Are Races Equal?

[lisa jones]

Because they didn't face the same evolutionary pressures perhaps? Care to explain why Southern Indians, Negros from Africa, Indigenous from Australia and Southern Japanese all look similar, Bobby? Very different "racial" types but similar skin and facial types... Funny that, hey? What does that do for your evolutionary claims? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

No - Negroes have huge mouths and jaws - huge lips and some have protruding brows

see pic:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7d/2c/f7 ... 3dc731.jpg

So do many White people, so do many Asian people, so do many Latino people, so do many Australian Indigenous people, Bobby. Superficialities.

Not really. It's more prevalent in certain races. I'm certainly not suggesting that these physical attributes makes them inferior! For me ... it's just something I've often noticed.

[Aussie]

Aussie wrote

I suggest that if we were to take a white child from the womb and a black child from the womb...bung them both in ice for 20 years, and then bung them both into 2022 western society making sure they each got the same exposure to everything including education etc, they'd both end up pretty much the same. Until such an experiment is conducted we will never know.

Something similar has already been conducted. As you know (or should know) lefties have been promoting the idea that class division is a social construct and it has no basis in reality since the end of the 19th century. You can get an east End flower girl seller, give her elocution lessons, and she would be indistinguishable from a Bohemian princess.

This led to the creation of an interesting school of psychology created by left wing psychologists who claimed that nature (genetics) had no effect upon human behaviour at all. They maintained that that every human at birth was a blank cheque, ready to be moulded into any upper class position requiring high intelligence. It was only lack of education and lack of opportunity which created social stratering.

To prove their point, they began an experiment where children from the lowest classes of society were housed and fed, and educated with the best teachers available, at a place called Waldon Pond. The belief was that these children would begin to exhibit high intelligence and this would prove that intelligence was solely a factor of education.

The experiment flopped.

Aussie wrote

Conversely, it seems your position is that if I took a black kid and a white kid from the womb and was able to bung them into aboriginal Australia 60,000 years ago, the white kid would discover "penicillin" and the black kid would discover a stick.

No. If white people had lived in Australia for 50,000 years cut of from the rest of the world and unable to rise beyond the first of seven stages of human development, because there were no herdable animals in Australia and no plants that could be cropped, then white Australians would be as dumb as aboriginal people are today. If aboriginal people had lived in European lands and had reached the seventh level of human development, they would be as smart as white people are today.

Racial Intelligence appears to be a factor of civilisation. You have to have some brains to start a civilisation and make it work. The rule of thumb is, the longer the civilisation, the smarter the people from that civilisation. Today, people are getting smarter because we need to be smart to live in our complex civilisation. The white mean score IQ was "100" fifty years ago, today it is 103. People who came from tribal societies and who are now resident in the west are getting smarter too. But there still exists a very significant difference in IQ scores between Jews, Asians, white Caucasians, Hispanics, and the very dysfunctional ethnicities. It is hardly a coincidence that these IQ scores are closely linked to ethnic success or failure in western societies

I did google and could not find Waldon Pond. Link please.

Re your last paragraph:

So, after 65,000 years a civilisation would consist of smart people?

[Bogan]

To Aussie. I can't, because the whole story is in my Psychology book in Rutherglen, Victoria (where it is being stored after I sold my Sydney house), while I am now living on the North Coast. So, I will have to withdraw it until I can go get my 7 boxes of books back from Danistan.. And I can not be bothered looking through the internet for references to validate my claim. But from what I remember, the idea that intelligence had no genetic component was the was the result of the contemplations of the Behaviorist School of Psychology, created by BV Skinner.

Aussie wrote

So, after 65,000 years a civilisation would consist of smart people?

