mgenetically governed
> > metabolic pathways, but the "works" and "doesn't work" pathways both
> > exist in each racial population.
>
> But to different degrees, which is important. When you add up all the
> genetic differences, race becomes very important.

Okay, call out: everyone understands that Gaijouw /is/ talking
mistanthropically inspired bollocks, here, right?

On 4 Nov, 15:03, Gaijouw  wrote:
> On Nov 3, 3:52 pm, 1Z  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 26 Oct, 12:42, Gaijouw 
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 25, 10:28 pm, 1Z  wrote:
>
> > > > On 25 Oct, 14:15, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>
> > > > > 1Z wrote:
> > > > > > what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
> > > > > > conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> > > > > > a racial explanation?
>
> > > > > I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> > > > > lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> > > > > factors such as those 1Z have cited.
>
> > > > And individual variation are much more significant anyway.
>
> > > No, it isn't, or Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the state it's in.
>
> > We are waiting for you explanation of how the Balkans got into a
> > "state"
>
> Or the rest of Europe at other times. New concept for you: necessary-
> but-not-sufficient (NBNS). For example, oxygen is NBNS for human life.
> The Balkans are more proof of the bankruptcy of your One True Faith:
> their diversity led to their breaking apart.

Or their intolerance did.

>See? High average
> intelligence is NBNS for peaceful advanced civilisation, which is why
> blacks can't have it at all and why some white regions, like the
> Balkans, temporarily lose it.

Here is a new concept for you: Petitio Principi or circular argument.
Circualr argument is appealing to
what you are trying to prove as a premise. You are trying to argue
that "white civilsation" is superior.
You are appealing to problems in African countries. You need to
somehow dismiss problems
in white countries. So you appeal to your coclusion about the
superioirty of whites to claim that
white corruptions is better than black corruption,white
dictatorship   is better than black dictatorship, white civil war is
better than black civil war

> > > > This
> > > > subject
> > > > fascinates people who are disposed to think in group terms. What kind
> > > > of
> > > > people are those? People with no achievements as individuals.
>
> > > Yes, losers like the world-famous Nobel laureate JamesWatsonand the
> > > second-most-cited psychologist in history, Hans Eysenck.
>
> > and...well, that's about it. Hordes of knuckle draggers and two
> > eccentric boffins.
>
> Much more than two:

name them

>those are merely the most prominent. You're
> ignorant of the field and are merely bleating One True Faith dogmas to
> comfort yourself. Yes, there are knuckle-draggers like me too, but
> there are also plenty of knuckle-draggers on the One True Faith's
> side. Blacks, for example.
>
> > > That was not
> > > only an ad hom, it was a stupid one.

On 7 Nov, 17:23, Gaijouw  wrote:
> On Nov 6, 10:41 pm, JNugent 
> wrote:

> > But even if it were true, it wouldn't excuse the corruption of
> > Mugabe's mob. Two wrongs, etc.
>
> True.


Irrelvant

1Z wrote:

> On 4 Nov, 15:03, Gaijouw  wrote:
>
> > On Nov 3, 3:52 pm, 1Z  wrote:
>
> > > On 26 Oct, 12:42, Gaijouw 
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 25, 10:28 pm, 1Z  wrote:
>
> > > > > On 25 Oct, 14:15, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>
> > > > > > 1Z wrote:
> > > > > > > what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
> > > > > > > conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> > > > > > > a racial explanation?
>
> > > > > > I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> > > > > > lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> > > > > > factors such as those 1Z have cited.
>
> > > > > And individual variation are much more significant anyway.
>
> > > > No, it isn't, or Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the state it's in.
>
> > > We are waiting for you explanation of how the Balkans got into a
> > > "state"
>
> > Or the rest of Europe at other times. New concept for you: necessary-
> > but-not-sufficient (NBNS). For example, oxygen is NBNS for human life.
> > The Balkans are more proof of the bankruptcy of your One True Faith:
> > their diversity led to their breaking apart.
>
> Or their intolerance did.

Yes, diversity leads to intolerance. Try living in an effnick area or
opening a history book and you'll see how it works.

> >See? High average
> > intelligence is NBNS for peaceful advanced civilisation, which is why
> > blacks can't have it at all and why some white regions, like the
> > Balkans, temporarily lose it.
>
> Here is a new concept for you:

Original as ever, I see.

> Petitio Principi or circular argument.
> Circualr argument is appealing to
> what you are trying to prove as a premise. You are trying to argue
> that "white civilsation" is superior.

I don't need to argue: it is superior. Even the One True Faith admits
that, which is why it has to invent excuses for black failure: white
racism holds them back, Africa's geography isn't suitable, etc, etc.
Chinese civilisation is superior to black too, or rather the Chinese
have one and blacks don't.

> You are appealing to problems in African countries. You need to
> somehow dismiss problems
> in white countries.

I don't dismiss them:

'Whites are perfectly capable of violence and mass murder. Their
higher intelligence in fact makes them better at these things. The
Rwandan genocide was low-tech.'

