Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty 
percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for 
clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are 
culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If 
IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a 
measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a 
framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish 
to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities 
required by our civilisation?

It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally 
in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro 
country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest, 
aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative 
traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures. 
Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries 
all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic 
and rationale.

That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response 
is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to 
succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has 
nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything 
to do with compassion.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:55:41 +0000, White Spirit
 wrote:

>Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty 
>percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for 
>clinical retardation. 

where did you get that nonsense

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"White Spirit"  wrote in message 
news:hcmvdt$pes$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty 
> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for 
> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are 
> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If IQ 
> tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a 
> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a 
> framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish 
> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities 
> required by our civilisation?
>
> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally 
> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro 
> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest, 
> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative 
> traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures. 
> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries all 
> too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic and 
> rationale.
>
> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response is 
> to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to succeed 
> and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has nothing to do 
> with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything to do with 
> compassion.

From Channel 4's website;
"In 2007, Nobel Prize winning US scientist James Watson was quoted referring 
to research suggesting that black people were less intelligent than other 
races. His comments caused a storm of controversy, Watson was condemned.

Although he apologised for the offence he caused, his public engagements 
were cancelled and he left his British speaking tour in disgrace.

Meanwhile, right wing websites hailed him as the new Galileo - a martyr to 
political correctness that was concealing the fact that there is indeed 
evidence that shows different races score differently in IQ tests. But are 
the tests biased? Is race really a scientific category at all?

In this documentary, part of the season Race: Science's Last Taboo, Rageh 
Omaar sets out to find out the truth, meeting scientists who believe the 
research supports the view that races can be differentiated as well as those 
who vehemently oppose this view. By daring to ask the difficult questions, 
Omaar is able to explode the myths about race and IQ and reveal what he 
thinks are important lessons for society."



I haven't seen this, but I'm interested to see how Mr Omaar "is able to 
explode the myths about race and IQ", so I may watch it on C4 OD. It will 
undoubtedly be a chore to do so, because from the outset, I will know that - 
like the MacPherson report - the conclusions to this faux investigation will 
have been written before any "research" took place. The question for me, is 
why would anyone need to conduct IQ tests to establish what is manifestly 
obvious from the most cursory examination of history.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:14:26 +0100, abelard 
wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:55:41 +0000, White Spirit
> wrote:
>
>>Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty 
>>percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for 
>>clinical retardation. 
>
>where did you get that nonsense

Your usual pointless response I see.
You must get used to learning the truth even though you can't stand
it. It may make you madder than you already are though.

White Spirit  wrote in news:hcmvdt$pes$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost 
fifty 
> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for 
> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are 
> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If 
> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a 
> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a 
> framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we 
wish 
> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities 
> required by our civilisation?
> 
> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and 
professionally 
> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro 
> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest, 
> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are 
negative 
> traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures. 
> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries 
> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic 
> and rationale.
> 
> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response 
> is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to 
> succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has 
> nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything 
> to do with compassion.
> 

Truly there is a wealth of evidence that blacks are not as smart as 
whites. That's why they're so underrepresented in the really useful and 
intellectual fields like math, physics, and engineering.

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/50_black_doctoraldegrees.html

But the corporate media is paid by the globalists not to talk about this.  
They want us to think all races are the same so we won't object when they 
institute a world govt.

On 2 Nov, 15:55, White Spirit  wrote:
> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
> framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish
> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
> required by our civilisation?

Exactly, the TV presenter in the show you mention actually said that
we ought to be doing more to raise up  disadvantaged blacks in Western
countries. But why allow them to settle in the first place if they are
going to be a  burden on our society? It doesn't make sense.

You omit to mention that if the tests are culturally biased, then
these white test creators must all be Orientophiles, since the Chinese
and Japanese and Koreans perform better than whites.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:44:35 +0000, jake  wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:14:26 +0100, abelard 
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:55:41 +0000, White Spirit
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty 
>>>percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for 
>>>clinical retardation. 
>>
>>where did you get that nonsense
>
>Your usual pointless response I see.
>You must get used to learning the truth even though you can't stand
>it. It may make you madder than you already are though.

as you apparently also believe that nonsense then
   perhaps you also can say from whence you obtained it

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"abelard"  wrote in message 
news:ddfue51rdvemj8dj98b8q9lf3vm2s43as8@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:44:35 +0000, jake  wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:14:26 +0100, abelard 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:55:41 +0000, White Spirit
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
>>>>percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
>>>>clinical retardation.
>>>
>>>where did you get that nonsense
>>
>>Your usual pointless response I see.
>>You must get used to learning the truth even though you can't stand
>>it. It may make you madder than you already are though.
>
> as you apparently also believe that nonsense then
>   perhaps you also can say from whence you obtained it

I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense. Is it that 
negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that average IQ places 50% 
of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?

On Nov 2, 3:55 pm, White Spirit  wrote:
> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
> framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish
> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
> required by our civilisation?
>
> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative
> traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
> and rationale.
>
> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
> is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
> succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
> nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
> to do with compassion.

Are you trying to get in the Guinness Book of Records for the most
ironic posting?

UD

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:24:32 -0000, "True Blue" 
wrote:

>
>"abelard"  wrote in message 
>news:ddfue51rdvemj8dj98b8q9lf3vm2s43as8@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:44:35 +0000, jake  wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:14:26 +0100, abelard 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:55:41 +0000, White Spirit
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
>>>>>percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
>>>>>clinical retardation.
>>>>
>>>>where did you get that nonsense
>>>
>>>Your usual pointless response I see.
>>>You must get used to learning the truth even though you can't stand
>>>it. It may make you madder than you already are though.
>>
>> as you apparently also believe that nonsense then
>>   perhaps you also can say from whence you obtained it
>
>I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense. Is it that 
>negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that average IQ places 50% 
>of them in a category of "clinical retardation"? 

primarily, the second

regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"  wrote in
message news:Xns9CB76ABA35594riemann1850yahoocom@216.168.3.70...
> White Spirit  wrote in news:hcmvdt$pes$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
> > Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost
fifty
> > percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
> > clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
> > culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
> > IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
> > measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
> > framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we
wish
> > to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
> > required by our civilisation?
> >
> > It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and
professionally
> > in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
> > country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
> > aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are
negative
> > traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
> > Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
> > all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
> > and rationale.
> >
> > That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
> > is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
> > succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
> > nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
> > to do with compassion.
> >
>
> Truly there is a wealth of evidence that blacks are not as smart as
> whites. That's why they're so underrepresented in the really useful and
> intellectual fields like math, physics, and engineering.
>
> http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/50_black_doctoraldegrees.html
>
> But the corporate media is paid by the globalists not to talk about this.
> They want us to think all races are the same so we won't object when they
> institute a world govt.

From what I have noticed, those "blacks" that are able to achieve better
than the above also happen to have at least one white ancestor.  If such a
premise were true, it needs to be factored into further studies.

Certain historical facts may support the contention.  The blacks are mainly
those who stayed behind in Africa, doing the same-old-thing for centuries.
The whites and Asians are those who migrated out and had to adjust to
different environments, and thus needed more brain power to adapt.

Where are the world's LASTING great advanced civilizations:  Europe and
Asia mainly.  There's some evidence in the Americas, but those
civilizations died off.  In Africa, only Egypt - the gateway to the rest of
the world, is the only lasting civilization.  Even now, much of Africa
remains tribal.

I don't know if the above statement is actually true or simply meant to be
a racist comment.  However, there are sufficient facts to draw a hypothesis
that could indicate that it may be true.  A study with EQUAL education to
eliminate much of any bias should be done.

White Spirit wrote:
> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,

The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there are in
Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said to Abelard over and over
again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand things easily), if 
you
measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100, that's
the way these things work.

Don't fucking argue until you have looked it up and understood.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:04:25 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
 wrote:

>White Spirit wrote:
>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>
>The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there are in
>Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said to Abelard over and over
>again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand things easily), if 
>you
>measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100, that's
>the way these things work.

you continue to incorrect....
but it is good to see you are still squirming...

one day maybe you will bypass your fragile ego and choose instead
    to learn

>Don't fucking argue until you have looked it up and understood.
>
>

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:47:18 -0800, "D. Stussy"
<spam+newsgroups@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:

>"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"  wrote in
>message news:Xns9CB76ABA35594riemann1850yahoocom@216.168.3.70...
>> White Spirit  wrote in news:hcmvdt$pes$1
>> @news.eternal-september.org:
>> > Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost
>fifty
>> > percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
>> > clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
>> > culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
>> > IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
>> > measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
>> > framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we
>wish
>> > to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
>> > required by our civilisation?
>> >
>> > It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and
>professionally
>> > in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
>> > country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
>> > aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are
>negative
>> > traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
>> > Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
>> > all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
>> > and rationale.
>> >
>> > That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
>> > is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
>> > succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
>> > nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
>> > to do with compassion.
>> >
>>
>> Truly there is a wealth of evidence that blacks are not as smart as
>> whites. That's why they're so underrepresented in the really useful and
>> intellectual fields like math, physics, and engineering.
>>
>> http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/50_black_doctoraldegrees.html
>>
>> But the corporate media is paid by the globalists not to talk about this.
>> They want us to think all races are the same so we won't object when they
>> institute a world govt.
>
>From what I have noticed, those "blacks" that are able to achieve better
>than the above also happen to have at least one white ancestor.  If such a
>premise were true, it needs to be factored into further studies.

do you really believe that has not long been examined!!

>Certain historical facts may support the contention.  The blacks are mainly
>those who stayed behind in Africa, doing the same-old-thing for centuries.
>The whites and Asians are those who migrated out and had to adjust to
>different environments, and thus needed more brain power to adapt.
>
>Where are the world's LASTING great advanced civilizations:  Europe and
>Asia mainly.  There's some evidence in the Americas, but those
>civilizations died off.  In Africa, only Egypt - the gateway to the rest of
>the world, is the only lasting civilization.  Even now, much of Africa
>remains tribal.
>
>I don't know if the above statement is actually true or simply meant to be
>a racist comment.  However, there are sufficient facts to draw a hypothesis
>that could indicate that it may be true.  A study with EQUAL education to
>eliminate much of any bias should be done.

it is done...

http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm#en1a

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"abelard"  wrote in message 
news:gtmue5dbp1mur8vckgf7i77ub4c7hlqvdt@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:04:25 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>  wrote:
>
>>White Spirit wrote:
>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>>
>>The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there are in
>>Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said to Abelard over and over
>>again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand things easily), if
>>you
>>measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100, that's
>>the way these things work.
>
> you continue to incorrect....
> but it is good to see you are still squirming...
>
> one day maybe you will bypass your fragile ego and choose instead
>    to learn
>
>>Don't fucking argue until you have looked it up and understood.


I can't remember killfiling Murphy, but his post has only come up in yours. 
He is the gift that keeps on giving. What an ignorant twat he is.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 22:44:06 -0000, "True Blue" 
wrote:

>"abelard"  wrote in message 
>news:gtmue5dbp1mur8vckgf7i77ub4c7hlqvdt@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:04:25 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>White Spirit wrote:
>>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>>>
>>>The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there are in
>>>Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said to Abelard over and over
>>>again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand things easily), if
>>>you
>>>measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100, that's
>>>the way these things work.
>>
>> you continue to incorrect....
>> but it is good to see you are still squirming...
>>
>> one day maybe you will bypass your fragile ego and choose instead
>>    to learn
>>
>>>Don't fucking argue until you have looked it up and understood.

>I can't remember killfiling Murphy, but his post has only come up in yours. 
>He is the gift that keeps on giving. What an ignorant twat he is. 

he has his amusing side....i like the way he maintains his self-belief
     however often and however many howlers he posts....

he's like a civilised version of abdul....they make an interesting
     compare and contrast...
i blame it on over-indulgent mummies...

regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"abelard"  wrote in message
news:81nue5hb35g0h8b3po9vgir4vcccd6q35b@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:47:18 -0800, "D. Stussy"
> <spam+newsgroups@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> >"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"  wrote in
> >message news:Xns9CB76ABA35594riemann1850yahoocom@216.168.3.70...
> >> White Spirit  wrote in news:hcmvdt$pes$1
> >> @news.eternal-september.org:
> >> > Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost
fifty
> >> > percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
> >> > clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests
are
> >> > culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.
If
> >> > IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they
are a
> >> > measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
> >> > framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we
wish
> >> > to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental
abilities
> >> > required by our civilisation?
> >> >
> >> > It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and
professionally
> >> > in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a
Negro
> >> > country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be
dishonest,
> >> > aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are
negative
> >> > traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
> >> > Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western
countries
> >> > all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over
logic
> >> > and rationale.
> >> >
> >> > That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind
response
> >> > is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
> >> > succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
> >> > nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and
everything
> >> > to do with compassion.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Truly there is a wealth of evidence that blacks are not as smart as
> >> whites. That's why they're so underrepresented in the really useful
and
> >> intellectual fields like math, physics, and engineering.
> >>
> >> http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/50_black_doctoraldegrees.html
> >>
> >> But the corporate media is paid by the globalists not to talk about
this.
> >> They want us to think all races are the same so we won't object when
they
> >> institute a world govt.
> >
> >From what I have noticed, those "blacks" that are able to achieve better
> >than the above also happen to have at least one white ancestor.  If such
a
> >premise were true, it needs to be factored into further studies.
>
> do you really believe that has not long been examined!!

Actually, yes.  There are many blacks in North America descendant from
slaves that have NOT traced their ancestry, and so they don't know that
they have a white ancestor.  Records of such parentage were not commonly
kept, and some may have been destroyed by various events, including but not
limited to the U.S. Civil War.  Some ancestries may be wrong - thinking
that the black spouse was the father when one of the white owners or
overseers had stepped in and is the actual biological father.  As a result
of this missing factor, these blacks may think they are 100% black, and
thus skew the results of the average to the high side, when in fact their
higher scores are due to their mixed ancestry.

> >Certain historical facts may support the contention.  The blacks are
mainly
> >those who stayed behind in Africa, doing the same-old-thing for
centuries.
> >The whites and Asians are those who migrated out and had to adjust to
> >different environments, and thus needed more brain power to adapt.
> >
> >Where are the world's LASTING great advanced civilizations:  Europe and
> >Asia mainly.  There's some evidence in the Americas, but those
> >civilizations died off.  In Africa, only Egypt - the gateway to the rest
of
> >the world, is the only lasting civilization.  Even now, much of Africa
> >remains tribal.
> >
> >I don't know if the above statement is actually true or simply meant to
be
> >a racist comment.  However, there are sufficient facts to draw a
hypothesis
> >that could indicate that it may be true.  A study with EQUAL education
to
> >eliminate much of any bias should be done.
>
> it is done...
>
> http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm#en1a

It needs to be repeated and the results repeatable without fail.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:15:40 -0800, "D. Stussy"
<spam+newsgroups@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:


>Actually, yes.  There are many blacks in North America descendant from
>slaves that have NOT traced their ancestry, and so they don't know that
>they have a white ancestor.  Records of such parentage were not commonly
>kept, and some may have been destroyed by various events, including but not
>limited to the U.S. Civil War.  Some ancestries may be wrong - thinking
>that the black spouse was the father when one of the white owners or
>overseers had stepped in and is the actual biological father.  As a result
>of this missing factor, these blacks may think they are 100% black, and
>thus skew the results of the average to the high side, when in fact their
>higher scores are due to their mixed ancestry.

there are such studies...
some families know their history better than others....
     such surveys will concentrate on those families


>> http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm#en1a
>
>It needs to be repeated and the results repeatable without fail.

what does?

if you want to be informed, then read the linked and other
    relevant studies...

meanwhile, the logic in this area is both complex and dodgy...
i've outlined the problems here
http://www.abelard.org/statistics.php

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Stussy wrote:
> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"  wrote in
> message news:Xns9CB76ABA35594riemann1850yahoocom@216.168.3.70...
>> White Spirit  wrote in news:hcmvdt$pes$1
>> @news.eternal-september.org:
>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost
> fifty
>>> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
>>> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
>>> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
>>> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
>>> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
>>> framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we
> wish
>>> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
>>> required by our civilisation?
>>>
>>> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and
> professionally
>>> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
>>> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
>>> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are
> negative
>>> traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
>>> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
>>> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
>>> and rationale.
>>>
>>> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
>>> is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
>>> succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
>>> nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
>>> to do with compassion.
>>>
>> Truly there is a wealth of evidence that blacks are not as smart as
>> whites. That's why they're so underrepresented in the really useful and
>> intellectual fields like math, physics, and engineering.
>>
>> http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/50_black_doctoraldegrees.html
>>
>> But the corporate media is paid by the globalists not to talk about this.
>> They want us to think all races are the same so we won't object when they
>> institute a world govt.
> 
> From what I have noticed, those "blacks" that are able to achieve better
> than the above also happen to have at least one white ancestor.  If such a
> premise were true, it needs to be factored into further studies.
> 
> Certain historical facts may support the contention.  The blacks are mainly
> those who stayed behind in Africa, doing the same-old-thing for centuries.
> The whites and Asians are those who migrated out and had to adjust to
> different environments, and thus needed more brain power to adapt.
> 
> Where are the world's LASTING great advanced civilizations:  Europe and
> Asia mainly.  There's some evidence in the Americas, but those
> civilizations died off.  In Africa, only Egypt - the gateway to the rest of
> the world, is the only lasting civilization.  Even now, much of Africa
> remains tribal.
> 
> I don't know if the above statement is actually true or simply meant to be
> a racist comment.  However, there are sufficient facts to draw a hypothesis
> that could indicate that it may be true.  A study with EQUAL education to
> eliminate much of any bias should be done.

There are numerous characteristics that distinguish the various human 
sub-species which are best defined in middle of the geographic areas 
which the sub-species tend to occupy.  For example one might compare the 
  differing leg:body length ratios between polynesians and europeans, 
the shape of the polynesian lower jaw compared with others, flat as 
opposed to round hair, skull shape and of course the most distinctive 
feature, skin colour.  Because the groups are sub-species rather than 
species they can interbreed and, at the boundaries of the areas of 
geographic sub-speciation the sub-species interbreed and the 
characteristics are mixed.  If one is prepared to accept that the 
indicators of sub-species are real why should it be necessary to insist 
that intelligence, or rather the ability to pass intelligence tests, is 
not also a characteristic of sub-species?  Of course it is.  Just 
because intelligence in each sub-species broadly fits a normal 
distribution curve and that these distribution curves overlap it cannot 
be argued, rationally, that the average intelligence of the different 
sub-species must not differ.  It does differ and we should not be 
surprised that it does.  To demand that it does not required a quasi 
religious belief.  The mechanism by which this came about you have 
described above.  Those that travelled furthest needed to be a bit 
smarter, in order to survive, than those that loafed around in Africa 
feeding on jungle fruits!