I have no idea how you could come to such a conclusion, based upon what I wrote? Education can make people smarter but only marginally so, although IQ apparently can incrementally increase genetically over time. But as the Behaviorists found, no amount of education can over a decade make a basically dumb person into a genius. Put more simply, dumb people usually have dumb offspring and smart people usually have smart offspring. That is not set in stone. Working class geniuse's can and do arise from time to time, owing to the vagaries of genetics. But for the most part, smart people inhabit the upper classes while dumb people inhabit the lowest class. Most working class people have average intelligence. People who are smart are usually upwardly mobile. Dumb upper class people are more likely to keep their status and not drop a class or two, owing to inherited wealth and class family connections. Such people are considered figures of fun and "upper class twits" are amusing characters character in plays and movies.

People who evolved in colder climates (Asians and Caucasians) are noticeably smarter than people who evolved in warmer climates. This is because survival in cold climates requires a lot more organisation. The planting of crops especially is very dependent upon the changing of the seasons, so people in cold climates who had reached the horticultural or agricultural level of human development always created some sort of calendar to mark the passing of the seasons. People living in climates where the seasons were just "hot, wet, or dry", or who planted no seasonal crops, had no reason to be so organised.

[Aussie]

To Aussie. I can't, because the whole story is in my Psychology book in Rutherglen, Victoria (where it is being stored after I sold my Sydney house), while I am now living on the North Coast. So, I will have to withdraw it until I can go get my 7 boxes of books back from Danistan.. And I can not be bothered looking through the internet for references to validate my claim. But from what I remember, the idea that intelligence had no genetic component was the was the result of the contemplations of the Behaviorist School of Psychology, created by BV Skinner.

Aussie wrote

So, after 65,000 years a civilisation would consist of smart people?

I have no idea how you could come to such a conclusion, based upon what I wrote? Education can make people smarter but only marginally so, although IQ apparently can incrementally increase genetically over time. But as the Behaviorists found, no amount of education can over a decade make a basically dumb person into a genius. Put more simply, dumb people usually have dumb offspring and smart people usually have smart offspring. That is not set in stone. Working class geniuse's can and do arise from time to time, owing to the vagaries of genetics. But for the most part, smart people inhabit the upper classes while dumb people inhabit the lowest class. Most working class people have average intelligence. People who are smart are usually upwardly mobile. Dumb upper class people are more likely to keep their status and not drop a class or two, owing to inherited wealth and class family connections. Such people are considered figures of fun and "upper class twits" are amusing characters character in plays and movies.

People who evolved in colder climates (Asians and Caucasians) are noticeably smarter than people who evolved in warmer climates. This is because survival in cold climates requires a lot more organisation. The planting of crops especially is very dependent upon the changing of the seasons, so people in cold climates who had reached the horticultural or agricultural level of human development always created some sort of calendar to mark the passing of the seasons. People living in climates where the seasons were just "hot, wet, or dry", or who planted no seasonal crops, had no reason to be so organised.

Very odd that Dr Google has not ever heard of that Pond.

"Noticeable smarter."

The difference between your local Club Golf Pro and Cameron Smith would be less than a 2% margin, and is also 'noticeable' in that context.

'Noticeably smarter?'

[Bobby]

Because they didn't face the same evolutionary pressures perhaps? Care to explain why Southern Indians, Negros from Africa, Indigenous from Australia and Southern Japanese all look similar, Bobby? Very different "racial" types but similar skin and facial types... Funny that, hey? What does that do for your evolutionary claims? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

No - Negroes have huge mouths and jaws - huge lips and some have protruding brows

see pic:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7d/2c/f7 ... 3dc731.jpg

So do many White people, so do many Asian people, so do many Latino people, so do many Australian Indigenous people, Bobby. Superficialities.

But they form gangs:

Gangs of Darkies form on our streets -
you hardly ever see one by themselves.
You see 2, or 4 or 6 or even a dozen or more.
Usually there's a ghetto blaster and
they seem to be wearing gang colors.
Some even have their trousers pulled down
to below their arse holes showing off their underpants.
If you're a white person you feel threatened
and you know that if a fight starts you're outnumbered and
some of them would be carrying a weapon -
that could be a knife or even a pistol.