You didn't understand what 'better' meant, did you? More evidence that
you're not capable of arguing like an adult.

> So you appeal to your coclusion about the
> superioirty of whites to claim that
> white corruption is better than black corruption,

See above.

> white
> dictatorship is better than black dictatorship, white civil war is
> better than black civil war

You have to read in context and not always take words in a strict
literal sense. Autistics have difficulty grasping that. If you are
autistic, I'm not attacking you, but you're wasting my time and your
own.

> > > > > This
> > > > > subject
> > > > > fascinates people who are disposed to think in group terms. What kind
> > > > > of
> > > > > people are those? People with no achievements as individuals.
>
> > > > Yes, losers like the world-famous Nobel laureate JamesWatsonand the
> > > > second-most-cited psychologist in history, Hans Eysenck.
>
> > > and...well, that's about it. Hordes of knuckle draggers and two
> > > eccentric boffins.
>
> > Much more than two:
>
> name them

Either do your own research or admit you accept the One True Faith
blindly and will automatically dismiss anyone who contradicts it.

> >those are merely the most prominent. You're
> > ignorant of the field and are merely bleating One True Faith dogmas to
> > comfort yourself. Yes, there are knuckle-draggers like me too, but
> > there are also plenty of knuckle-draggers on the One True Faith's
> > side. Blacks, for example.
>
> > > > That was not
> > > > only an ad hom, it was a stupid one.

On Nov 8, 1:21 am, Robert Carnegie  wrote:
> Gaijouw wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 4:42 pm, Robert Carnegie  wrote:
> > > On Oct 25, 1:15 pm, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>
> > > > 1Z wrote:
> > > > > what your mother eats just as much as anything else. Why jump to the
> > > > > conclusion that IQ differnces must have
> > > > > a racial explanation?
>
> > > > I tend to agree - the fact that people of African descent generally have
> > > > lower IQs doesn't prove that it's genetic, it could be down to other
> > > > factors such as those 1Z have cited.
>
> > > > Also, could it not be the fact that IQ is related to how much you use
> > > > your brain to solve problems? Could it not be that African culture(s),
> > > > which are subsistence cultures simply don't *push* people to develop
> > > > intelligence?
>
> > > > Similarly, I would be very surprised if the white underclass in Britain,
> > > > third of fourth generation unemployed and state dependent people, don't
> > > > exhibit lower IQ as well.
>
> > > > However, could it also be the fact that non-African women in more
> > > > culturally and technologically advanced society "select" for
> > > > intelligence in a way that African women don't, because intelligence
> > > > isn't much of an advantage?
>
> > > > There's all kinds of complications with this kind of science. I remember
> > > > a few years back going on TV and radio trying to raise awareness about
> > > > height discrimination. There is, for example, a stronger correlation
> > > > between salary and height than salary and sex. But is it all down to
> > > > discrimination? There's also a correlation between height and
> > > > intelligence. But on the other hand, ceteris paribus, shorter people get
> > > > paid less than taller people, and there is strong evidence that people
> > > > practise height discrimination. But then, could some if it be
> > > > self-fulfilling?
>
> > > > Either way, these aren't subjects that should be proscribed from debate
> > > > or scientific research.
>
> > > Not proscribed but prioritised.  Race is extremely loose in genetic
> > > terms, people are selected by appearance but the genes behind that
> > > appearance may be different.
>
> > Yes, appearance isn't a wholly reliable guide. But you've just said
> > what is more reliable: genes.
>
> > (For instance, a recent report describes
> > > a gene in some "Neanderthal Man" DNA that would give its possessor red
> > > hair, but that is different from the various modern human red hair
> > > genes.)
>
> > Yes, different genes, different races, or sub-species.
>
> > > Within any "race"
>
> > No need for quotes.
>
> > > there are many more genetic differences
> > > than are identifiable even as majority elements differing between
> > > "races".
>
> > That old lefty line. There is more variation of intelligence among
> > whites or blacks than between whites and blacks. This does not mean
> > the inter-racial difference is less important than the intra-racial
> > difference, because there are significantly more very stupid blacks
> > and significantly more very intelligent whites. Compare sexual
> > differences in IQ.
>
> > > A relationship between genes, health, and abilities can be
> > > studied, but bringing "race" into it does not significantly help the
> > > scientist.
>
> > Yes, it does. But it doesn't significantly help lefty social
> > engineers, which is why they pretend it doesn't exist.
>
> > > For instance, drug efficacy by race: that black heart drug
> > > works in a minority of black patients and in a smaller minority of
> > > white patients, and is licensed for legal use in the black patients.
> > > Whether it works or not is probably due to mgenetically governed
> > > metabolic pathways, but the "works" and "doesn't work" pathways both
> > > exist in each racial population.
>
> > But to different degrees, which is important. When you add up all the
> > genetic differences, race becomes very important.
>
> Okay, call out: everyone understands that Gaijouw /is/ talking
> misanthropically inspired bollocks, here, right?

No, only Guardipendistas like you.