R
> 
>

On 2 Nov, 15:55, White Spirit  wrote:
> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
> framework considered normal in Western culture.

So then are you accepting the liberal view that IQ is to some degree
culturally relative?



> Why then should we wish
> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
> required by our civilisation?

What are these mental abilities you claim we require, and which
certain other races do not possess? I mean does "our civilisation"
honestly require for example that we rotate a geometric shape in our
minds within 5 seconds, rather than 6?



> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.

Honesty is not really a fixed personality trait. It's more to do with
how much a reputation for honesty is valued by others and to what
degree it aids productive mutual cooperation with others. Invariably,
people become dishonest when mutual cooperation becomes unproductive -
it would be foolish for example for a burglar to be honest with police
or the owner of the burgled premises, because such honesty would not
be productive.



> These are are negative
> traits to the Western mind

No they aren't. We have hundreds of MPs who are dishonest, and we all
remember Prescott's rejoinder to an egg-throwing protester.



> that are valued in Negro cultures.

Which cultures? You mean war-torn areas that have had to endure
countless proxy wars in the 20th century, and the decimation of their
social orders by imperialism and slavery in the 19th and 18th
centuries?



> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
> and rationale.

I dare say in most cases the violence and aggression displayed by
black-african races in this country is rational. I mean, consider how
much one can earn as a drug dealer if one has a knack for scaring
people, as opposed to earnings from legitimate employment (where a
knack for scaring people will if anything probably keep you out of
work)? What is irrational about choosing that path? In fact, what do
you even mean by "rational"?



> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
> is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
> succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.

I believe the "native habitat" has in many cases been utterly
destroyed by the interference of Western powers.



> It has
> nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
> to do with compassion.

I'm sure.

abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:04:25 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>  wrote:
>
>> White Spirit wrote:
>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>>
>> The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there
>> are in Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said to Abelard
>> over and over again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand
>> things easily), if you
>> measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100, that's
>> the way these things work.
>
> you continue to incorrect....

No I don't little one and you damn well know it but are too pigheaded to
admit it. I've already posted several references to this fact (average 
IQ=100 in any group) and there are probably hundreds of others on the 
net, yet you, idiot that you are, cannot accept it, thinking (god knows 
by what strange process) that the entire world is wrong and little Abe 
is right.

On 2 Nov, 16:14, abelard  wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:55:41 +0000, White Spirit
>
>  wrote:
> >Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
> >percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
> >clinical retardation.
>
> where did you get that nonsense
>
> --

It's actually quite true. One of my friends has a very old
encyclodpedia and it states in quite short sentences the make-up of
the major races. It states "White people are industrious and dilligent
(as are the chinese) and blacks are lazy".

The book was printed around 1955.

McKevvy

On 2 Nov, 22:04, "Lou Ravi"  wrote:
> White Spirit wrote:
> > Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>
> The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there are in
> Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said to Abelard over and over
> again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand things easily), if
> you
> measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100, that's
> the way these things work.
>
> Don't fucking argue until you have looked it up and understood.

So how does that square with the fact that the niggers are only good
for menial tasks like hunting in the bush?

White Spirit wrote:
> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, ...

...which is about 15 points higher than your typical neo-Nazi moron.

http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm


If that were true, it would be proof that God has a sense of humour.

> percent of them ...

True Blue wrote:
> 
...
> 
> I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense. Is it 
> that negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that average IQ 
> places 50% of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?

Noted that you are clueless about the IQ scale.

Uncle Dave wrote:

> Are you trying to get in the Guinness Book of Records for the most
> ironic posting?

My IQ tested well above average.

B J Foster wrote:

> White Spirit wrote:

>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, ...

> ...which is about 15 points higher than your typical neo-Nazi moron.

> http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm

It's amusing that liberals dislike IQ statistics when it seems to 
provide their opinions wrong but like to quote them when they feel it 
proves them right.  Bearing in mind that the people quoted in the above 
studies appear to be from deprived rural areas, four points doesn't 
appear to be much when you compare the Negroid who lives in deprivation 
to his Caucasoid counterpart.

Ste wrote:

> On 2 Nov, 15:55, White Spirit  wrote:

>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
>> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
>> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
>> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
>> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
>> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
>> framework considered normal in Western culture.

> So then are you accepting the liberal view that IQ is to some degree
> culturally relative?

I'm refuting the argument that cultural relativity of IQ would mean that 
the scores are irrelevant in determining whether immigration has 
detrimental results.

>> Why then should we wish
>> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
>> required by our civilisation?

> What are these mental abilities you claim we require, and which
> certain other races do not possess? I mean does "our civilisation"
> honestly require for example that we rotate a geometric shape in our
> minds within 5 seconds, rather than 6?

Would you deny that pattern recognition, mathematics, geometry and logic 
play a large part in Western civilisation?  Would you deny that one's 
abilities in these realms have an impact on one's ability to succeed and 
contribute?

>> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
>> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
>> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
>> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.

> Honesty is not really a fixed personality trait. It's more to do with
> how much a reputation for honesty is valued by others and to what
> degree it aids productive mutual cooperation with others.

It's a cultural trait, one that I submit has arisen due to innate 
differences between the various subspecies.

> Invariably,
> people become dishonest when mutual cooperation becomes unproductive -
> it would be foolish for example for a burglar to be honest with police
> or the owner of the burgled premises, because such honesty would not
> be productive.

That's sort of my point: mutual cooperation does not play a large part 
in African and Caribbean societies.  Caucasians, on the other hand, 
could not have survived without cooperation.  While the West is handing 
over large sums of money to African countries to feed them beyond the 
land's ability to sustain the burgeoning population, they will not face 
the pressures that will give rise to better selection of genes and the 
burden to the West will increase, both in terms of financial 
'obligation' and immigration.

>>  These are are negative
>> traits to the Western mind

> No they aren't. We have hundreds of MPs who are dishonest,

And most people have nothing but disdain for their dishonesty.

> and we all
> remember Prescott's rejoinder to an egg-throwing protester.

An immediate reaction to a sense of threat.  That doesn't constitute 
violent or aggressive behaviour in my view.

>> that are valued in Negro cultures.

> Which cultures? You mean war-torn areas that have had to endure
> countless proxy wars in the 20th century, and the decimation of their
> social orders by imperialism and slavery in the 19th and 18th
> centuries?

Look at Rhodesia: a rich country when it was handed back to the Negroes. 
  Their social orders are tribal and when they revert to them, we get 
the blame for their violence.  And let's not forget their own role in 
the slave trade.

>> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
>> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
>> and rationale.

> I dare say in most cases the violence and aggression displayed by
> black-african races in this country is rational. I mean, consider how
> much one can earn as a drug dealer if one has a knack for scaring
> people, as opposed to earnings from legitimate employment (where a
> knack for scaring people will if anything probably keep you out of
> work)? What is irrational about choosing that path? In fact, what do
> you even mean by "rational"?

There can be short-term benefits from criminal behaviour but, weighed up 
against the long term costs, the criminal lifestyle is not a logical or 
rational choice.

I'm not sure why you wish for me to define 'rational' when it is a 
commonly understood concept.  I am referring to a sound judgement made 
after evaluating the options and all evidence to hand.  Choosing 
criminal behaviour over hard work is the lazy option borne from baser 
instincts.

>> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
>> is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
>> succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.

> I believe the "native habitat" has in many cases been utterly
> destroyed by the interference of Western powers.

I don't believe it has.

Lou Ravi wrote:

> White Spirit wrote:

>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,

> The 'negro'?

No, John, the 'Negro'.

> How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there are in
> Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc?

How many there are is irrelevant.

> As I said to Abelard over and over
> again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand things easily), if 
> you
> measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100, that's
> the way these things work.

If what you're trying to say is that IQ results are normalised then you 
should be aware that the disparity arises when comparing the results 
before normalisation occurs.

> Don't fucking argue until you have looked it up and understood.

I suggest that you, in fact, look at the studies and try to understand.

"abelard"  wrote in message 
news:o8oue5d6616qficcdt6iojk87euekgkbdo@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 22:44:06 -0000, "True Blue" 
> wrote:
>
>>"abelard"  wrote in message
>>news:gtmue5dbp1mur8vckgf7i77ub4c7hlqvdt@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:04:25 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>White Spirit wrote:
>>>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>>>>
>>>>The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there are in
>>>>Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said to Abelard over and over
>>>>again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand things easily), if
>>>>you
>>>>measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100, that's
>>>>the way these things work.
>>>
>>> you continue to incorrect....
>>> but it is good to see you are still squirming...
>>>
>>> one day maybe you will bypass your fragile ego and choose instead
>>>    to learn
>>>
>>>>Don't fucking argue until you have looked it up and understood.
>
>>I can't remember killfiling Murphy, but his post has only come up in 
>>yours.
>>He is the gift that keeps on giving. What an ignorant twat he is.
>
> he has his amusing side....i like the way he maintains his self-belief
>     however often and however many howlers he posts....
>
> he's like a civilised version of abdul....they make an interesting
>     compare and contrast...
> i blame it on over-indulgent mummies...


One of my favourite Murphy posts;

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.misc/browse_frm/thread/71c479cb790e41e?hl=en&q=water+push+author%3AJohn+author%3Aof+author%3AAix&

I call it Murphy's Law (of hydrodynamics). Start reading at post number 96 
of the thread for the best of the archetypal "I-know-everything-and-nothing" 
Murphy genius.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:49:00 -0800 (PST), McKevvy
 wrote:

>On 2 Nov, 16:14, abelard  wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:55:41 +0000, White Spirit
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
>> >percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
>> >clinical retardation.
>>
>> where did you get that nonsense

>It's actually quite true. One of my friends has a very old
>encyclodpedia and it states in quite short sentences the make-up of
>the major races. It states "White people are industrious and dilligent
>(as are the chinese) and blacks are lazy".
>
>The book was printed around 1955.

you can find a similar stt about malays in the 1913 enc brit

i must assume you're on a wind up and don't really just believe
     things because you've have read them in a book!

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:53:31 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
 wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:04:25 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> White Spirit wrote:
>>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>>>
>>> The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there
>>> are in Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said to Abelard
>>> over and over again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand
>>> things easily), if you
>>> measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100, that's
>>> the way these things work.
>>
>> you continue to incorrect....
>
>No I don't little one and you damn well know it but are too pigheaded to
>admit it. I've already posted several references to this fact (average 
>IQ=100 in any group) and there are probably hundreds of others on the 
>net, yet you, idiot that you are, cannot accept it, thinking (god knows 
>by what strange process) that the entire world is wrong and little Abe 
>is right.

you remain incorrect

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:13:55 +0000, White Spirit
 wrote:

>Lou Ravi wrote:
>
>> White Spirit wrote:
>
>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>
>> The 'negro'?
>
>No, John, the 'Negro'.
>
>> How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there are in
>> Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc?
>
>How many there are is irrelevant.
>
>> As I said to Abelard over and over
>> again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand things easily), if 
>> you
>> measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100, that's
>> the way these things work.
>
>If what you're trying to say is that IQ results are normalised then you 
>should be aware that the disparity arises when comparing the results 
>before normalisation occurs.

the normalisation applies only to a group on which the
     test is developed
the normalisation relates primarily to the construction
     of a/the test...not to any group that it is thenceforward
     applied to

>> Don't fucking argue until you have looked it up and understood.
>
>I suggest that you, in fact, look at the studies and try to understand.

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:hcp2qb$sbp$5@bjf.motzarella.org...
> True Blue wrote:
>>
> ...
>>
>> I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense. Is it 
>> that negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that average IQ 
>> places 50% of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?
>
> Noted that you are clueless about the IQ scale.

I *am* clueless about the IQ scale, Blow Job. I know nothing about it, but I 
never claimed to. I just know that if 100 negros sat the same test as 100 
whites, then the average test score for the negros would be lower than the 
average for whites.

On Nov 2, 4:55 pm, White Spirit  wrote:
> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
> framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish
> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
> required by our civilisation?
>
> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative
> traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
> and rationale.
>
> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
> is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
> succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
> nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
> to do with compassion.

a black person with a much higher IQ than you, but thats not really
difficult is it ;-)

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/first-black-female-winner-for-frances-top-literary-prize-1813643.html

Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:

> a black person with a much higher IQ than you

Prove it.

abelard wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:53:31 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>  wrote:
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:04:25 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> White Spirit wrote:
>>>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>>>>
>>>> The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there
>>>> are in Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said to Abelard
>>>> over and over again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand
>>>> things easily), if you
>>>> measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100,
>>>> that's the way these things work.
>>>
>>> you continue to incorrect....
>>
>> No I don't little one and you damn well know it but are too
>> pigheaded to admit it. I've already posted several references to
>> this fact (average IQ=100 in any group) and there are probably
>> hundreds of others on the net, yet you, idiot that you are, cannot
>> accept it, thinking (god knows by what strange process) that the
>> entire world is wrong and little Abe is right.
>
> you remain incorrect

Yes dear, lack of any counter-proof noted.

Roger Dewhurst  wrote in
news:hco7mc$4aa$1@lust.ihug.co.nz: 


> There are numerous characteristics that distinguish the various human 
> sub-species which are best defined in middle of the geographic areas 
> which the sub-species tend to occupy.  For example one might compare
> the 
>   differing leg:body length ratios between polynesians and europeans, 
> the shape of the polynesian lower jaw compared with others, flat as 
> opposed to round hair, skull shape and of course the most distinctive 
> feature, skin colour.  Because the groups are sub-species rather than 
> species they can interbreed and, at the boundaries of the areas of 
> geographic sub-speciation the sub-species interbreed and the 
> characteristics are mixed.  If one is prepared to accept that the 
> indicators of sub-species are real why should it be necessary to
> insist that intelligence, or rather the ability to pass intelligence
> tests, is not also a characteristic of sub-species?  Of course it is. 
> Just because intelligence in each sub-species broadly fits a normal 
> distribution curve and that these distribution curves overlap it
> cannot be argued, rationally, that the average intelligence of the
> different sub-species must not differ.  It does differ and we should
> not be surprised that it does.  To demand that it does not required a
> quasi religious belief.  The mechanism by which this came about you
> have described above.  Those that travelled furthest needed to be a
> bit smarter, in order to survive, than those that loafed around in
> Africa feeding on jungle fruits!
> 

Yes indeed.  There are many many physical differences between the races but   
the propagandists tell us that mentally we are all the same!!!!  That's 
possible i suppose, but it's extremely unlikely.

On 3 Nov, 12:06, White Spirit  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 2 Nov, 15:55, White Spirit  wrote:
> >> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
> >> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
> >> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
> >> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
> >> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
> >> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
> >> framework considered normal in Western culture.
> > So then are you accepting the liberal view that IQ is to some degree
> > culturally relative?
>
> I'm refuting the argument that cultural relativity of IQ would mean that
> the scores are irrelevant in determining whether immigration has
> detrimental results.

Well for what it's worth I agree in principle, although I disagree
that the negligible differences in ability would have any significance
outside of a market economy.



> >> Why then should we wish
> >> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
> >> required by our civilisation?
> > What are these mental abilities you claim we require, and which
> > certain other races do not possess? I mean does "our civilisation"
> > honestly require for example that we rotate a geometric shape in our
> > minds within 5 seconds, rather than 6?
>
> Would you deny that pattern recognition, mathematics, geometry and logic
> play a large part in Western civilisation?  Would you deny that one's
> abilities in these realms have an impact on one's ability to succeed and
> contribute?

I would not deny that these skills are useful in Western societies,
but every race on earth has these skills. As I say, the degree of
difference in inherent ability (if indeed there is any - I have by no
means accepted that evidence supports such a contention) is negligible
in the larger scheme of things, and negligible relative to many other
factors like formal education. Also, these statistics do not justify
racial discrimination - for we accept that we are speaking of average
IQ, and an inference can be drawn therefore that there are still many
smart black men, and many stupid white men (as determined by IQ
tests).



> >> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
> >> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
> >> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
> >> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.
> > Honesty is not really a fixed personality trait. It's more to do with
> > how much a reputation for honesty is valued by others and to what
> > degree it aids productive mutual cooperation with others.
>
> It's a cultural trait, one that I submit has arisen due to innate
> differences between the various subspecies.

But where is your rigourous evidence for this highly contentious
conclusion?



> > Invariably,
> > people become dishonest when mutual cooperation becomes unproductive -
> > it would be foolish for example for a burglar to be honest with police
> > or the owner of the burgled premises, because such honesty would not
> > be productive.
>
> That's sort of my point: mutual cooperation does not play a large part
> in African and Caribbean societies.

Yes it does. Even in the most war-torn societies, mutual cooperation
plays a very large part, except that they tend to have an in-group
that is not based on national borders.


> Caucasians, on the other hand,
> could not have survived without cooperation.

It depends what you mean.


> While the West is handing
> over large sums of money to African countries to feed them beyond the
> land's ability to sustain the burgeoning population, they will not face
> the pressures that will give rise to better selection of genes and the
> burden to the West will increase, both in terms of financial
> 'obligation' and immigration.

The problem in Africa is, as I say, lack of an established social
order. The cause of that in turn is that those societies have been
repeatedly decimated by Western powers. Coincidentally I hear Simon
Mann has just been released - you know the one who, with Mark
Thatcher, intended to overthrow an African government and thereby
enjoy its oil wealth.

And truth be told, I don't think that foreign aid is particularly
helpful, but neither are loans given to dictators at sky-high interest
rates, which the whole country must then repay.



> >>  These are are negative
> >> traits to the Western mind
> > No they aren't. We have hundreds of MPs who are dishonest,
>
> And most people have nothing but disdain for their dishonesty.

Indeed, but this dishonesty is not an inherent trait but a product of
MP's environments (and more specifically, their prevailing ideology).



> > and we all
> > remember Prescott's rejoinder to an egg-throwing protester.
>
> An immediate reaction to a sense of threat.

Yes, I'm not crtiticising Prescott for that.


> That doesn't constitute
> violent or aggressive behaviour in my view.

Then what, in your view, do the words "aggressive" and "violent" mean?
Certainly when I went to school those words implied actions involving
bodily harm or the threat thereof, and that's exactly the kind of
action that Prescott took.



> >> that are valued in Negro cultures.
> > Which cultures? You mean war-torn areas that have had to endure
> > countless proxy wars in the 20th century, and the decimation of their
> > social orders by imperialism and slavery in the 19th and 18th
> > centuries?
>
> Look at Rhodesia: a rich country when it was handed back to the Negroes.

By "rich country", do I infer correctly that you mean there was a
small class of very rich men present in the country, while the general
population lived in squalor?



>   Their social orders are tribal and when they revert to them, we get
> the blame for their violence.

But earlier you said that "Negroes" don't cooperate. Now you say that
they do cooperate, but at a tribal level?


> And let's not forget their own role in
> the slave trade.

Indeed, let's not forget. But that hardly justifies it. There are
plenty of white men who would sell their own people for money.