Why has the gang culture especially amongst Darkies been
allowed to proliferate in Australia?

[brian ross]

But they form gangs:

Gangs of Darkies form on our streets -
you hardly ever see one by themselves.
You see 2, or 4 or 6 or even a dozen or more.
Usually there's a ghetto blaster and
they seem to be wearing gang colors.
Some even have their trousers pulled down
to below their arse holes showing off their underpants.
If you're a white person you feel threatened
and you know that if a fight starts you're outnumbered and
some of them would be carrying a weapon -
that could be a knife or even a pistol.

Why has the gang culture especially amongst Darkies been
allowed to proliferate in Australia?

Gangs predate the arrival of African migrants, Bobby. Look up the Bodgies and the Widgies

[Bogan]

To Mr Aussie.

If you think that all it takes to make a dysfunctional dumb person from the lowest class in society to have equal outcomes with people with average IQ, above average IQ, or those very rare people with very high IQ , is equal educational opportunities, then you are not the first to think like that. "Bussing" was instigated in every US state to "mix" the races in public schools so that the problem of unequal educational opportunities could no longer exist. it did not make much difference. Other than make previously "white" schools into much more dangerous places for white and Hispanic students. I say "not much difference" because there are smart blacks with average or above average intelligence, although they are very few in number, and these young blacks given equal opportunity did often go on to become productive members of society.

But most African blacks in the USA have a measured mean IQ of 70-85 and that means they are pretty dumb. You only have to look at how they behave to figure that out. The US Armed forces give every candidate enlistee an IQ test on pre enlistment and if the score is below 83 then they can't use you. They think that there is not a single job in the armed forces that you can become proficient at because you are just not smart enough. And that is around 10% of those who try and enlist. According to Jordan Peterson, that means around 10% of the US population do not have the brains to thrive in or even survive a competitive western world without massive welfare. Unfortunately, what proportion of that 10% are what race, I do not know, because Jordan Peterson did not say on his Youtube video. But I can guess.

However, if you think that it is possible to make people with very low intelligence into people with average or above average intelligence, then all I can say is, dream on.

[Aussie]

To Mr Aussie.

If you think that all it takes to make a dysfunctional dumb person from the lowest class in society to have equal outcomes with people with average IQ, above average IQ, or those very rare people with very high IQ , is equal educational opportunities, then you are not the first to think like that. "Bussing" was instigated in every US state to "mix" the races in public schools so that the problem of unequal educational opportunities could no longer exist. it did not make much difference. Other than make previously "white" schools into much more dangerous places for white and Hispanic students. I say "not much difference" because there are smart blacks with average or above average intelligence, although they are very few in number, and these young blacks given equal opportunity did often go on to become productive members of society.

But most African blacks in the USA have a measured mean IQ of 70-85 and that means they are pretty dumb. You only have to look at how they behave to figure that out. The US Armed forces give every candidate enlistee an IQ test on pre enlistment and if the score is below 83 then they can't use you. They think that there is not a single job in the armed forces that you can become proficient at because you are just not smart enough. And that is around 10% of those who try and enlist. According to Jordan Peterson, that means around 10% of the US population do not have the brains to thrive in or even survive a competitive western world without massive welfare. Unfortunately, what proportion of that 10% are what race, I do not know, because Jordan Peterson did not say on his Youtube video. But I can guess.

However, if you think that it is possible to make people with very low intelligence into people with average or above average intelligence, then all I can say is, dream on.

None of which responds to my comments.

[Bogan]

Aussie wrote

Let me repeat as you have ignored my first effort at rebutting you, Bogan...

You have not "rebutted" me in any way, Mr Aussie. I have been writing ten or twenty words to your one. All you have done is reply with sarcasm, questions, and sneery one liners. Hardly a "rebuttal."

Aussie wrote

All humans are "equal". All humans are from the same genetic group. They differ in physical attributes but can happily interbreed with one another, despite being separated for tens of thousands of years. They all share the same mental attributes.