> >> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
> >> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
> >> and rationale.
> > I dare say in most cases the violence and aggression displayed by
> > black-african races in this country is rational. I mean, consider how
> > much one can earn as a drug dealer if one has a knack for scaring
> > people, as opposed to earnings from legitimate employment (where a
> > knack for scaring people will if anything probably keep you out of
> > work)? What is irrational about choosing that path? In fact, what do
> > you even mean by "rational"?
>
> There can be short-term benefits from criminal behaviour but, weighed up
> against the long term costs, the criminal lifestyle is not a logical or
> rational choice.

It depends how you frame the matter. The criminal lifestyle often has
poor financial returns over the long-term, but it is often high on
social status, and high on intrinsic satisfaction, and tends to bind
people together. It also requires little prior sustained investment
(which is appropriate to groups from socially and economically
deprived backgrounds), and it carries with it the chance of making
genuinely huge profits.

A further point is that the way in which the justice system responds
to criminality often perpetuates and aggravates the social conditions
that cause it.



> I'm not sure why you wish for me to define 'rational' when it is a
> commonly understood concept.

It's actually a very poorly understood concept - a bit like
intelligence. I haven't yet seen a universally accepted definition for
the word.


> I am referring to a sound judgement made
> after evaluating the options and all evidence to hand.

Yes, and so by what measure is criminality irrational for these
groups? By financial measures? Perhaps. But what if monetary gain is
not the sole aim?



> Choosing
> criminal behaviour over hard work is the lazy option borne from baser
> instincts.

Criminality rarely involves less work when objectively measured, and
often carries with it the risk of death, permanent injuries, jail time
etc. As for baser instincts, what are these instincts, and how do they
differ from the more enlightened instincts of western peoples?

On Nov 3, 5:13 pm, White Spirit  wrote:
> Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:
>
> > a black person with a much higher IQ than you
>
> Prove it.

disprove it.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:41:52 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
 wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:53:31 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:04:25 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> White Spirit wrote:
>>>>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there
>>>>> are in Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said to Abelard
>>>>> over and over again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand
>>>>> things easily), if you
>>>>> measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100,
>>>>> that's the way these things work.
>>>>
>>>> you continue to incorrect....
>>>
>>> No I don't little one and you damn well know it but are too
>>> pigheaded to admit it. I've already posted several references to
>>> this fact (average IQ=100 in any group) and there are probably
>>> hundreds of others on the net, yet you, idiot that you are, cannot
>>> accept it, thinking (god knows by what strange process) that the
>>> entire world is wrong and little Abe is right.
>>
>> you remain incorrect
>
>Yes dear, lack of any counter-proof noted. 

my impression is that you're not educated/bright enough
    to understand why you are incorrect...



-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:25:23 -0800 (PST), Ste 
wrote:

>On 3 Nov, 12:06, White Spirit  wrote:
>> Ste wrote:

>> And let's not forget their own role in
>> the slave trade.
>
>Indeed, let's not forget. But that hardly justifies it. There are
>plenty of white men who would sell their own people for money.

i wonder how much we could get for paint solvent at the
    local market

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

abelard wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:41:52 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>  wrote:
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:53:31 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:04:25 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> White Spirit wrote:
>>>>>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there
>>>>>> are in Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said to Abelard
>>>>>> over and over again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand
>>>>>> things easily), if you
>>>>>> measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100,
>>>>>> that's the way these things work.
>>>>>
>>>>> you continue to incorrect....
>>>>
>>>> No I don't little one and you damn well know it but are too
>>>> pigheaded to admit it. I've already posted several references to
>>>> this fact (average IQ=100 in any group) and there are probably
>>>> hundreds of others on the net, yet you, idiot that you are, cannot
>>>> accept it, thinking (god knows by what strange process) that the
>>>> entire world is wrong and little Abe is right.
>>>
>>> you remain incorrect
>>
>> Yes dear, lack of any counter-proof noted.
>
> my impression is that you're not educated/bright enough
>    to understand why you are incorrect...

I don't need to dearie because I am not incorrect, as a quick tour of 
Google will show you a hundredfold. The average IQ of any group tested 
is always 100, that's the way this (rather silly) system works.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:24:31 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
 wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:41:52 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:53:31 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:04:25 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> White Spirit wrote:
>>>>>>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there
>>>>>>> are in Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said to Abelard
>>>>>>> over and over again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand
>>>>>>> things easily), if you
>>>>>>> measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100,
>>>>>>> that's the way these things work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you continue to incorrect....
>>>>>
>>>>> No I don't little one and you damn well know it but are too
>>>>> pigheaded to admit it. I've already posted several references to
>>>>> this fact (average IQ=100 in any group) and there are probably
>>>>> hundreds of others on the net, yet you, idiot that you are, cannot
>>>>> accept it, thinking (god knows by what strange process) that the
>>>>> entire world is wrong and little Abe is right.
>>>>
>>>> you remain incorrect
>>>
>>> Yes dear, lack of any counter-proof noted.
>>
>> my impression is that you're not educated/bright enough
>>    to understand why you are incorrect...
>
>I don't need to dearie because I am not incorrect, as a quick tour of 
>Google will show you a hundredfold. The average IQ of any group tested 
>is always 100, that's the way this (rather silly) system works. 

no it isn't
you don't even understand what you read

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True Blue wrote:
> 
> "B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:hcp2qb$sbp$5@bjf.motzarella.org...
>> True Blue wrote:
>>>
>> ...
>>>
>>> I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense. Is it 
>>> that negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that average IQ 
>>> places 50% of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?
>>
>> Noted that you are clueless about the IQ scale.
> 
> I *am* clueless about the IQ scale, Blow Job. I know nothing about it, 
> but I never claimed to. I just know that if 100 negros sat the same test 
> as 100 whites, then the average test score for the negros would be lower 
> than the average for whites.

IQ is an acronym for 'Intelligence Quotient'. It measures only one 
dimension of intelligence (there are seven) and it is mainly used by 
bigoted twits seeking to show a correlation between skin melanin levels 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin) and IQ - the purpose of which 
escapes any rational person. Curiously, bigoted twits also score low on 
the scale: http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:43:44 -0000, "True Blue"  wrote:

>
>"abelard"  wrote in message 
>news:o8oue5d6616qficcdt6iojk87euekgkbdo@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 22:44:06 -0000, "True Blue" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"abelard"  wrote in message
>>>news:gtmue5dbp1mur8vckgf7i77ub4c7hlqvdt@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:04:25 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>White Spirit wrote:
>>>>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>>>>>
>>>>>The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think there are in
>>>>>Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said to Abelard over and over
>>>>>again (he's extremely thick and doesn't understand things easily), if
>>>>>you
>>>>>measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100, that's
>>>>>the way these things work.
>>>>
>>>> you continue to incorrect....
>>>> but it is good to see you are still squirming...
>>>>
>>>> one day maybe you will bypass your fragile ego and choose instead
>>>>    to learn
>>>>
>>>>>Don't fucking argue until you have looked it up and understood.
>>
>>>I can't remember killfiling Murphy, but his post has only come up in 
>>>yours.
>>>He is the gift that keeps on giving. What an ignorant twat he is.
>>
>> he has his amusing side....i like the way he maintains his self-belief
>>     however often and however many howlers he posts....
>>
>> he's like a civilised version of abdul....they make an interesting
>>     compare and contrast...
>> i blame it on over-indulgent mummies...
>
>
>One of my favourite Murphy posts;
>
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.misc/browse_frm/thread/71c479cb790e41e?hl=en&q=water+push+author%3AJohn+author%3Aof+author%3AAix&
>
>I call it Murphy's Law (of hydrodynamics). Start reading at post number 96 
>of the thread for the best of the archetypal "I-know-everything-and-nothing" 
>Murphy genius. 

too confused for me

several times i've dealt with this sort of obdurate ignorance...
my interest is in just what motivates such idiocy...

regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:hcq45o$c3f$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
> True Blue wrote:
>>
>> "B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:hcp2qb$sbp$5@bjf.motzarella.org...
>>> True Blue wrote:
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense. Is it 
>>>> that negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that average IQ 
>>>> places 50% of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?
>>>
>>> Noted that you are clueless about the IQ scale.
>>
>> I *am* clueless about the IQ scale, Blow Job. I know nothing about it, 
>> but I never claimed to. I just know that if 100 negros sat the same test 
>> as 100 whites, then the average test score for the negros would be lower 
>> than the average for whites.
>
> IQ is an acronym for 'Intelligence Quotient'. It measures only one 
> dimension of intelligence (there are seven) and it is mainly used by 
> bigoted twits seeking to show a correlation between skin melanin levels 
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin) and IQ - the purpose of which 
> escapes any rational person. Curiously, bigoted twits also score low on 
> the scale: http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm

You don't have to be bigoted to see that negros are generally less 
intelligent than their asian and european counterparts Blow Job, you just 
need to walk around with your eyes open. If you compare Europeans with 
Negros, or Eskimos with Amazonian Indians and claim that skin melanin levels 
are the only discernable difference between them, then it is safe to 
conclude that your rationality has been displaced by fashionable political 
expediency.

On 3 Nov, 21:29, "True Blue"  wrote:
> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in messagenews:hcq45o$c3f$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > True Blue wrote:
>
> >> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >>news:hcp2qb$sbp$5@bjf.motzarella.org...
> >>> True Blue wrote:
>
> >>> ...
>
> >>>> I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense. Is it
> >>>> that negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that average IQ
> >>>> places 50% of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?
>
> >>> Noted that you are clueless about the IQ scale.
>
> >> I *am* clueless about the IQ scale, Blow Job. I know nothing about it,
> >> but I never claimed to. I just know that if 100 negros sat the same test
> >> as 100 whites, then the average test score for the negros would be lower
> >> than the average for whites.
>
> > IQ is an acronym for 'Intelligence Quotient'. It measures only one
> > dimension of intelligence (there are seven) and it is mainly used by
> > bigoted twits seeking to show a correlation between skin melanin levels
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin) and IQ - the purpose of which
> > escapes any rational person. Curiously, bigoted twits also score low on
> > the scale:http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm
>
> You don't have to be bigoted to see that negros are generally less
> intelligent than their asian and european counterparts Blow Job, you just
> need to walk around with your eyes open. If you compare Europeans with
> Negros, or Eskimos with Amazonian Indians and claim that skin melanin levels
> are the only discernable difference between them, then it is safe to
> conclude that your rationality has been displaced by fashionable political
> expediency.

I still await any credible definition of "intelligence" or
"rationality", and no I'm not willing to accept "je ne sais quoi" as a
definition.

abelard wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:24:31 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>  wrote:
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:41:52 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:53:31 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:04:25 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> White Spirit wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think
>>>>>>>> there are in Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said
>>>>>>>> to Abelard over and over again (he's extremely thick and
>>>>>>>> doesn't understand things easily), if you
>>>>>>>> measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100,
>>>>>>>> that's the way these things work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you continue to incorrect....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I don't little one and you damn well know it but are too
>>>>>> pigheaded to admit it. I've already posted several references to
>>>>>> this fact (average IQ=100 in any group) and there are probably
>>>>>> hundreds of others on the net, yet you, idiot that you are,
>>>>>> cannot accept it, thinking (god knows by what strange process)
>>>>>> that the entire world is wrong and little Abe is right.
>>>>>
>>>>> you remain incorrect
>>>>
>>>> Yes dear, lack of any counter-proof noted.
>>>
>>> my impression is that you're not educated/bright enough
>>>    to understand why you are incorrect...
>>
>> I don't need to dearie because I am not incorrect, as a quick tour of
>> Google will show you a hundredfold. The average IQ of any group
>> tested is always 100, that's the way this (rather silly) system
>> works.
>
> no it isn't
> you don't even understand what you read

Keep digging little one.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:28:27 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
 wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:24:31 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:41:52 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:53:31 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:04:25 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> White Spirit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The 'negro'? How many fucking people (negroes) do you think
>>>>>>>>> there are in Africa, in the USA and in Brasil etc? As I said
>>>>>>>>> to Abelard over and over again (he's extremely thick and
>>>>>>>>> doesn't understand things easily), if you
>>>>>>>>> measure the IQ of ANY group the average is ALWAYS, ALWAYS 100,
>>>>>>>>> that's the way these things work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you continue to incorrect....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No I don't little one and you damn well know it but are too
>>>>>>> pigheaded to admit it. I've already posted several references to
>>>>>>> this fact (average IQ=100 in any group) and there are probably
>>>>>>> hundreds of others on the net, yet you, idiot that you are,
>>>>>>> cannot accept it, thinking (god knows by what strange process)
>>>>>>> that the entire world is wrong and little Abe is right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you remain incorrect
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes dear, lack of any counter-proof noted.
>>>>
>>>> my impression is that you're not educated/bright enough
>>>>    to understand why you are incorrect...
>>>
>>> I don't need to dearie because I am not incorrect, as a quick tour of
>>> Google will show you a hundredfold. The average IQ of any group
>>> tested is always 100, that's the way this (rather silly) system
>>> works.
>>
>> no it isn't
>> you don't even understand what you read
>
>Keep digging little one. 

keep digging

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:

> On Nov 3, 5:13 pm, White Spirit  wrote:

>> Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:

>>> a black person with a much higher IQ than you

>> Prove it.

> disprove it.

The burden of proof is upon you.

"Ste"  wrote in message 
news:688c8cad-859c-4313-9cf7-62255cd81252@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Nov, 21:29, "True Blue"  wrote:
>> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in 
>> messagenews:hcq45o$c3f$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > True Blue wrote:
>>
>> >> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> >>news:hcp2qb$sbp$5@bjf.motzarella.org...
>> >>> True Blue wrote:
>>
>> >>> ...
>>
>> >>>> I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense. Is 
>> >>>> it
>> >>>> that negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that average 
>> >>>> IQ
>> >>>> places 50% of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?
>>
>> >>> Noted that you are clueless about the IQ scale.
>>
>> >> I *am* clueless about the IQ scale, Blow Job. I know nothing about it,
>> >> but I never claimed to. I just know that if 100 negros sat the same 
>> >> test
>> >> as 100 whites, then the average test score for the negros would be 
>> >> lower
>> >> than the average for whites.
>>
>> > IQ is an acronym for 'Intelligence Quotient'. It measures only one
>> > dimension of intelligence (there are seven) and it is mainly used by
>> > bigoted twits seeking to show a correlation between skin melanin levels
>> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin) and IQ - the purpose of which
>> > escapes any rational person. Curiously, bigoted twits also score low on
>> > the scale:http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm
>>
>> You don't have to be bigoted to see that negros are generally less
>> intelligent than their asian and european counterparts Blow Job, you just
>> need to walk around with your eyes open. If you compare Europeans with
>> Negros, or Eskimos with Amazonian Indians and claim that skin melanin 
>> levels
>> are the only discernable difference between them, then it is safe to
>> conclude that your rationality has been displaced by fashionable 
>> political
>> expediency.
>
> I still await any credible definition of "intelligence" or
> "rationality", and no I'm not willing to accept "je ne sais quoi" as a
> definition.

And if anyone was daft enough to follow you down your side-street, you'd no 
doubt triumphantly declare that until you'd heard a definition of some 
aspect of the definition, then the whole thing's still up in the air. The 
fact that you need to resort to ever-more obscure objections to prop up your 
silly, fundamentalist faith, shows just how ridiculous you are.

On Nov 3, 11:11 am, White Spirit  wrote:
> Uncle Dave wrote:
> > Are you trying to get in the Guinness Book of Records for the most
> > ironic posting?
>
> My IQ tested well above average.

Which is the most powerful single argument against your racist
ravings.  Even if there is a çorrelation between skin colour and IQ (I
have no idea it is a particularly silly notion with no obvious merit
as research), there is no correlation between IQ and academic ability
which anyone with "above average" IQ would spot.  If there was a link,
then university graduates would all qualify for Mensa and vice versa.
In fact, there are many Mensa members, such as myself, who have no
academic qualifications and there are many people with degrees who are
as thick as two fucking planks.  (Why do you ask Two Planks Fucking?)

Why can't you just say "I don't like black people"?

UD

On 4 Nov, 09:12, "True Blue"  wrote:
> "Ste"  wrote in message
>
> news:688c8cad-859c-4313-9cf7-62255cd81252@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Nov, 21:29, "True Blue"  wrote:
> >> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in
> >> messagenews:hcq45o$c3f$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
>
> >> > True Blue wrote:
>
> >> >> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >> >>news:hcp2qb$sbp$5@bjf.motzarella.org...
> >> >>> True Blue wrote:
>
> >> >>> ...
>
> >> >>>> I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense. Is
> >> >>>> it
> >> >>>> that negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that average
> >> >>>> IQ
> >> >>>> places 50% of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?
>
> >> >>> Noted that you are clueless about the IQ scale.
>
> >> >> I *am* clueless about the IQ scale, Blow Job. I know nothing about it,
> >> >> but I never claimed to. I just know that if 100 negros sat the same
> >> >> test
> >> >> as 100 whites, then the average test score for the negros would be
> >> >> lower
> >> >> than the average for whites.
>
> >> > IQ is an acronym for 'Intelligence Quotient'. It measures only one
> >> > dimension of intelligence (there are seven) and it is mainly used by
> >> > bigoted twits seeking to show a correlation between skin melanin levels
> >> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin) and IQ - the purpose of which
> >> > escapes any rational person. Curiously, bigoted twits also score low on
> >> > the scale:http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm
>
> >> You don't have to be bigoted to see that negros are generally less
> >> intelligent than their asian and european counterparts Blow Job, you just
> >> need to walk around with your eyes open. If you compare Europeans with
> >> Negros, or Eskimos with Amazonian Indians and claim that skin melanin
> >> levels
> >> are the only discernable difference between them, then it is safe to
> >> conclude that your rationality has been displaced by fashionable
> >> political
> >> expediency.
>
> > I still await any credible definition of "intelligence" or
> > "rationality", and no I'm not willing to accept "je ne sais quoi" as a
> > definition.
>
> And if anyone was daft enough to follow you down your side-street, you'd no
> doubt triumphantly declare that until you'd heard a definition of some
> aspect of the definition, then the whole thing's still up in the air. The
> fact that you need to resort to ever-more obscure objections to prop up your
> silly, fundamentalist faith, shows just how ridiculous you are.

It seems like a simple question to me to ask you what you're actually
saying when you say certain races are more or less intelligent. What
is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more
or less "intelligent". If you can't give me an answer then just admit
you don't actually know what you mean.

On 4 Nov, 17:23, Uncle Dave  wrote:
>
> Why can't you just say "I don't like black people"?

One does wonder.

Ste wrote:
> On 4 Nov, 17:23, Uncle Dave  wrote:
>> Why can't you just say "I don't like black people"?
> 
> One does wonder.

Because, from an individual POV, it isn't true.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

"Ste"  wrote in message 
news:0c0b3792-081e-4415-9dd5-7a5f42711eef@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Nov, 09:12, "True Blue"  wrote:
>> "Ste"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:688c8cad-859c-4313-9cf7-62255cd81252@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 3 Nov, 21:29, "True Blue"  wrote:
>> >> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:hcq45o$c3f$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
>>
>> >> > True Blue wrote:
>>
>> >> >> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> >> >>news:hcp2qb$sbp$5@bjf.motzarella.org...
>> >> >>> True Blue wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> ...
>>
>> >> >>>> I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense. 
>> >> >>>> Is
>> >> >>>> it
>> >> >>>> that negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that 
>> >> >>>> average
>> >> >>>> IQ
>> >> >>>> places 50% of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?
>>
>> >> >>> Noted that you are clueless about the IQ scale.
>>
>> >> >> I *am* clueless about the IQ scale, Blow Job. I know nothing about 
>> >> >> it,
>> >> >> but I never claimed to. I just know that if 100 negros sat the same
>> >> >> test
>> >> >> as 100 whites, then the average test score for the negros would be
>> >> >> lower
>> >> >> than the average for whites.
>>
>> >> > IQ is an acronym for 'Intelligence Quotient'. It measures only one
>> >> > dimension of intelligence (there are seven) and it is mainly used by
>> >> > bigoted twits seeking to show a correlation between skin melanin 
>> >> > levels
>> >> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin) and IQ - the purpose of which
>> >> > escapes any rational person. Curiously, bigoted twits also score low 
>> >> > on
>> >> > the scale:http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm
>>
>> >> You don't have to be bigoted to see that negros are generally less
>> >> intelligent than their asian and european counterparts Blow Job, you 
>> >> just
>> >> need to walk around with your eyes open. If you compare Europeans with
>> >> Negros, or Eskimos with Amazonian Indians and claim that skin melanin
>> >> levels
>> >> are the only discernable difference between them, then it is safe to
>> >> conclude that your rationality has been displaced by fashionable
>> >> political
>> >> expediency.
>>
>> > I still await any credible definition of "intelligence" or
>> > "rationality", and no I'm not willing to accept "je ne sais quoi" as a
>> > definition.
>>
>> And if anyone was daft enough to follow you down your side-street, you'd 
>> no
>> doubt triumphantly declare that until you'd heard a definition of some
>> aspect of the definition, then the whole thing's still up in the air. The
>> fact that you need to resort to ever-more obscure objections to prop up 
>> your
>> silly, fundamentalist faith, shows just how ridiculous you are.
>
> It seems like a simple question to me to ask you what you're actually
> saying when you say certain races are more or less intelligent. What
> is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more
> or less "intelligent".

Christ......you know, now you've made me think about it, I really don't know 
"what
is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more or less 
"intelligent"". I've thought really hard since reading your question, and 
despite racking my brains to think of any arena in which whites have 
excelled over negros, I just can't come up with anything. I've thought about 
literature, chemistry, civil and mechanical engineering, electronics, 
transport, communications, astro-physics, mathematics, geology, biology, 
agriculture, the arts.........and I can't think of *one* area where whites 
do better as a result of being more "intelligent".


>If you can't give me an answer then just admit
> you don't actually know what you mean.


Yeah, you got me there!

ROTFLMAO!!

On 4 Nov, 19:50, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 4 Nov, 17:23, Uncle Dave  wrote:
> >> Why can't you just say "I don't like black people"?
>
> > One does wonder.
>
> Because, from an individual POV, it isn't true.

I think in many cases it is precisely true.

On 4 Nov, 20:00, "True Blue"  wrote:
> "Ste"  wrote in message
>
> news:0c0b3792-081e-4415-9dd5-7a5f42711eef@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Nov, 09:12, "True Blue"  wrote:
> >> "Ste"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:688c8cad-859c-4313-9cf7-62255cd81252@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 3 Nov, 21:29, "True Blue"  wrote:
> >> >> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in
> >> >> messagenews:hcq45o$c3f$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
>
> >> >> > True Blue wrote:
>
> >> >> >> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >> >> >>news:hcp2qb$sbp$5@bjf.motzarella.org...
> >> >> >>> True Blue wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> ...
>
> >> >> >>>> I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense.
> >> >> >>>> Is
> >> >> >>>> it
> >> >> >>>> that negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that
> >> >> >>>> average
> >> >> >>>> IQ
> >> >> >>>> places 50% of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?
>
> >> >> >>> Noted that you are clueless about the IQ scale.
>
> >> >> >> I *am* clueless about the IQ scale, Blow Job. I know nothing about
> >> >> >> it,
> >> >> >> but I never claimed to. I just know that if 100 negros sat the same
> >> >> >> test
> >> >> >> as 100 whites, then the average test score for the negros would be
> >> >> >> lower
> >> >> >> than the average for whites.
>
> >> >> > IQ is an acronym for 'Intelligence Quotient'. It measures only one
> >> >> > dimension of intelligence (there are seven) and it is mainly used by
> >> >> > bigoted twits seeking to show a correlation between skin melanin
> >> >> > levels
> >> >> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin) and IQ - the purpose of which
> >> >> > escapes any rational person. Curiously, bigoted twits also score low
> >> >> > on
> >> >> > the scale:http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm
>
> >> >> You don't have to be bigoted to see that negros are generally less
> >> >> intelligent than their asian and european counterparts Blow Job, you
> >> >> just
> >> >> need to walk around with your eyes open. If you compare Europeans with
> >> >> Negros, or Eskimos with Amazonian Indians and claim that skin melanin
> >> >> levels
> >> >> are the only discernable difference between them, then it is safe to
> >> >> conclude that your rationality has been displaced by fashionable
> >> >> political
> >> >> expediency.
>
> >> > I still await any credible definition of "intelligence" or
> >> > "rationality", and no I'm not willing to accept "je ne sais quoi" as a
> >> > definition.
>
> >> And if anyone was daft enough to follow you down your side-street, you'd
> >> no
> >> doubt triumphantly declare that until you'd heard a definition of some
> >> aspect of the definition, then the whole thing's still up in the air. The
> >> fact that you need to resort to ever-more obscure objections to prop up
> >> your
> >> silly, fundamentalist faith, shows just how ridiculous you are.
>
> > It seems like a simple question to me to ask you what you're actually
> > saying when you say certain races are more or less intelligent. What
> > is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more
> > or less "intelligent".
>
> Christ......you know, now you've made me think about it, I really don't know
> "what
> is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more or less
> "intelligent"". I've thought really hard since reading your question, and
> despite racking my brains to think of any arena in which whites have
> excelled over negros, I just can't come up with anything. I've thought about
> literature, chemistry, civil and mechanical engineering, electronics,
> transport, communications, astro-physics, mathematics, geology, biology,
> agriculture, the arts.........and I can't think of *one* area where whites
> do better as a result of being more "intelligent".

I can think of plenty of areas where whites do better. But of course
that wasn't my question. What I asked first was what you mean by
"intelligence". When you say a person is "more intelligent", do you
mean "they earn higher incomes in employment"? Do you mean "they learn
more things in formal education"? Either definition would certainly
seem to fit with what you're saying, because whites do indeed earn
more than blacks in employment, and whites do indeed learn more in
formal education than blacks. So is that what you mean by
"intelligence"? An "intelligent" person is a person who earns a lot?

Uncle Dave wrote:

> Why can't you just say "I don't like black people"?

Because it's not an accurate statement of the truth.

Ste wrote:

> On 3 Nov, 12:06, White Spirit  wrote:

>> Would you deny that pattern recognition, mathematics, geometry and logic
>> play a large part in Western civilisation?  Would you deny that one's
>> abilities in these realms have an impact on one's ability to succeed and
>> contribute?

> I would not deny that these skills are useful in Western societies,
> but every race on earth has these skills.

Some more than others.

> As I say, the degree of
> difference in inherent ability (if indeed there is any - I have by no
> means accepted that evidence supports such a contention) is negligible
> in the larger scheme of things, and negligible relative to many other
> factors like formal education.

I'd say that the entirety of human history says otherwise.

> Also, these statistics do not justify
> racial discrimination - for we accept that we are speaking of average
> IQ, and an inference can be drawn therefore that there are still many
> smart black men, and many stupid white men (as determined by IQ
> tests).

Of course.  But opening the floodgates opens us up to all sorts, and the 
reason I bring IQ up is because the argument for economic migration 
doesn't hold water.

>>> Honesty is not really a fixed personality trait. It's more to do with
>>> how much a reputation for honesty is valued by others and to what
>>> degree it aids productive mutual cooperation with others.

>> It's a cultural trait, one that I submit has arisen due to innate
>> differences between the various subspecies.

> But where is your rigourous evidence for this highly contentious
> conclusion?

I made a submission based on the evidence of all that I have seen.  Our 
culture is different to that of countries were corruption is rife.  For 
example, it is well known that in African countries, it is expected that 
the president of a nation will take care of his own tribe above all...

>> That's sort of my point: mutual cooperation does not play a large part
>> in African and Caribbean societies.

> Yes it does. Even in the most war-torn societies, mutual cooperation
> plays a very large part, except that they tend to have an in-group
> that is not based on national borders.

It seems to me that the mutual cooperation that exists is not as 
altruistic as our own, or aimed towards a common goal.  It seems to be 
more along the lines of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'.

>>  Caucasians, on the other hand,
>> could not have survived without cooperation.

> It depends what you mean.

Harsh environmental conditions precluded the survival of people who did 
not cooperate within close-knit communities.

>>  While the West is handing
>> over large sums of money to African countries to feed them beyond the
>> land's ability to sustain the burgeoning population, they will not face
>> the pressures that will give rise to better selection of genes and the
>> burden to the West will increase, both in terms of financial
>> 'obligation' and immigration.

> The problem in Africa is, as I say, lack of an established social
> order. The cause of that in turn is that those societies have been
> repeatedly decimated by Western powers.

I'd say the problem is that their natural social orders are not what we 
would deem to be 'established'.  They'll either evolve better social 
orders in their own time or continue as they have been.  Either way, we 
shouldn't interfere.

> Coincidentally I hear Simon
> Mann has just been released - you know the one who, with Mark
> Thatcher, intended to overthrow an African government and thereby
> enjoy its oil wealth.

Well, there's an example of close cooperation ;)

> And truth be told, I don't think that foreign aid is particularly
> helpful, but neither are loans given to dictators at sky-high interest
> rates, which the whole country must then repay.

I agree.

>>  That doesn't constitute
>> violent or aggressive behaviour in my view.

> Then what, in your view, do the words "aggressive" and "violent" mean?
> Certainly when I went to school those words implied actions involving
> bodily harm or the threat thereof, and that's exactly the kind of
> action that Prescott took.

I consider that there's a difference between violence - which is 
unwarranted - and use of reasonable force.  Similarly, there is a 
difference between being aggressive - which is likewise unwarranted - 
and being assertive.

>> Look at Rhodesia: a rich country when it was handed back to the Negroes.

> By "rich country", do I infer correctly that you mean there was a
> small class of very rich men present in the country, while the general
> population lived in squalor?

Rhodesia had a very good standard of living as I understand, and the 
squalor exists now that Mugabe has taken over.

>>   Their social orders are tribal and when they revert to them, we get
>> the blame for their violence.

> But earlier you said that "Negroes" don't cooperate. Now you say that
> they do cooperate, but at a tribal level?

It's a matter of mutual gain - as I said, you scratch my back... 
Historically, they don't have social orders that share common goals or 
ideals.

>>  And let's not forget their own role in
>> the slave trade.

> Indeed, let's not forget. But that hardly justifies it.

I'm not justifying it.  I bring it up to provide some balance.

>> There can be short-term benefits from criminal behaviour but, weighed up
>> against the long term costs, the criminal lifestyle is not a logical or
>> rational choice.

> It depends how you frame the matter. The criminal lifestyle often has
> poor financial returns over the long-term, but it is often high on
> social status, and high on intrinsic satisfaction, and tends to bind
> people together. It also requires little prior sustained investment
> (which is appropriate to groups from socially and economically
> deprived backgrounds), and it carries with it the chance of making
> genuinely huge profits.

> A further point is that the way in which the justice system responds
> to criminality often perpetuates and aggravates the social conditions
> that cause it.

I won't dispute the last point.  However, the criminal lifestyle does 
not create strong, lasting bonds but merely bonds borne of necessity. 
Those who chose the criminal lifestyle give up on other options, which 
is not an informed choice.

>>  I am referring to a sound judgement made
>> after evaluating the options and all evidence to hand.

> Yes, and so by what measure is criminality irrational for these
> groups? By financial measures? Perhaps. But what if monetary gain is
> not the sole aim?

You have to weigh in the costs against the short-term benefits.

>>  Choosing
>> criminal behaviour over hard work is the lazy option borne from baser
>> instincts.

> Criminality rarely involves less work when objectively measured, and
> often carries with it the risk of death, permanent injuries, jail time
> etc.

Hardly a logical choice, then.

> As for baser instincts, what are these instincts, and how do they
> differ from the more enlightened instincts of western peoples?

The baser instincts are a desire for material goods, success and social 
status without having truly earned them.

On Nov 5, 12:56 pm, White Spirit  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 3 Nov, 12:06, White Spirit  wrote:
> >> Would you deny that pattern recognition, mathematics, geometry and logic
> >> play a large part in Western civilisation?  Would you deny that one's
> >> abilities in these realms have an impact on one's ability to succeed and
> >> contribute?
> > I would not deny that these skills are useful in Western societies,
> > but every race on earth has these skills.
>
> Some more than others.
>
> > As I say, the degree of
> > difference in inherent ability (if indeed there is any - I have by no
> > means accepted that evidence supports such a contention) is negligible
> > in the larger scheme of things, and negligible relative to many other
> > factors like formal education.
>
> I'd say that the entirety of human history says otherwise.
>
> > Also, these statistics do not justify
> > racial discrimination - for we accept that we are speaking of average
> > IQ, and an inference can be drawn therefore that there are still many
> > smart black men, and many stupid white men (as determined by IQ
> > tests).
>
> Of course.  But opening the floodgates opens us up to all sorts, and the
> reason I bring IQ up is because the argument for economic migration
> doesn't hold water.
>
> >>> Honesty is not really a fixed personality trait. It's more to do with
> >>> how much a reputation for honesty is valued by others and to what
> >>> degree it aids productive mutual cooperation with others.
> >> It's a cultural trait, one that I submit has arisen due to innate
> >> differences between the various subspecies.
> > But where is your rigourous evidence for this highly contentious
> > conclusion?
>
> I made a submission based on the evidence of all that I have seen.  Our
> culture is different to that of countries were corruption is rife.  For
> example, it is well known that in African countries, it is expected that
> the president of a nation will take care of his own tribe above all...
>
> >> That's sort of my point: mutual cooperation does not play a large part
> >> in African and Caribbean societies.
> > Yes it does. Even in the most war-torn societies, mutual cooperation
> > plays a very large part, except that they tend to have an in-group
> > that is not based on national borders.
>
> It seems to me that the mutual cooperation that exists is not as
> altruistic as our own, or aimed towards a common goal.  It seems to be
> more along the lines of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'.
>
> >>  Caucasians, on the other hand,
> >> could not have survived without cooperation.
> > It depends what you mean.
>
> Harsh environmental conditions precluded the survival of people who did
> not cooperate within close-knit communities.
>
> >>  While the West is handing
> >> over large sums of money to African countries to feed them beyond the
> >> land's ability to sustain the burgeoning population, they will not face
> >> the pressures that will give rise to better selection of genes and the
> >> burden to the West will increase, both in terms of financial
> >> 'obligation' and immigration.
> > The problem in Africa is, as I say, lack of an established social
> > order. The cause of that in turn is that those societies have been
> > repeatedly decimated by Western powers.
>
> I'd say the problem is that their natural social orders are not what we
> would deem to be 'established'.  They'll either evolve better social
> orders in their own time or continue as they have been.  Either way, we
> shouldn't interfere.
>
> > Coincidentally I hear Simon
> > Mann has just been released - you know the one who, with Mark
> > Thatcher, intended to overthrow an African government and thereby
> > enjoy its oil wealth.
>
> Well, there's an example of close cooperation ;)
>
> > And truth be told, I don't think that foreign aid is particularly
> > helpful, but neither are loans given to dictators at sky-high interest
> > rates, which the whole country must then repay.
>
> I agree.
>
> >>  That doesn't constitute
> >> violent or aggressive behaviour in my view.
> > Then what, in your view, do the words "aggressive" and "violent" mean?
> > Certainly when I went to school those words implied actions involving
> > bodily harm or the threat thereof, and that's exactly the kind of
> > action that Prescott took.
>
> I consider that there's a difference between violence - which is
> unwarranted - and use of reasonable force.  Similarly, there is a
> difference between being aggressive - which is likewise unwarranted -
> and being assertive.
>
> >> Look at Rhodesia: a rich country when it was handed back to the Negroes.
> > By "rich country", do I infer correctly that you mean there was a
> > small class of very rich men present in the country, while the general
> > population lived in squalor?
>
> Rhodesia had a very good standard of living as I understand, and the
> squalor exists now that Mugabe has taken over.
>
> >>   Their social orders are tribal and when they revert to them, we get
> >> the blame for their violence.
> > But earlier you said that "Negroes" don't cooperate. Now you say that
> > they do cooperate, but at a tribal level?
>
> It's a matter of mutual gain - as I said, you scratch my back...
> Historically, they don't have social orders that share common goals or
> ideals.
>
> >>  And let's not forget their own role in
> >> the slave trade.
> > Indeed, let's not forget. But that hardly justifies it.
>
> I'm not justifying it.  I bring it up to provide some balance.
>
> >> There can be short-term benefits from criminal behaviour but, weighed up
> >> against the long term costs, the criminal lifestyle is not a logical or
> >> rational choice.
> > It depends how you frame the matter. The criminal lifestyle often has
> > poor financial returns over the long-term, but it is often high on
> > social status, and high on intrinsic satisfaction, and tends to bind
> > people together. It also requires little prior sustained investment
> > (which is appropriate to groups from socially and economically
> > deprived backgrounds), and it carries with it the chance of making
> > genuinely huge profits.
> > A further point is that the way in which the justice system responds
> > to criminality often perpetuates and aggravates the social conditions
> > that cause it.
>
> I won't dispute the last point.  However, the criminal lifestyle does
> not create strong, lasting bonds but merely bonds borne of necessity.
> Those who chose the criminal lifestyle give up on other options, which
> is not an informed choice.
>
> >>  I am referring to a sound judgement made
> >> after evaluating the options and all evidence to hand.
> > Yes, and so by what measure is criminality irrational for these
> > groups? By financial measures? Perhaps. But what if monetary gain is
> > not the sole aim?
>
> You have to weigh in the costs against the short-term benefits.
>
> >>  Choosing
> >> criminal behaviour over hard work is the lazy option borne from baser
> >> instincts.
> > Criminality rarely involves less work when objectively measured, and
> > often carries with it the risk of death, permanent injuries, jail time
> > etc.
>
> Hardly a logical choice, then.
>
> > As for baser instincts, what are these instincts, and how do they
> > differ from the more enlightened instincts of western peoples?
>
> The baser instincts are a desire for material goods, success and social
> status without having truly earned them.