That's a lot better. Now that is a "rebuttal." You managed a whole 112 words this time. It is also easy for me to "rebut."

Brown Bears are a species. Within that species are 87 sub species. All are from the same genetic group and all can interbreed with each other to produce fertile offspring. All of them are dangerous to one degree or another. But two in particular are extremely dangerous. The Grizzly Bear and the Kodiak Bear are physically different from other Brown Bears and they are so dangerous that in some states, hikers and researchers moving through their territory are obliged to carry magnum class rifles at all time.

African Buffalo are a species. Within that species are four sub species. All are from the same genetic group and all can breed with each other to produce fertile offspring. All of them are dangerous. But one sub species is extremely dangerous. The Cape Buffalo is so dangerous that big game hunters list it as one of the "Big Five" of dangerous Game.

Human beings are a species. Within that species are many sub species that are labelled "races" or "ethnicities". They are usually identifiably different from each other even though they all come from the same genetic group and can interbreed with each other to produce fertile offspring. If other species of mammals (which is what we are) can have identifiably different sub species with different physical and mental characteristics, how do you justify thinking that humans must be genetically different?

Especially since human sub species quite obviously have different physical attributes that give them an advantage over other human groups because they evolved within very different types of environments from each other? Black African people are identifiably different from Scandinavians because their skin colour in particular gives each an advantage in their own home environments. Unless you want to propose that whites and blacks have identical solar protection for their respective skins?

Mr Aussie wrote

Under the Genetic rule - "reversion to the mean" - they share an average intelligence. This why the children of geniuses rarely display genius themselves.

If "reversion to the mean" was true then everybody on planet earth would have the same IQ levels. They don't. In every society on earth, there are a very small number of people with very low intelligence, some with low intelligence, the vast majority of people with average intelligence, some with above average intelligence, and a very small number with very high intelligence. This forms the famous "Bell Curve" graph of human intelligence. The problem is, that the curves are not in phase with each other. Different races have different median IQ's. The smartest people on planet earth are the Jews, followed by the Asians, followed by the Caucasian whites, followed by the Hispanics, and lastly by African blacks, aborigines, and Pacific Islanders.

Gee! Whadyaknow? THAT fact pretty much reflects the social layering within multicultural western societies. Think that there might be a connection? US universities never trusted senior high teachers to grade students accurately through examinations so that the universities could assess a candidates suitability for university admission. So within Ivy League universities, the only way in was by passing an intelligence test. This was called the SAT score. Whadyaknow? Black African people were admitted in very low numbers even though they represented 12% of the US population, while Asians represent 60% of US university students even though they are only 5% of the population.

US blacks are now demanding racial quotas on Asians to get more blacks into uni. As an expert on racism, you should instantly figure out that that would be racism against US Asians by US blacks. You want to fight against racism? Well, there is a sterling example, right there.

Mr Aussie

All else is Racism - biological determinism usually based on physical attributes such as the amount of melanin in the skin, the shape of their lips, epicanthic folds over the eyes, frizziness of their hair and so on. Negros simply have more melanin in their skin cells.

Nothing like fighting racism with more racism.

It can be reliably determined that black people from Africa and Australia are generally much better at long distance running than whites or Asians. It can be reasonably determined that black people are not physically adapted to living in cold climates, they have to take vitamin D supplements or they develop Rickets. It can be reasonably determined that white people usually dominate Olympic level swimming events. Asians are smart but their bodies do not seem to be adapted to such sports as running or swimming. Chinese swimmers in particular are notorious for their drug cheating.

So, if physical performance differences between races is undeniable, and since IQ is measurable and cognitive morticians have measured different racial IQ's and found them to be different, which seems to be validated by external means such as success in life, proneness to criminal behaviour, university admissions, and widespread welfare dependency of some notoriously dysfunctional ethnicities, how you think that all races are absolutely equal in every way is beyond me?

[Bogan]

I am going away for a couple of days, Mr Aussie. I will be happy to cross swords with you on my return.