You mean like selling crack on Brixton's frontline? ;o)

Ste wrote:
> On 4 Nov, 20:00, "True Blue"  wrote:
>> "Ste"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:0c0b3792-081e-4415-9dd5-7a5f42711eef@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4 Nov, 09:12, "True Blue"  wrote:
>>>> "Ste"  wrote in message
>>>> news:688c8cad-859c-4313-9cf7-62255cd81252@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On 3 Nov, 21:29, "True Blue"  wrote:
>>>>>> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>> messagenews:hcq45o$c3f$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
>>>>>>> True Blue wrote:
>>>>>>>> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:hcp2qb$sbp$5@bjf.motzarella.org...
>>>>>>>>> True Blue wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> that negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that
>>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>>> IQ
>>>>>>>>>> places 50% of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?
>>>>>>>>> Noted that you are clueless about the IQ scale.
>>>>>>>> I *am* clueless about the IQ scale, Blow Job. I know nothing about
>>>>>>>> it,
>>>>>>>> but I never claimed to. I just know that if 100 negros sat the same
>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>> as 100 whites, then the average test score for the negros would be
>>>>>>>> lower
>>>>>>>> than the average for whites.
>>>>>>> IQ is an acronym for 'Intelligence Quotient'. It measures only one
>>>>>>> dimension of intelligence (there are seven) and it is mainly used by
>>>>>>> bigoted twits seeking to show a correlation between skin melanin
>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin) and IQ - the purpose of which
>>>>>>> escapes any rational person. Curiously, bigoted twits also score low
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> the scale:http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm
>>>>>> You don't have to be bigoted to see that negros are generally less
>>>>>> intelligent than their asian and european counterparts Blow Job, you
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> need to walk around with your eyes open. If you compare Europeans with
>>>>>> Negros, or Eskimos with Amazonian Indians and claim that skin melanin
>>>>>> levels
>>>>>> are the only discernable difference between them, then it is safe to
>>>>>> conclude that your rationality has been displaced by fashionable
>>>>>> political
>>>>>> expediency.
>>>>> I still await any credible definition of "intelligence" or
>>>>> "rationality", and no I'm not willing to accept "je ne sais quoi" as a
>>>>> definition.
>>>> And if anyone was daft enough to follow you down your side-street, you'd
>>>> no
>>>> doubt triumphantly declare that until you'd heard a definition of some
>>>> aspect of the definition, then the whole thing's still up in the air. The
>>>> fact that you need to resort to ever-more obscure objections to prop up
>>>> your
>>>> silly, fundamentalist faith, shows just how ridiculous you are.
>>> It seems like a simple question to me to ask you what you're actually
>>> saying when you say certain races are more or less intelligent. What
>>> is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more
>>> or less "intelligent".
>> Christ......you know, now you've made me think about it, I really don't know
>> "what
>> is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more or less
>> "intelligent"". I've thought really hard since reading your question, and
>> despite racking my brains to think of any arena in which whites have
>> excelled over negros, I just can't come up with anything. I've thought about
>> literature, chemistry, civil and mechanical engineering, electronics,
>> transport, communications, astro-physics, mathematics, geology, biology,
>> agriculture, the arts.........and I can't think of *one* area where whites
>> do better as a result of being more "intelligent".
> 
> I can think of plenty of areas where whites do better. But of course
> that wasn't my question. What I asked first was what you mean by
> "intelligence". When you say a person is "more intelligent", do you
> mean "they earn higher incomes in employment"? Do you mean "they learn
> more things in formal education"? Either definition would certainly
> seem to fit with what you're saying, because whites do indeed earn
> more than blacks in employment, and whites do indeed learn more in
> formal education than blacks. So is that what you mean by
> "intelligence"? An "intelligent" person is a person who earns a lot?
> 

I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern 
recognition and prediction leading to positive adaptive solutions to 
problems.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

On Nov 4, 12:10 am, White Spirit  wrote:
> Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:
>
> > On Nov 3, 5:13 pm, White Spirit  wrote:
> >> Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:
> >>> a black person with a much higher IQ than you
> >> Prove it.
> > disprove it.
>
> The burden of proof is upon you.

its your thread fuckwit

Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:

> On Nov 4, 12:10 am, White Spirit  wrote:

>> Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:

>>> On Nov 3, 5:13 pm, White Spirit  wrote:

>>>> Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:

>>>>> a black person with a much higher IQ than you

>>>> Prove it.

>>> disprove it.

>> The burden of proof is upon you.

> its your thread fuckwit

You're the one who made the assertion, knob head.

On 5 Nov, 12:56, White Spirit  wrote:
>
> > Also, these statistics do not justify
> > racial discrimination - for we accept that we are speaking of average
> > IQ, and an inference can be drawn therefore that there are still many
> > smart black men, and many stupid white men (as determined by IQ
> > tests).
>
> Of course.  But opening the floodgates opens us up to all sorts, and the
> reason I bring IQ up is because the argument for economic migration
> doesn't hold water.

The real motive for economic migration is simply to maintain a supply
of cheap labour in both low-skilled and high-skilled occupations. And
the reason why people find it attractive to migrate here is because
our wages are relatively higher than in their own countries. Of course
I don't see why you need to refer to IQ, or even race, to argue how
such immigration is bad for the British worker (and good for the
British rich and powerful).



> >>> Honesty is not really a fixed personality trait. It's more to do with
> >>> how much a reputation for honesty is valued by others and to what
> >>> degree it aids productive mutual cooperation with others.
> >> It's a cultural trait, one that I submit has arisen due to innate
> >> differences between the various subspecies.
> > But where is your rigourous evidence for this highly contentious
> > conclusion?
>
> I made a submission based on the evidence of all that I have seen.

And I accept it's not a wholly unreasonable hypothesis if one's
evidence is anecdotal observation. But the earth as the centre of the
universe was once a reasonable hypothesis based on anecdotal
observation, when people didn't have access to, or weren't aware of,
evidence to the contrary.



> Our
> culture is different to that of countries were corruption is rife.  For
> example, it is well known that in African countries, it is expected that
> the president of a nation will take care of his own tribe above all...

Yes, but it's not called corruption in those societies, it's called
taking care of your voters - and if anything, an African president who
took better care of the other tribe at the expense of his own would be
seen as dishonest and a cheater. Of course, we accept these things are
a matter of culture, but I don't see why we have to resort to a racial
explanation in order to explain those cultures. After all Britain as a
society and culture has had perhaps a 1000 year history in which to
bed down, and the last time we had a civil war was nearly 400 years
ago. Even in daily discourse concering law and politics people in
Britain regularly appeal to traditions going back at least centuries;
many of these African countries are barely decades out of revolutions
and civil war, and their social orders need time to bed down again.



> >> That's sort of my point: mutual cooperation does not play a large part
> >> in African and Caribbean societies.
> > Yes it does. Even in the most war-torn societies, mutual cooperation
> > plays a very large part, except that they tend to have an in-group
> > that is not based on national borders.
>
> It seems to me that the mutual cooperation that exists is not as
> altruistic as our own, or aimed towards a common goal.  It seems to be
> more along the lines of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'.

Yes, but our society, as I say, is a relatively stable one with
liberal traditions going back centuries. It is unsurprising that
mutual cooperation and trust is the highest in liberal societies,
because liberal traditions place a high value on maintaining consent
from the whole population (because when you have people's consent, and
the state has legitimacy in the eyes of all, people cooperate
willingly).

Of course we've seen situations when that consent has started to break
down: the poll tax riots for example, or the Brixton riots, or the
IRA. And the way in which liberal society has ultimately responded to
that is to bring people back on board. They got rid of the poll tax,
and they got rid of Thatcher. They got rid of stop and search, and
they clamped down on ethnic discrimination (whether such
discrimination was justified in the first place or not). They gave the
Irish the vote, and political representation, and got rid of the
brutal RUC. It's all about maintaining consent, because consent is
what obviates the need for repression and secret state police, and
which prevents extreme politics and civil wars.



> >>  Caucasians, on the other hand,
> >> could not have survived without cooperation.
> > It depends what you mean.
>
> Harsh environmental conditions precluded the survival of people who did
> not cooperate within close-knit communities.

The same is true virtually anywhere. As you concede, even in the most
impoverished, backward areas of the world one can see cooperation at a
tribal level.



> >>  While the West is handing
> >> over large sums of money to African countries to feed them beyond the
> >> land's ability to sustain the burgeoning population, they will not face
> >> the pressures that will give rise to better selection of genes and the
> >> burden to the West will increase, both in terms of financial
> >> 'obligation' and immigration.
> > The problem in Africa is, as I say, lack of an established social
> > order. The cause of that in turn is that those societies have been
> > repeatedly decimated by Western powers.
>
> I'd say the problem is that their natural social orders are not what we
> would deem to be 'established'.  They'll either evolve better social
> orders in their own time or continue as they have been.  Either way, we
> shouldn't interfere.

I agree, but it seems we do keep interfering. Afghanistan is in the
state is is today because the Americans sponsored a proxy war against
the Russians there. By the 70s Afghanistan was actually quite a
moderate place under the Russians.



> > Coincidentally I hear Simon
> > Mann has just been released - you know the one who, with Mark
> > Thatcher, intended to overthrow an African government and thereby
> > enjoy its oil wealth.
>
> Well, there's an example of close cooperation ;)

Indeed. Unfortunately it was an unholy alliance of idiots and misfits.



> >>  That doesn't constitute
> >> violent or aggressive behaviour in my view.
> > Then what, in your view, do the words "aggressive" and "violent" mean?
> > Certainly when I went to school those words implied actions involving
> > bodily harm or the threat thereof, and that's exactly the kind of
> > action that Prescott took.
>
> I consider that there's a difference between violence - which is
> unwarranted - and use of reasonable force.  Similarly, there is a
> difference between being aggressive - which is likewise unwarranted -
> and being assertive.

I think we're splitting hairs. If what you're saying is that black men
tend to adopt an offensive position, and that white men tend to adopt
a defensive position, that is probably because the black men in this
day and age are normally trying to get what the white men already
have. Nothing to do with race, and everything to do with who just
happens to be in present possession of the wealth. If you look the
various wars, major land grabs etc that occurred in the New World from
about the 1400s, they were invariably initiated by predominantly white-
european countries who were trying to wrest possession from indigenous
tribes.



> >> Look at Rhodesia: a rich country when it was handed back to the Negroes.
> > By "rich country", do I infer correctly that you mean there was a
> > small class of very rich men present in the country, while the general
> > population lived in squalor?
>
> Rhodesia had a very good standard of living as I understand, and the
> squalor exists now that Mugabe has taken over.

I agree. Mugabe is a brutal dictator with an axe to grind, but it is
the repression under white rule that created men like him. And while I
have sympathy for white farmers who no doubt tended their family farms
diligently and as a result felt a sense of entitlement, the problem is
that they didn't share, and that rather than spreading the wealth and
bringing the indigenous population into the fold, they instead ended
up with a class of very rich white men, and a majority population of
very poor black men, and Mugabe is what you get for that.



> >>   Their social orders are tribal and when they revert to them, we get
> >> the blame for their violence.
> > But earlier you said that "Negroes" don't cooperate. Now you say that
> > they do cooperate, but at a tribal level?
>
> It's a matter of mutual gain - as I said, you scratch my back...

But what society doesn't involve mutual gain? It's just far more taken-
for-granted in liberal societies.



> Historically, they don't have social orders that share common goals or
> ideals.

Historically I understand there were very well established social
orders in Africa. It didn't involve "common goals or ideals" at a
level of the nation state, but there was no economic drive behind such
large-scale cooperation.



> >>  And let's not forget their own role in
> >> the slave trade.
> > Indeed, let's not forget. But that hardly justifies it.
>
> I'm not justifying it.  I bring it up to provide some balance.

Fair one. But what I'm trying to emphasise is not that white men are
responsible for all ills in world, but that these problems have their
roots in social events. And what is especially pertintent (at least
when discussing racial explanations for social disorder) is that white
men had a hand in bringing about the very events that were responsible
for disrupting social orders in places like Africa.



> >> There can be short-term benefits from criminal behaviour but, weighed up
> >> against the long term costs, the criminal lifestyle is not a logical or
> >> rational choice.
> > It depends how you frame the matter. The criminal lifestyle often has
> > poor financial returns over the long-term, but it is often high on
> > social status, and high on intrinsic satisfaction, and tends to bind
> > people together. It also requires little prior sustained investment
> > (which is appropriate to groups from socially and economically
> > deprived backgrounds), and it carries with it the chance of making
> > genuinely huge profits.
> > A further point is that the way in which the justice system responds
> > to criminality often perpetuates and aggravates the social conditions
> > that cause it.
>
> I won't dispute the last point.  However, the criminal lifestyle does
> not create strong, lasting bonds but merely bonds borne of necessity.

What about the Mafia? In America up until about the 70s when law
enforcement organisations started to disrupt their activities, Mafia
members reportedly had very strong, stable, and close-knit social
bonds.



> Those who chose the criminal lifestyle give up on other options, which
> is not an informed choice.

Most petty criminals fall into a criminal lifestyle by default.



> >>  I am referring to a sound judgement made
> >> after evaluating the options and all evidence to hand.
> > Yes, and so by what measure is criminality irrational for these
> > groups? By financial measures? Perhaps. But what if monetary gain is
> > not the sole aim?
>
> You have to weigh in the costs against the short-term benefits.

Yes, but even if the cost is an early painful death, if you live the
life of a king for a few years, with money, sex, fast cars etc. and if
the alternative is 70 years of mind-numbing labour, I don't think
crime is an irrational choice at all (at least once we dispense with
the untenable assumptions of neoclassical economics).



> >>  Choosing
> >> criminal behaviour over hard work is the lazy option borne from baser
> >> instincts.
> > Criminality rarely involves less work when objectively measured, and
> > often carries with it the risk of death, permanent injuries, jail time
> > etc.
>
> Hardly a logical choice, then.

It is a logical choice if you don't mind the risk of death and
permanent injury. And of course, given the right circumstances, anyone
is willing to stake their lives. Otherwise you're in the position of
saying that anyone who fights a war and risks their life is
"illogical", and of course that's not a very satisfactory way of
explaining human behaviour.



> > As for baser instincts, what are these instincts, and how do they
> > differ from the more enlightened instincts of western peoples?
>
> The baser instincts are a desire for material goods, success and social
> status without having truly earned them.

And how does one "truly" earn those things, as distrinct from simply
putting the effort in necessary to acquire them? Are you saying that
something is "truly" earned only if it is lawfully earned?

On 5 Nov, 13:17, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 4 Nov, 20:00, "True Blue"  wrote:
> >> "Ste"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:0c0b3792-081e-4415-9dd5-7a5f42711eef@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On 4 Nov, 09:12, "True Blue"  wrote:
> >>>> "Ste"  wrote in message
> >>>>news:688c8cad-859c-4313-9cf7-62255cd81252@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> On 3 Nov, 21:29, "True Blue"  wrote:
> >>>>>> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in
> >>>>>> messagenews:hcq45o$c3f$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
> >>>>>>> True Blue wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:hcp2qb$sbp$5@bjf.motzarella.org...
> >>>>>>>>> True Blue wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>> Is
> >>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>> that negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that
> >>>>>>>>>> average
> >>>>>>>>>> IQ
> >>>>>>>>>> places 50% of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?
> >>>>>>>>> Noted that you are clueless about the IQ scale.
> >>>>>>>> I *am* clueless about the IQ scale, Blow Job. I know nothing about
> >>>>>>>> it,
> >>>>>>>> but I never claimed to. I just know that if 100 negros sat the same
> >>>>>>>> test
> >>>>>>>> as 100 whites, then the average test score for the negros would be
> >>>>>>>> lower
> >>>>>>>> than the average for whites.
> >>>>>>> IQ is an acronym for 'Intelligence Quotient'. It measures only one
> >>>>>>> dimension of intelligence (there are seven) and it is mainly used by
> >>>>>>> bigoted twits seeking to show a correlation between skin melanin
> >>>>>>> levels
> >>>>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin) and IQ - the purpose of which
> >>>>>>> escapes any rational person. Curiously, bigoted twits also score low
> >>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>> the scale:http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm
> >>>>>> You don't have to be bigoted to see that negros are generally less
> >>>>>> intelligent than their asian and european counterparts Blow Job, you
> >>>>>> just
> >>>>>> need to walk around with your eyes open. If you compare Europeans with
> >>>>>> Negros, or Eskimos with Amazonian Indians and claim that skin melanin
> >>>>>> levels
> >>>>>> are the only discernable difference between them, then it is safe to
> >>>>>> conclude that your rationality has been displaced by fashionable
> >>>>>> political
> >>>>>> expediency.
> >>>>> I still await any credible definition of "intelligence" or
> >>>>> "rationality", and no I'm not willing to accept "je ne sais quoi" as a
> >>>>> definition.
> >>>> And if anyone was daft enough to follow you down your side-street, you'd
> >>>> no
> >>>> doubt triumphantly declare that until you'd heard a definition of some
> >>>> aspect of the definition, then the whole thing's still up in the air. The
> >>>> fact that you need to resort to ever-more obscure objections to prop up
> >>>> your
> >>>> silly, fundamentalist faith, shows just how ridiculous you are.
> >>> It seems like a simple question to me to ask you what you're actually
> >>> saying when you say certain races are more or less intelligent. What
> >>> is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more
> >>> or less "intelligent".
> >> Christ......you know, now you've made me think about it, I really don't know
> >> "what
> >> is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more or less
> >> "intelligent"". I've thought really hard since reading your question, and
> >> despite racking my brains to think of any arena in which whites have
> >> excelled over negros, I just can't come up with anything. I've thought about
> >> literature, chemistry, civil and mechanical engineering, electronics,
> >> transport, communications, astro-physics, mathematics, geology, biology,
> >> agriculture, the arts.........and I can't think of *one* area where whites
> >> do better as a result of being more "intelligent".
>
> > I can think of plenty of areas where whites do better. But of course
> > that wasn't my question. What I asked first was what you mean by
> > "intelligence". When you say a person is "more intelligent", do you
> > mean "they earn higher incomes in employment"? Do you mean "they learn
> > more things in formal education"? Either definition would certainly
> > seem to fit with what you're saying, because whites do indeed earn
> > more than blacks in employment, and whites do indeed learn more in
> > formal education than blacks. So is that what you mean by
> > "intelligence"? An "intelligent" person is a person who earns a lot?
>
> I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern
> recognition and prediction

Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes,
or do you mean, say, patterns and prediction in human behaviour (i.e.
the ability to recognise whether a person is trustworthy)?



> leading to positive adaptive solutions to
> problems.

Positive for whom?

On Nov 2, 9:55 am, White Spirit  wrote:
> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
> framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish
> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
> required by our civilisation?
>
> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative
> traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
> and rationale.
>
> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
> is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
> succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
> nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
> to do with compassion.

Too bad your white IQ is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and
Asians.   You just proved that everybody wants somebody lower than
himself.

Ste wrote:
> On 5 Nov, 13:17, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>>> On 4 Nov, 20:00, "True Blue"  wrote:
>>>> "Ste"  wrote in message
>>>> news:0c0b3792-081e-4415-9dd5-7a5f42711eef@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On 4 Nov, 09:12, "True Blue"  wrote:
>>>>>> "Ste"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:688c8cad-859c-4313-9cf7-62255cd81252@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> On 3 Nov, 21:29, "True Blue"  wrote:
>>>>>>>> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>> messagenews:hcq45o$c3f$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
>>>>>>>>> True Blue wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:hcp2qb$sbp$5@bjf.motzarella.org...
>>>>>>>>>>> True Blue wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> that negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that
>>>>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>>>>> IQ
>>>>>>>>>>>> places 50% of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?
>>>>>>>>>>> Noted that you are clueless about the IQ scale.
>>>>>>>>>> I *am* clueless about the IQ scale, Blow Job. I know nothing about
>>>>>>>>>> it,
>>>>>>>>>> but I never claimed to. I just know that if 100 negros sat the same
>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>> as 100 whites, then the average test score for the negros would be
>>>>>>>>>> lower
>>>>>>>>>> than the average for whites.
>>>>>>>>> IQ is an acronym for 'Intelligence Quotient'. It measures only one
>>>>>>>>> dimension of intelligence (there are seven) and it is mainly used by
>>>>>>>>> bigoted twits seeking to show a correlation between skin melanin
>>>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin) and IQ - the purpose of which
>>>>>>>>> escapes any rational person. Curiously, bigoted twits also score low
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> the scale:http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm
>>>>>>>> You don't have to be bigoted to see that negros are generally less
>>>>>>>> intelligent than their asian and european counterparts Blow Job, you
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> need to walk around with your eyes open. If you compare Europeans with
>>>>>>>> Negros, or Eskimos with Amazonian Indians and claim that skin melanin
>>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>>> are the only discernable difference between them, then it is safe to
>>>>>>>> conclude that your rationality has been displaced by fashionable
>>>>>>>> political
>>>>>>>> expediency.
>>>>>>> I still await any credible definition of "intelligence" or
>>>>>>> "rationality", and no I'm not willing to accept "je ne sais quoi" as a
>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>> And if anyone was daft enough to follow you down your side-street, you'd
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> doubt triumphantly declare that until you'd heard a definition of some
>>>>>> aspect of the definition, then the whole thing's still up in the air. The
>>>>>> fact that you need to resort to ever-more obscure objections to prop up
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> silly, fundamentalist faith, shows just how ridiculous you are.
>>>>> It seems like a simple question to me to ask you what you're actually
>>>>> saying when you say certain races are more or less intelligent. What
>>>>> is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more
>>>>> or less "intelligent".
>>>> Christ......you know, now you've made me think about it, I really don't know
>>>> "what
>>>> is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more or less
>>>> "intelligent"". I've thought really hard since reading your question, and
>>>> despite racking my brains to think of any arena in which whites have
>>>> excelled over negros, I just can't come up with anything. I've thought about
>>>> literature, chemistry, civil and mechanical engineering, electronics,
>>>> transport, communications, astro-physics, mathematics, geology, biology,
>>>> agriculture, the arts.........and I can't think of *one* area where whites
>>>> do better as a result of being more "intelligent".
>>> I can think of plenty of areas where whites do better. But of course
>>> that wasn't my question. What I asked first was what you mean by
>>> "intelligence". When you say a person is "more intelligent", do you
>>> mean "they earn higher incomes in employment"? Do you mean "they learn
>>> more things in formal education"? Either definition would certainly
>>> seem to fit with what you're saying, because whites do indeed earn
>>> more than blacks in employment, and whites do indeed learn more in
>>> formal education than blacks. So is that what you mean by
>>> "intelligence"? An "intelligent" person is a person who earns a lot?
>> I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern
>> recognition and prediction
> 
> Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes,
> or do you mean, say, patterns and prediction in human behaviour (i.e.
> the ability to recognise whether a person is trustworthy)?

Patterns in general.
Obviously some people will be stronger in some areas and weaker in 
others. However, in a technological society the more abstract pattern 
recognition and prediction is essential. That includes everything from 
reading skills to mathematics to technology in general.


>> leading to positive adaptive solutions to
>> problems.
> 
> Positive for whom?

Positive for the person trying to solve the problem.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

AndrewJH wrote:
> On Nov 2, 9:55 am, White Spirit  wrote:
>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
>> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
>> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
>> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
>> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
>> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
>> framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish
>> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
>> required by our civilisation?
>>
>> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
>> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
>> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
>> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative
>> traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
>> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
>> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
>> and rationale.
>>
>> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
>> is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
>> succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
>> nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
>> to do with compassion.
> 
> Too bad your white IQ is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and
> Asians.   You just proved that everybody wants somebody lower than
> himself.

Arabs are less than European average, Israelis the same and non-Israeli 
Jews much higher. After Jews come Mongoloids with Korea having the 
highest average. Indians are somewhat lower than Europeans and Negroids 
far down the scale. Of course, much of this is complicated by factors 
such as childhood nutrition and the Flynn Effect.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Black people have a lower average intelligence than white people.

There is no doubt of this, ask any student of psychology. The black
white IQ gap of between 15 and 30 points has been verified repeatedly
over very many years. The gap cannot be cultural, as Orientals score
higher than whites, and no one has been able to devise a test where
blacks score equally to whites. Indeed, nobody has ever been able to
devise a QUESTION where blacks do as well as whites! Furthermore, it
is
precisely those questions that are more culturally loaded where
blacks do better, and it is in the most abstract questions that
blacks
do worst.


The black white IQ gap easily explains what we see in the world
today. The hypothesis that blacks are less intelligent than whites is
a hypothesis that fits all the available data. The real question is
not "Why should anyone think that the races have a different average
IQ?", but rather "Why should anyone think that the races have the same
average IQ?"


Blacks do very badly when left to themselves in their own countries,
as one would expect from  people with low IQ.
There are millions starving in Africa, and Africans are constantly
begging the West for
aid. The African states were better off when white people ran things,
since then they have either stagnated or declined.


Blacks don't look after themselves very well, just as one would
expect
from people with a low IQ. This is why they don't practice safe sex
and
thus have very high rates of Aids and other venereal diseases.


Again, as we would expect from people with a low average IQ, blacks
are
vastly over represented in all the negative social indices: crime
statistics, ilegitimacy, unemployment,
etc. This happens all over the world, not just in the USA. So slavery
can't be blamed (blacks in Canada and the UK were never enslaved).


The reason that white people are leaving the inner cities (this
phenomena is so well documented that demographers have called it
"white
flight") is because they can no longer tolerate the high levels of
crime and disorder that is associated with large numbers of low IQ
blacks. The future for our inner cities is bleak indeed. Liberals and
socialists who pretend to believe race equality nonsense don't send
their own children to schools with large numbers of blacks.


So long as the political establishment pretend to believe that there
is
no difference in average IQ between blacks and whites Western
countries
will continue to deteriorate. The fact that blacks are less
intelligent
and incapable of succeeding in white society, coupled with the fact
that a large
number of educated and seemingly intelligent white people do not seem
to be able to face up to that fact, will come to be regarded by
future historians as the defining tragedy of our time.

On Nov 5, 5:58 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
wrote:
> AndrewJH wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 9:55 am, White Spirit  wrote:
> >> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
> >> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
> >> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
> >> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
> >> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
> >> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
> >> framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish
> >> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
> >> required by our civilisation?
>
> >> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
> >> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
> >> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
> >> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative
> >> traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
> >> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
> >> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
> >> and rationale.
>
> >> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
> >> is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
> >> succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
> >> nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
> >> to do with compassion.
>
> > Too bad your white IQ is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and
> > Asians.   You just proved that everybody wants somebody lower than
> > himself.
>
> Arabs are less than European average, Israelis the same and non-Israeli
> Jews much higher. After Jews come Mongoloids with Korea having the
> highest average. Indians are somewhat lower than Europeans and Negroids
> far down the scale. Of course, much of this is complicated by factors
> such as childhood nutrition and the Flynn Effect.
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh excuse me.  You must be refering to some psychobabble tests.    I
was thinking of the scores of PhD scientists, Doctors and
entrepreneurs.

AndrewJH wrote:
> On Nov 5, 5:58 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> wrote:
>> AndrewJH wrote:
>>> On Nov 2, 9:55 am, White Spirit  wrote:
>>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
>>>> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
>>>> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
>>>> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
>>>> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
>>>> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
>>>> framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish
>>>> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
>>>> required by our civilisation?
>>>> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
>>>> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
>>>> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
>>>> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative
>>>> traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
>>>> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
>>>> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
>>>> and rationale.
>>>> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
>>>> is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
>>>> succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
>>>> nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
>>>> to do with compassion.
>>> Too bad your white IQ is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and
>>> Asians.   You just proved that everybody wants somebody lower than
>>> himself.
>> Arabs are less than European average, Israelis the same and non-Israeli
>> Jews much higher. After Jews come Mongoloids with Korea having the
>> highest average. Indians are somewhat lower than Europeans and Negroids
>> far down the scale. Of course, much of this is complicated by factors
>> such as childhood nutrition and the Flynn Effect.
>>
>> --
>> Dirk
>>
>> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Oh excuse me.  You must be refering to some psychobabble tests.    I
> was thinking of the scores of PhD scientists, Doctors and
> entrepreneurs.

I was referring to the point made, which I quote: "Too bad your white IQ 
is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and Asians." The statement is 
largely incorrect.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

On 5 Nov, 23:55, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 5 Nov, 13:17, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> >> Ste wrote:
> >>> On 4 Nov, 20:00, "True Blue"  wrote:
> >>>> "Ste"  wrote in message
> >>>>news:0c0b3792-081e-4415-9dd5-7a5f42711eef@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> On 4 Nov, 09:12, "True Blue"  wrote:
> >>>>>> "Ste"  wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:688c8cad-859c-4313-9cf7-62255cd81252@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>> On 3 Nov, 21:29, "True Blue"  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in
> >>>>>>>> messagenews:hcq45o$c3f$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
> >>>>>>>>> True Blue wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:hcp2qb$sbp$5@bjf.motzarella.org...
> >>>>>>>>>>> True Blue wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> average
> >>>>>>>>>>>> IQ
> >>>>>>>>>>>> places 50% of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Noted that you are clueless about the IQ scale.
> >>>>>>>>>> I *am* clueless about the IQ scale, Blow Job. I know nothing about
> >>>>>>>>>> it,
> >>>>>>>>>> but I never claimed to. I just know that if 100 negros sat the same
> >>>>>>>>>> test
> >>>>>>>>>> as 100 whites, then the average test score for the negros would be
> >>>>>>>>>> lower
> >>>>>>>>>> than the average for whites.
> >>>>>>>>> IQ is an acronym for 'Intelligence Quotient'. It measures only one
> >>>>>>>>> dimension of intelligence (there are seven) and it is mainly used by
> >>>>>>>>> bigoted twits seeking to show a correlation between skin melanin
> >>>>>>>>> levels
> >>>>>>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin) and IQ - the purpose of which
> >>>>>>>>> escapes any rational person. Curiously, bigoted twits also score low
> >>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>> the scale:http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm
> >>>>>>>> You don't have to be bigoted to see that negros are generally less
> >>>>>>>> intelligent than their asian and european counterparts Blow Job, you
> >>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>> need to walk around with your eyes open. If you compare Europeans with
> >>>>>>>> Negros, or Eskimos with Amazonian Indians and claim that skin melanin
> >>>>>>>> levels
> >>>>>>>> are the only discernable difference between them, then it is safe to
> >>>>>>>> conclude that your rationality has been displaced by fashionable
> >>>>>>>> political
> >>>>>>>> expediency.
> >>>>>>> I still await any credible definition of "intelligence" or
> >>>>>>> "rationality", and no I'm not willing to accept "je ne sais quoi" as a
> >>>>>>> definition.
> >>>>>> And if anyone was daft enough to follow you down your side-street, you'd
> >>>>>> no
> >>>>>> doubt triumphantly declare that until you'd heard a definition of some
> >>>>>> aspect of the definition, then the whole thing's still up in the air. The
> >>>>>> fact that you need to resort to ever-more obscure objections to prop up
> >>>>>> your
> >>>>>> silly, fundamentalist faith, shows just how ridiculous you are.
> >>>>> It seems like a simple question to me to ask you what you're actually
> >>>>> saying when you say certain races are more or less intelligent. What
> >>>>> is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more
> >>>>> or less "intelligent".
> >>>> Christ......you know, now you've made me think about it, I really don't know
> >>>> "what
> >>>> is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more or less
> >>>> "intelligent"". I've thought really hard since reading your question, and
> >>>> despite racking my brains to think of any arena in which whites have
> >>>> excelled over negros, I just can't come up with anything. I've thought about
> >>>> literature, chemistry, civil and mechanical engineering, electronics,
> >>>> transport, communications, astro-physics, mathematics, geology, biology,
> >>>> agriculture, the arts.........and I can't think of *one* area where whites
> >>>> do better as a result of being more "intelligent".
> >>> I can think of plenty of areas where whites do better. But of course
> >>> that wasn't my question. What I asked first was what you mean by
> >>> "intelligence". When you say a person is "more intelligent", do you
> >>> mean "they earn higher incomes in employment"? Do you mean "they learn
> >>> more things in formal education"? Either definition would certainly
> >>> seem to fit with what you're saying, because whites do indeed earn
> >>> more than blacks in employment, and whites do indeed learn more in
> >>> formal education than blacks. So is that what you mean by
> >>> "intelligence"? An "intelligent" person is a person who earns a lot?
> >> I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern
> >> recognition and prediction
>
> > Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes,
> > or do you mean, say, patterns and prediction in human behaviour (i.e.
> > the ability to recognise whether a person is trustworthy)?
>
> Patterns in general.

But you do realise that no intelligence test tests the pattern that I
mentioned (i.e. the ability to discern patterns in human behaviour)?


> Obviously some people will be stronger in some areas and weaker in
> others. However, in a technological society the more abstract pattern
> recognition and prediction is essential. That includes everything from
> reading skills to mathematics to technology in general.

Such abilities may be useful, but they are by no means "essential" in
any fundamental sense.

What is more, studies have shown that the ability to discern patterns
in abstract shapes appears to be a learned skill, which is acquired by
both general exposure and by completing tasks where the skill is
necessary. Consider trackers for example (i.e. in aboriginal
societies); few people in Western society would be able to do it (even
if their parents were from environments where such a skill is useful),
because they have not ever been exposed to those environments or been
required to complete tracking tasks. As I say, there appears to be no
significant difference between the races overall in inherent capacity
to learn skills - and as far as IQ goes, even if we accepted there was
a genetic component, there is more variance within races than there is
between them.



> >> leading to positive adaptive solutions to
> >> problems.
>
> > Positive for whom?
>
> Positive for the person trying to solve the problem.

So are black men who turn to crime or rioting making a "positive
adaptation" to their circumstances?

On 6 Nov, 00:37, huperade  wrote:
> Black people have a lower average intelligence than white people.

According to what evidence?


> There is no doubt of this, ask any student of psychology.

Yes, students of psychology, those fonts of all knowledge.


> The black
> white IQ gap of between 15 and 30 points has been verified repeatedly
> over very many years.

Where is this verifiable evidence?


> The gap cannot be cultural, as Orientals score
> higher than whites,

Non-sequitur. Orientals may have a cultural background more conducive
to a high IQ than middle-class white culture even.



> and no one has been able to devise a test where
> blacks score equally to whites.

Have they even tried?



> Indeed, nobody has ever been able to
> devise a QUESTION where blacks do as well as whites! Furthermore, it
> is
> precisely those questions that are more culturally loaded where
> blacks do better, and it is in the most abstract questions that
> blacks
> do worst.

In other words, each group does well when the questions are culturally
relevant?



> The black white IQ gap easily explains what we see in the world
> today.

Oh?



> The hypothesis that blacks are less intelligent than whites is
> a hypothesis that fits all the available data.

And this data is?



> The real question is
> not "Why should anyone think that the races have a different average
> IQ?", but rather "Why should anyone think that the races have the same
> average IQ?"

No one has said the races do have the same IQ. What hasn't been made
out yet is whether average intelligence varies between races. Indeed,
no one has even made out what "intelligence" is yet.



> Blacks do very badly when left to themselves in their own countries,
> as one would expect from  people with low IQ.

And can you give me an example of where they have been left to
themselves Or do you mean "left to themselves" after decades or
centuries of outside interference in their social orders?



> There are millions starving in Africa, and Africans are constantly
> begging the West for aid.

And their rulers constantly beg for loans to build palaces, which of
course the West is only too happy to comply with.



> The African states were better off when white people ran things,
> since then they have either stagnated or declined.

Indeed. But then doesn't any country decline during ruinous civil war?



> Blacks don't look after themselves very well, just as one would
> expect
> from people with a low IQ. This is why they don't practice safe sex
> and thus have very high rates of Aids and other venereal diseases.

Nothing to do with edicts from the church, then, or lack of education?



> Again, as we would expect from people with a low average IQ, blacks
> are
> vastly over represented in all the negative social indices: crime
> statistics, ilegitimacy, unemployment,
> etc. This happens all over the world, not just in the USA. So slavery
> can't be blamed (blacks in Canada and the UK were never enslaved).

No one does blame slavery. Most thinkers blame poverty,
discrimination, and criminal justice policies that aggravate social
disorder.



> The reason that white people are leaving the inner cities (this
> phenomena is so well documented that demographers have called it
> "white
> flight") is because they can no longer tolerate the high levels of
> crime and disorder that is associated with large numbers of low IQ
> blacks. The future for our inner cities is bleak indeed. Liberals and
> socialists who pretend to believe race equality nonsense don't send
> their own children to schools with large numbers of blacks.

They certainly don't do they.

Ste wrote:
> On 5 Nov, 23:55, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>>> On 5 Nov, 13:17, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>>>> Ste wrote:
>>>>> On 4 Nov, 20:00, "True Blue"  wrote:
>>>>>> "Ste"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:0c0b3792-081e-4415-9dd5-7a5f42711eef@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> On 4 Nov, 09:12, "True Blue"  wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Ste"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:688c8cad-859c-4313-9cf7-62255cd81252@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>> On 3 Nov, 21:29, "True Blue"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> messagenews:hcq45o$c3f$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
>>>>>>>>>>> True Blue wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "B J Foster" <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:hcp2qb$sbp$5@bjf.motzarella.org...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True Blue wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure which part of the claim you regard to be nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that negros have an average IQ of 85%, or that having that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IQ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> places 50% of them in a category of "clinical retardation"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noted that you are clueless about the IQ scale.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I *am* clueless about the IQ scale, Blow Job. I know nothing about
>>>>>>>>>>>> it,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but I never claimed to. I just know that if 100 negros sat the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>> as 100 whites, then the average test score for the negros would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> lower
>>>>>>>>>>>> than the average for whites.
>>>>>>>>>>> IQ is an acronym for 'Intelligence Quotient'. It measures only one
>>>>>>>>>>> dimension of intelligence (there are seven) and it is mainly used by
>>>>>>>>>>> bigoted twits seeking to show a correlation between skin melanin
>>>>>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>>>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin) and IQ - the purpose of which
>>>>>>>>>>> escapes any rational person. Curiously, bigoted twits also score low
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> the scale:http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm
>>>>>>>>>> You don't have to be bigoted to see that negros are generally less
>>>>>>>>>> intelligent than their asian and european counterparts Blow Job, you
>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>> need to walk around with your eyes open. If you compare Europeans with
>>>>>>>>>> Negros, or Eskimos with Amazonian Indians and claim that skin melanin
>>>>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>>>>> are the only discernable difference between them, then it is safe to
>>>>>>>>>> conclude that your rationality has been displaced by fashionable
>>>>>>>>>> political
>>>>>>>>>> expediency.
>>>>>>>>> I still await any credible definition of "intelligence" or
>>>>>>>>> "rationality", and no I'm not willing to accept "je ne sais quoi" as a
>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>> And if anyone was daft enough to follow you down your side-street, you'd
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>> doubt triumphantly declare that until you'd heard a definition of some
>>>>>>>> aspect of the definition, then the whole thing's still up in the air. The
>>>>>>>> fact that you need to resort to ever-more obscure objections to prop up
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> silly, fundamentalist faith, shows just how ridiculous you are.
>>>>>>> It seems like a simple question to me to ask you what you're actually
>>>>>>> saying when you say certain races are more or less intelligent. What
>>>>>>> is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more
>>>>>>> or less "intelligent".
>>>>>> Christ......you know, now you've made me think about it, I really don't know
>>>>>> "what
>>>>>> is it that they can do better, or do worse as a result or being more or less
>>>>>> "intelligent"". I've thought really hard since reading your question, and
>>>>>> despite racking my brains to think of any arena in which whites have
>>>>>> excelled over negros, I just can't come up with anything. I've thought about
>>>>>> literature, chemistry, civil and mechanical engineering, electronics,
>>>>>> transport, communications, astro-physics, mathematics, geology, biology,
>>>>>> agriculture, the arts.........and I can't think of *one* area where whites
>>>>>> do better as a result of being more "intelligent".
>>>>> I can think of plenty of areas where whites do better. But of course
>>>>> that wasn't my question. What I asked first was what you mean by
>>>>> "intelligence". When you say a person is "more intelligent", do you
>>>>> mean "they earn higher incomes in employment"? Do you mean "they learn
>>>>> more things in formal education"? Either definition would certainly
>>>>> seem to fit with what you're saying, because whites do indeed earn
>>>>> more than blacks in employment, and whites do indeed learn more in
>>>>> formal education than blacks. So is that what you mean by
>>>>> "intelligence"? An "intelligent" person is a person who earns a lot?
>>>> I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern
>>>> recognition and prediction
>>> Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes,
>>> or do you mean, say, patterns and prediction in human behaviour (i.e.
>>> the ability to recognise whether a person is trustworthy)?
>> Patterns in general.
> 
> But you do realise that no intelligence test tests the pattern that I
> mentioned (i.e. the ability to discern patterns in human behaviour)?

I imagine that such tests do exist, probably under the heading 
"emotional intelligence".

>> Obviously some people will be stronger in some areas and weaker in
>> others. However, in a technological society the more abstract pattern
>> recognition and prediction is essential. That includes everything from
>> reading skills to mathematics to technology in general.
> 
> Such abilities may be useful, but they are by no means "essential" in
> any fundamental sense.

They are to society in general.

> What is more, studies have shown that the ability to discern patterns
> in abstract shapes appears to be a learned skill, which is acquired by
> both general exposure and by completing tasks where the skill is
> necessary. Consider trackers for example (i.e. in aboriginal
> societies); few people in Western society would be able to do it (even
> if their parents were from environments where such a skill is useful),
> because they have not ever been exposed to those environments or been
> required to complete tracking tasks. As I say, there appears to be no
> significant difference between the races overall in inherent capacity
> to learn skills - and as far as IQ goes, even if we accepted there was
> a genetic component, there is more variance within races than there is
> between them.
> 
> 
> 
>>>> leading to positive adaptive solutions to
>>>> problems.
>>> Positive for whom?
>> Positive for the person trying to solve the problem.
> 
> So are black men who turn to crime or rioting making a "positive
> adaptation" to their circumstances?

Only if they are successful.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

On 6 Nov, 02:36, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>
> >>>> I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern
> >>>> recognition and prediction
> >>> Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes,
> >>> or do you mean, say, patterns and prediction in human behaviour (i.e.
> >>> the ability to recognise whether a person is trustworthy)?
> >> Patterns in general.
>
> > But you do realise that no intelligence test tests the pattern that I
> > mentioned (i.e. the ability to discern patterns in human behaviour)?
>
> I imagine that such tests do exist, probably under the heading
> "emotional intelligence".

Actually you're right - we have "EQ" for example. So I did some
research quickly, and apparently minority groups tend to do slightly
(but not significantly) better in EQ tests. If we accept that EQ is a
valid "intelligence" measure, then it seems to me we're already on our
way to accepting that IQ does not measure "intelligence" in any
generalised sense, but measures some specific, narrow abilities.

But what of the contention that IQ is a measurement (or a proxy
measurement) of certain specific cognitive abilities that happen to be
economically useful in Western society at present. Well, they've done
studies on IQ and found that it does not correlate significantly with
future income - so that doesn't tie in very well with the idea that
people with high IQs have especially useful skills.

So I'm still confused here. Blacks on average measure lower on IQ
tests, which measures some subset of pattern-recognition behaviour.
And (I ask rhetorically) do we draw from that the conclusion that
blacks are stupid and should be sent back from whence they came?



> >> Obviously some people will be stronger in some areas and weaker in
> >> others. However, in a technological society the more abstract pattern
> >> recognition and prediction is essential. That includes everything from
> >> reading skills to mathematics to technology in general.
>
> > Such abilities may be useful, but they are by no means "essential" in
> > any fundamental sense.
>
> They are to society in general.

But as I've just found out, the research seems to suggest that IQ is
*not* correlated significantly with income. So these abilities can't
be all that useful to the economy, otherwise surely they'd be more
highly paid.



> >>>> leading to positive adaptive solutions to
> >>>> problems.
> >>> Positive for whom?
> >> Positive for the person trying to solve the problem.
>
> > So are black men who turn to crime or rioting making a "positive
> > adaptation" to their circumstances?
>
> Only if they are successful.

What if they are doing something that has a *chance* of being
successful, but where success is not guaranteed? Are people who take
risks engaging in "negative adaptation"?

On Nov 5, 6:49 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
wrote:
> AndrewJH wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 5:58 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> > wrote:
> >> AndrewJH wrote:
> >>> On Nov 2, 9:55 am, White Spirit  wrote:
> >>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
> >>>> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
> >>>> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
> >>>> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
> >>>> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
> >>>> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
> >>>> framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish
> >>>> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
> >>>> required by our civilisation?
> >>>> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
> >>>> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
> >>>> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
> >>>> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative
> >>>> traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
> >>>> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
> >>>> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
> >>>> and rationale.
> >>>> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
> >>>> is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
> >>>> succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
> >>>> nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
> >>>> to do with compassion.
> >>> Too bad your white IQ is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and
> >>> Asians.   You just proved that everybody wants somebody lower than
> >>> himself.
> >> Arabs are less than European average, Israelis the same and non-Israeli
> >> Jews much higher. After Jews come Mongoloids with Korea having the
> >> highest average. Indians are somewhat lower than Europeans and Negroids
> >> far down the scale. Of course, much of this is complicated by factors
> >> such as childhood nutrition and the Flynn Effect.
>
> >> --
> >> Dirk
>
> >>http://www.transcendence.me.uk/-Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/-A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe-Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Oh excuse me.  You must be refering to some psychobabble tests.    I
> > was thinking of the scores of PhD scientists, Doctors and
> > entrepreneurs.
>
> I was referring to the point made, which I quote: "Too bad your white IQ
> is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and Asians." The statement is
> largely incorrect.
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

IQ tests are culturally biased.  The proof is in the pudding.   I
measure IQs with advanced degrees profound business success in hard
science.  The rest is flim flam or hucksterism.   So the statement is
profoundly correct.

On Nov 5, 2:29 pm, White Spirit  wrote:
> Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 12:10 am, White Spirit  wrote:
> >> Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:
> >>> On Nov 3, 5:13 pm, White Spirit  wrote:
> >>>> Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:
> >>>>> a black person with a much higher IQ than you
> >>>> Prove it.
> >>> disprove it.
> >> The burden of proof is upon you.
> > its your thread fuckwit
>
> You're the one who made the assertion, knob head.

you first homer

In message <hcmvdt$pes$1@news.eternal-september.org>, White Spirit 
 writes
>Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85,

70 according to Lynn and Vanhanan in IQ and the wealth of nations. The
85 figure comes from the US where the black population has a high white 
genetic component.  Interestingly, the Cape Coloureds of SA also score 
around 85 while the SA blacks score around 70.  RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

AndrewJH wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:49 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> wrote:
>> AndrewJH wrote:
>>> On Nov 5, 5:58 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
>>> wrote:
>>>> AndrewJH wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 2, 9:55 am, White Spirit  wrote:
>>>>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
>>>>>> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
>>>>>> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
>>>>>> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
>>>>>> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
>>>>>> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
>>>>>> framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish
>>>>>> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
>>>>>> required by our civilisation?
>>>>>> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
>>>>>> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
>>>>>> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
>>>>>> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative
>>>>>> traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
>>>>>> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
>>>>>> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
>>>>>> and rationale.
>>>>>> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
>>>>>> is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
>>>>>> succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
>>>>>> nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
>>>>>> to do with compassion.
>>>>> Too bad your white IQ is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and
>>>>> Asians.   You just proved that everybody wants somebody lower than
>>>>> himself.
>>>> Arabs are less than European average, Israelis the same and non-Israeli
>>>> Jews much higher. After Jews come Mongoloids with Korea having the
>>>> highest average. Indians are somewhat lower than Europeans and Negroids
>>>> far down the scale. Of course, much of this is complicated by factors
>>>> such as childhood nutrition and the Flynn Effect.
>>>> --
>>>> Dirk
>>>> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/-Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/-A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe-Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Oh excuse me.  You must be refering to some psychobabble tests.    I
>>> was thinking of the scores of PhD scientists, Doctors and
>>> entrepreneurs.
>> I was referring to the point made, which I quote: "Too bad your white IQ
>> is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and Asians." The statement is
>> largely incorrect.
>>
>> --
>> Dirk
>>
>> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> IQ tests are culturally biased.  The proof is in the pudding.   I
> measure IQs with advanced degrees profound business success in hard
> science.  The rest is flim flam or hucksterism.   So the statement is
> profoundly correct.

Well, as for cultural bias, it seems that Asians do OK on "White Man's 
Tests". Only Africans do really badly.
Perhaps you can point me to an IQ test devised around African culture, 
and designed as far as possible (like Western IQ tests) to be as culture 
free as possible and not knowledge based.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Ste wrote:
> On 6 Nov, 02:36, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>>>>>> I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern
>>>>>> recognition and prediction
>>>>> Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes,
>>>>> or do you mean, say, patterns and prediction in human behaviour (i.e.
>>>>> the ability to recognise whether a person is trustworthy)?
>>>> Patterns in general.
>>> But you do realise that no intelligence test tests the pattern that I
>>> mentioned (i.e. the ability to discern patterns in human behaviour)?
>> I imagine that such tests do exist, probably under the heading
>> "emotional intelligence".
> 
> Actually you're right - we have "EQ" for example. So I did some
> research quickly, and apparently minority groups tend to do slightly
> (but not significantly) better in EQ tests. If we accept that EQ is a
> valid "intelligence" measure, then it seems to me we're already on our
> way to accepting that IQ does not measure "intelligence" in any
> generalised sense, but measures some specific, narrow abilities.
> 
> But what of the contention that IQ is a measurement (or a proxy
> measurement) of certain specific cognitive abilities that happen to be
> economically useful in Western society at present. Well, they've done
> studies on IQ and found that it does not correlate significantly with
> future income - so that doesn't tie in very well with the idea that
> people with high IQs have especially useful skills.

Maybe you should look at the pay of scientists and engineers.
Clearly not especially useful skills.

> So I'm still confused here. Blacks on average measure lower on IQ
> tests, which measures some subset of pattern-recognition behaviour.
> And (I ask rhetorically) do we draw from that the conclusion that
> blacks are stupid and should be sent back from whence they came?

We draw from that that Blacks are worse placed to function in a 
technological society.

>>>> Obviously some people will be stronger in some areas and weaker in
>>>> others. However, in a technological society the more abstract pattern
>>>> recognition and prediction is essential. That includes everything from
>>>> reading skills to mathematics to technology in general.
>>> Such abilities may be useful, but they are by no means "essential" in
>>> any fundamental sense.
>> They are to society in general.
> 
> But as I've just found out, the research seems to suggest that IQ is
> *not* correlated significantly with income. So these abilities can't
> be all that useful to the economy, otherwise surely they'd be more
> highly paid.

You are assuming that income correlates to social usefulness.
Bankers?


>>>>>> leading to positive adaptive solutions to
>>>>>> problems.
>>>>> Positive for whom?
>>>> Positive for the person trying to solve the problem.
>>> So are black men who turn to crime or rioting making a "positive
>>> adaptation" to their circumstances?
>> Only if they are successful.
> 
> What if they are doing something that has a *chance* of being
> successful, but where success is not guaranteed? Are people who take
> risks engaging in "negative adaptation"?

Depends on the penalties for failure.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

On 6 Nov, 15:46, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 6 Nov, 02:36, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> >>>>>> I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern
> >>>>>> recognition and prediction
> >>>>> Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes,
> >>>>> or do you mean, say, patterns and prediction in human behaviour (i.e.
> >>>>> the ability to recognise whether a person is trustworthy)?
> >>>> Patterns in general.
> >>> But you do realise that no intelligence test tests the pattern that I
> >>> mentioned (i.e. the ability to discern patterns in human behaviour)?
> >> I imagine that such tests do exist, probably under the heading
> >> "emotional intelligence".
>
> > Actually you're right - we have "EQ" for example. So I did some
> > research quickly, and apparently minority groups tend to do slightly
> > (but not significantly) better in EQ tests. If we accept that EQ is a
> > valid "intelligence" measure, then it seems to me we're already on our
> > way to accepting that IQ does not measure "intelligence" in any
> > generalised sense, but measures some specific, narrow abilities.
>
> > But what of the contention that IQ is a measurement (or a proxy
> > measurement) of certain specific cognitive abilities that happen to be
> > economically useful in Western society at present. Well, they've done
> > studies on IQ and found that it does not correlate significantly with
> > future income - so that doesn't tie in very well with the idea that
> > people with high IQs have especially useful skills.
>
> Maybe you should look at the pay of scientists and engineers.
> Clearly not especially useful skills.

Maybe we should, because scientists and engineers are often not that
highly paid at all. They certainly aren't "the rich" of our society.
And more to the point, IQ does not correlate particularly well with
being a successful scientist or engineer, or with success at all. So
the idea that IQ captures some skill of general importance is just
absurd.



> > So I'm still confused here. Blacks on average measure lower on IQ
> > tests, which measures some subset of pattern-recognition behaviour.
> > And (I ask rhetorically) do we draw from that the conclusion that
> > blacks are stupid and should be sent back from whence they came?
>
> We draw from that that Blacks are worse placed to function in a
> technological society.

By the same argument, so would people with low IQs generally. Surely,
if we were considering such a solution at all, it would make more
sense simply to eject all those with a low IQ?

Also, why is it exactly that our society requires scientists and
engineers with such a high degree of ability? Could we genuinely not
make do with people who are just a teeny-bit less able?



> >>>> Obviously some people will be stronger in some areas and weaker in
> >>>> others. However, in a technological society the more abstract pattern
> >>>> recognition and prediction is essential. That includes everything from
> >>>> reading skills to mathematics to technology in general.
> >>> Such abilities may be useful, but they are by no means "essential" in
> >>> any fundamental sense.
> >> They are to society in general.
>
> > But as I've just found out, the research seems to suggest that IQ is
> > *not* correlated significantly with income. So these abilities can't
> > be all that useful to the economy, otherwise surely they'd be more
> > highly paid.
>
> You are assuming that income correlates to social usefulness.
> Bankers?

Well we certainly agree. But then what is social usefulnesss?



> >>>>>> leading to positive adaptive solutions to
> >>>>>> problems.
> >>>>> Positive for whom?
> >>>> Positive for the person trying to solve the problem.
> >>> So are black men who turn to crime or rioting making a "positive
> >>> adaptation" to their circumstances?
> >> Only if they are successful.
>
> > What if they are doing something that has a *chance* of being
> > successful, but where success is not guaranteed? Are people who take
> > risks engaging in "negative adaptation"?
>
> Depends on the penalties for failure.

What if the penalty for *not* taking the chance is being an
evolutionary dead end? In other words, let's say taking the risk
involves a chance of success, and also a chance of failing and
therefore being an evolutionary dead end. Let's also say that, if one
doesn't take the risk at all, the penalty is being an evolutionary
dead end. Is it then positively adaptive to take the risk, even if the
face of *any* penalty, because failing to take the risk will incur the
same penalty for sure?

If it had been possible to devise an IQ test with blacks scoring
equally to whites and Orientals then one would have been created by
now. The HOLY GRAIL in IQ testing has been to create such a test, and
any psychologist who created such a test would have won the Nobel
Prize three times.

As for Africa. The countries in Africa that have been the most
successful were the ones under white rule for longest. SA and ZIM.
Those that were in the British Empire for longest are still slightly
better off than those that weren't. Contrast Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria,
with Somalia, the Congo, Liberia. Haiti, not in Africa but black
controlled for 200 years, is the poorest country in the Northern
Hemisphere.

Clear evidence that blacks have a lower IQ than whites and that this
low IQ explains why blacks are such a burden on whites.

Finally, what is it that makes YOU, a white man, so anxious to accept
blacks as your intellectual, moral, spiritual equal? It is because you
are a white man, and the white man is unique in that he wants to
include everybody, even those who are not obviously his kindred, as
part of his world. Non-whites would never do this, they put their own
ethnic group before the needs of "outsiders". So merely by trying to
deny the obvious facts about race and IQ you ipso facto prove that
whites are morally superior to non-whites.

On Nov 7, 12:26 am, huperade  wrote:
> If it had been possible to devise an IQ test with blacks scoring
> equally to whites and Orientals then one would have been created by
> now. The HOLY GRAIL in IQ testing has been to create such a test, and
> any psychologist who created such a test would have won the Nobel
> Prize three times.
>
> As for Africa. The countries in Africa that have been the most
> successful were the ones under white rule for longest. SA and ZIM.
> Those that were in the British Empire for longest are still slightly
> better off than those that weren't. Contrast Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria,
> with Somalia, the Congo, Liberia. Haiti, not in Africa but black
> controlled for 200 years, is the poorest country in the Northern
> Hemisphere.
>
> Clear evidence that blacks have a lower IQ than whites and that this
> low IQ explains why blacks are such a burden on whites.
>
> Finally, what is it that makes YOU, a white man, so anxious to accept
> blacks as your intellectual, moral, spiritual equal? It is because you
> are a white man, and the white man is unique in that he wants to
> include everybody, even those who are not obviously his kindred, as
> part of his world. Non-whites would never do this, they put their own
> ethnic group before the needs of "outsiders". So merely by trying to
> deny the obvious facts about race and IQ you ipso facto prove that
> whites are morally superior to non-whites.

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/1303/Serie-A/photoalbum/detail/1025787/755879/10/WAG-van-de-week-Maria-Mazza.dhtml#photo

Ste wrote:
> On 6 Nov, 15:46, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>>> On 6 Nov, 02:36, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>>>>>>>> I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern
>>>>>>>> recognition and prediction
>>>>>>> Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes,
>>>>>>> or do you mean, say, patterns and prediction in human behaviour (i.e.
>>>>>>> the ability to recognise whether a person is trustworthy)?
>>>>>> Patterns in general.
>>>>> But you do realise that no intelligence test tests the pattern that I
>>>>> mentioned (i.e. the ability to discern patterns in human behaviour)?
>>>> I imagine that such tests do exist, probably under the heading
>>>> "emotional intelligence".
>>> Actually you're right - we have "EQ" for example. So I did some
>>> research quickly, and apparently minority groups tend to do slightly
>>> (but not significantly) better in EQ tests. If we accept that EQ is a
>>> valid "intelligence" measure, then it seems to me we're already on our
>>> way to accepting that IQ does not measure "intelligence" in any
>>> generalised sense, but measures some specific, narrow abilities.
>>> But what of the contention that IQ is a measurement (or a proxy
>>> measurement) of certain specific cognitive abilities that happen to be
>>> economically useful in Western society at present. Well, they've done
>>> studies on IQ and found that it does not correlate significantly with
>>> future income - so that doesn't tie in very well with the idea that
>>> people with high IQs have especially useful skills.
>> Maybe you should look at the pay of scientists and engineers.
>> Clearly not especially useful skills.
> 
> Maybe we should, because scientists and engineers are often not that
> highly paid at all. They certainly aren't "the rich" of our society.
> And more to the point, IQ does not correlate particularly well with
> being a successful scientist or engineer, or with success at all. So
> the idea that IQ captures some skill of general importance is just
> absurd.

Actually, IQ does correlate strongly with being an engineer or scientist.

>>> So I'm still confused here. Blacks on average measure lower on IQ
>>> tests, which measures some subset of pattern-recognition behaviour.
>>> And (I ask rhetorically) do we draw from that the conclusion that
>>> blacks are stupid and should be sent back from whence they came?
>> We draw from that that Blacks are worse placed to function in a
>> technological society.
> 
> By the same argument, so would people with low IQs generally. Surely,
> if we were considering such a solution at all, it would make more
> sense simply to eject all those with a low IQ?

I'm not suggesting ejecting anyone.
OTOH I would suggest not letting in the unskilled, which does correlate 
strongly with low IQ.

> Also, why is it exactly that our society requires scientists and
> engineers with such a high degree of ability? Could we genuinely not
> make do with people who are just a teeny-bit less able?

Why not - Africa does.

>>>>>> Obviously some people will be stronger in some areas and weaker in
>>>>>> others. However, in a technological society the more abstract pattern
>>>>>> recognition and prediction is essential. That includes everything from
>>>>>> reading skills to mathematics to technology in general.
>>>>> Such abilities may be useful, but they are by no means "essential" in
>>>>> any fundamental sense.
>>>> They are to society in general.
>>> But as I've just found out, the research seems to suggest that IQ is
>>> *not* correlated significantly with income. So these abilities can't
>>> be all that useful to the economy, otherwise surely they'd be more
>>> highly paid.
>> You are assuming that income correlates to social usefulness.
>> Bankers?
> 
> Well we certainly agree. But then what is social usefulnesss?

In measurable terms, those who increase the wealth of society as a whole 
or directly facilitate those who do.

>>>>>>>> leading to positive adaptive solutions to
>>>>>>>> problems.
>>>>>>> Positive for whom?
>>>>>> Positive for the person trying to solve the problem.
>>>>> So are black men who turn to crime or rioting making a "positive
>>>>> adaptation" to their circumstances?
>>>> Only if they are successful.
>>> What if they are doing something that has a *chance* of being
>>> successful, but where success is not guaranteed? Are people who take
>>> risks engaging in "negative adaptation"?
>> Depends on the penalties for failure.
> 
> What if the penalty for *not* taking the chance is being an
> evolutionary dead end? In other words, let's say taking the risk
> involves a chance of success, and also a chance of failing and
> therefore being an evolutionary dead end. Let's also say that, if one
> doesn't take the risk at all, the penalty is being an evolutionary
> dead end. Is it then positively adaptive to take the risk, even if the
> face of *any* penalty, because failing to take the risk will incur the
> same penalty for sure?

Not having children makes on an evolutionary dead end.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

On Nov 7, 12:54 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 6 Nov, 15:46, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> >> Ste wrote:
> >>> On 6 Nov, 02:36, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern
> >>>>>>>> recognition and prediction
> >>>>>>> Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes,
> >>>>>>> or do you mean, say, patterns and prediction in human behaviour (i.e.
> >>>>>>> the ability to recognise whether a person is trustworthy)?
> >>>>>> Patterns in general.
> >>>>> But you do realise that no intelligence test tests the pattern that I
> >>>>> mentioned (i.e. the ability to discern patterns in human behaviour)> >>>> I imagine that such tests do exist, probably under the heading
> >>>> "emotional intelligence".
> >>> Actually you're right - we have "EQ" for example. So I did some
> >>> research quickly, and apparently minority groups tend to do slightly
> >>> (but not significantly) better in EQ tests. If we accept that EQ is a
> >>> valid "intelligence" measure, then it seems to me we're already on our
> >>> way to accepting that IQ does not measure "intelligence" in any
> >>> generalised sense, but measures some specific, narrow abilities.
> >>> But what of the contention that IQ is a measurement (or a proxy
> >>> measurement) of certain specific cognitive abilities that happen to be
> >>> economically useful in Western society at present. Well, they've done
> >>> studies on IQ and found that it does not correlate significantly with
> >>> future income - so that doesn't tie in very well with the idea that
> >>> people with high IQs have especially useful skills.
> >> Maybe you should look at the pay of scientists and engineers.
> >> Clearly not especially useful skills.
>
> > Maybe we should, because scientists and engineers are often not that
> > highly paid at all. They certainly aren't "the rich" of our society.
> > And more to the point, IQ does not correlate particularly well with
> > being a successful scientist or engineer, or with success at all. So
> > the idea that IQ captures some skill of general importance is just
> > absurd.
>
> Actually, IQ does correlate strongly with being an engineer or scientist.
>
> >>> So I'm still confused here. Blacks on average measure lower on IQ
> >>> tests, which measures some subset of pattern-recognition behaviour.
> >>> And (I ask rhetorically) do we draw from that the conclusion that
> >>> blacks are stupid and should be sent back from whence they came?
> >> We draw from that that Blacks are worse placed to function in a
> >> technological society.
>
> > By the same argument, so would people with low IQs generally. Surely,
> > if we were considering such a solution at all, it would make more
> > sense simply to eject all those with a low IQ?
>
> I'm not suggesting ejecting anyone.
> OTOH I would suggest not letting in the unskilled, which does correlate
> strongly with low IQ.
>
> > Also, why is it exactly that our society requires scientists and
> > engineers with such a high degree of ability? Could we genuinely not
> > make do with people who are just a teeny-bit less able?
>
> Why not - Africa does.
>
> >>>>>> Obviously some people will be stronger in some areas and weaker in
> >>>>>> others. However, in a technological society the more abstract pattern
> >>>>>> recognition and prediction is essential. That includes everything from
> >>>>>> reading skills to mathematics to technology in general.
> >>>>> Such abilities may be useful, but they are by no means "essential" in
> >>>>> any fundamental sense.
> >>>> They are to society in general.
> >>> But as I've just found out, the research seems to suggest that IQ is
> >>> *not* correlated significantly with income. So these abilities can't
> >>> be all that useful to the economy, otherwise surely they'd be more
> >>> highly paid.
> >> You are assuming that income correlates to social usefulness.
> >> Bankers?
>
> > Well we certainly agree. But then what is social usefulnesss?
>
> In measurable terms, those who increase the wealth of society as a whole
> or directly facilitate those who do.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> leading to positive adaptive solutions to
> >>>>>>>> problems.
> >>>>>>> Positive for whom?
> >>>>>> Positive for the person trying to solve the problem.
> >>>>> So are black men who turn to crime or rioting making a "positive
> >>>>> adaptation" to their circumstances?
> >>>> Only if they are successful.
> >>> What if they are doing something that has a *chance* of being
> >>> successful, but where success is not guaranteed? Are people who take
> >>> risks engaging in "negative adaptation"?
> >> Depends on the penalties for failure.
>
> > What if the penalty for *not* taking the chance is being an
> > evolutionary dead end? In other words, let's say taking the risk
> > involves a chance of success, and also a chance of failing and
> > therefore being an evolutionary dead end. Let's also say that, if one
> > doesn't take the risk at all, the penalty is being an evolutionary
> > dead end. Is it then positively adaptive to take the risk, even if the
> > face of *any* penalty, because failing to take the risk will incur the
> > same penalty for sure?
>
> Not having children makes on an evolutionary dead end.
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/1303/Serie-A/photoalbum/detail/1025787/755919/2/WAG-van-de-week-Maria-Mazza.dhtml#photo

On 6 Nov, 23:26, huperade  wrote:
>
> Finally, what is it that makes YOU,

To whom to you refer?


> a white man, so anxious to accept
> blacks as your intellectual, moral, spiritual equal? It is because you
> are a white man, and the white man is unique in that he wants to
> include everybody, even those who are not obviously his kindred, as
> part of his world. Non-whites would never do this, they put their own
> ethnic group before the needs of "outsiders". So merely by trying to
> deny the obvious facts about race and IQ you ipso facto prove that
> whites are morally superior to non-whites.

If you're asking why whites in Western societies tend not to
discriminate along ethnic lines, it's probably because we're
reasonably educated ourselves, we come from educated backgrounds, and
most of us can see no discernible difference between ourselves and
people from other ethnic backgrounds, and indeed most of us have grown
up with people from other ethnic backgrounds.

On 6 Nov, 23:54, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 6 Nov, 15:46, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> >> Ste wrote:
> >>> On 6 Nov, 02:36, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern
> >>>>>>>> recognition and prediction
> >>>>>>> Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes,
> >>>>>>> or do you mean, say, patterns and prediction in human behaviour (i.e.
> >>>>>>> the ability to recognise whether a person is trustworthy)?
> >>>>>> Patterns in general.
> >>>>> But you do realise that no intelligence test tests the pattern that I
> >>>>> mentioned (i.e. the ability to discern patterns in human behaviour)?
> >>>> I imagine that such tests do exist, probably under the heading
> >>>> "emotional intelligence".
> >>> Actually you're right - we have "EQ" for example. So I did some
> >>> research quickly, and apparently minority groups tend to do slightly
> >>> (but not significantly) better in EQ tests. If we accept that EQ is a
> >>> valid "intelligence" measure, then it seems to me we're already on our
> >>> way to accepting that IQ does not measure "intelligence" in any
> >>> generalised sense, but measures some specific, narrow abilities.
> >>> But what of the contention that IQ is a measurement (or a proxy
> >>> measurement) of certain specific cognitive abilities that happen to be
> >>> economically useful in Western society at present. Well, they've done
> >>> studies on IQ and found that it does not correlate significantly with
> >>> future income - so that doesn't tie in very well with the idea that
> >>> people with high IQs have especially useful skills.
> >> Maybe you should look at the pay of scientists and engineers.
> >> Clearly not especially useful skills.
>
> > Maybe we should, because scientists and engineers are often not that
> > highly paid at all. They certainly aren't "the rich" of our society.
> > And more to the point, IQ does not correlate particularly well with
> > being a successful scientist or engineer, or with success at all. So
> > the idea that IQ captures some skill of general importance is just
> > absurd.
>
> Actually, IQ does correlate strongly with being an engineer or scientist.

Perhaps engineers and scientists tend to have a higher IQ than average
(and incidentally I have a reasonably high IQ and I'm interested in
many types of engineering - including "social engineering" I suppose),
but that is not the same as saying people with a higher IQ tend to
become engineers or scientists. And as I said, once we look at *income
or wealth*, there is no relationship at all with IQ.



> >>> So I'm still confused here. Blacks on average measure lower on IQ
> >>> tests, which measures some subset of pattern-recognition behaviour.
> >>> And (I ask rhetorically) do we draw from that the conclusion that
> >>> blacks are stupid and should be sent back from whence they came?
> >> We draw from that that Blacks are worse placed to function in a
> >> technological society.
>
> > By the same argument, so would people with low IQs generally. Surely,
> > if we were considering such a solution at all, it would make more
> > sense simply to eject all those with a low IQ?
>
> I'm not suggesting ejecting anyone.
> OTOH I would suggest not letting in the unskilled, which does correlate
> strongly with low IQ.

Yes, but there's an argument there that they have a low IQ *because*
they are unskilled, untrained, uneducated. What is more, there is
demand in our economy for cheap, unskilled labour. If we don't allow
cheap, unskilled immigrants in (and I'm not necessarily saying that we
should allow them in), then who does those jobs?



> > Also, why is it exactly that our society requires scientists and
> > engineers with such a high degree of ability? Could we genuinely not
> > make do with people who are just a teeny-bit less able?
>
> Why not - Africa does.

Yes, but it seems we're going back to this leap of logic that all of
Africa's problems are caused by low IQ, when of course that is still
under dispute (and actually I'll be frank and say I find the
explanation ludicrous). Indeed, when you bear in mind that studies
have suggested that, by today's standards, the average IQ of an
Englishman in 1900 was something like 58, and we certainly weren't
living in a way comparible to any modern-day African state - indeed we
were one of the most economically and socially advanced nations in the
world.



> >>>>>> Obviously some people will be stronger in some areas and weaker in
> >>>>>> others. However, in a technological society the more abstract pattern
> >>>>>> recognition and prediction is essential. That includes everything from
> >>>>>> reading skills to mathematics to technology in general.
> >>>>> Such abilities may be useful, but they are by no means "essential" in
> >>>>> any fundamental sense.
> >>>> They are to society in general.
> >>> But as I've just found out, the research seems to suggest that IQ is
> >>> *not* correlated significantly with income. So these abilities can't
> >>> be all that useful to the economy, otherwise surely they'd be more
> >>> highly paid.
> >> You are assuming that income correlates to social usefulness.
> >> Bankers?
>
> > Well we certainly agree. But then what is social usefulnesss?
>
> In measurable terms, those who increase the wealth of society as a whole
> or directly facilitate those who do.

But do we then measure social usefulness by a person's income or
wealth? Or do you mean "wealth" measured in some way other than by the
market economy?

And moreover, what if you have someone who is useless at one moment in
time, but may be useful in the future when circumstances change? Do
you support them in the interim (even though they presently have no
contribution to make)?



> >>>>>>>> leading to positive adaptive solutions to
> >>>>>>>> problems.
> >>>>>>> Positive for whom?
> >>>>>> Positive for the person trying to solve the problem.
> >>>>> So are black men who turn to crime or rioting making a "positive
> >>>>> adaptation" to their circumstances?
> >>>> Only if they are successful.
> >>> What if they are doing something that has a *chance* of being
> >>> successful, but where success is not guaranteed? Are people who take
> >>> risks engaging in "negative adaptation"?
> >> Depends on the penalties for failure.
>
> > What if the penalty for *not* taking the chance is being an
> > evolutionary dead end? In other words, let's say taking the risk
> > involves a chance of success, and also a chance of failing and
> > therefore being an evolutionary dead end. Let's also say that, if one
> > doesn't take the risk at all, the penalty is being an evolutionary
> > dead end. Is it then positively adaptive to take the risk, even if the
> > face of *any* penalty, because failing to take the risk will incur the
> > same penalty for sure?
>
> Not having children makes on an evolutionary dead end.

I know, which is why successful crime pays, because it often brings
with it status, money, and sex. Of course I don't want to over-
simplify human behaviour, but if you imagine that poverty is akin to
an evolutionary concentration camp, it becomes more easy to see why
people take apparently absurd risks to escape from it, because
waiting, or complying with the camp rules, is likely to have an
adverse effect on survival (especially once the screw is turned
tighter and tighter, which it would be but for the opposing resistance
of the people within the camp). If even only one in 100 escape from
the camp, over the long term the survivors of the camp will number one
instead of zero.

I think when you look at things like the Brixton riots, it's easier to
see it in terms of the screw being turned tighter and tighter by the
authorities, and hence the ultimatum given that things change or else.

On Nov 6, 9:42 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
wrote:
> AndrewJH wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 6:49 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> > wrote:
> >> AndrewJH wrote:
> >>> On Nov 5, 5:58 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> AndrewJH wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 2, 9:55 am, White Spirit  wrote:
> >>>>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
> >>>>>> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
> >>>>>> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
> >>>>>> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
> >>>>>> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
> >>>>>> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
> >>>>>> framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish
> >>>>>> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
> >>>>>> required by our civilisation?
> >>>>>> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
> >>>>>> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
> >>>>>> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
> >>>>>> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative
> >>>>>> traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
> >>>>>> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
> >>>>>> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
> >>>>>> and rationale.
> >>>>>> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
> >>>>>> is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
> >>>>>> succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
> >>>>>> nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
> >>>>>> to do with compassion.
> >>>>> Too bad your white IQ is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and
> >>>>> Asians.   You just proved that everybody wants somebody lower than
> >>>>> himself.
> >>>> Arabs are less than European average, Israelis the same and non-Israeli
> >>>> Jews much higher. After Jews come Mongoloids with Korea having the
> >>>> highest average. Indians are somewhat lower than Europeans and Negroids
> >>>> far down the scale. Of course, much of this is complicated by factors
> >>>> such as childhood nutrition and the Flynn Effect.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dirk
> >>>>http://www.transcendence.me.uk/-TranscendenceUKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/-AUK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe-OccultTalk Show- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Oh excuse me.  You must be refering to some psychobabble tests.    I
> >>> was thinking of the scores of PhD scientists, Doctors and
> >>> entrepreneurs.
> >> I was referring to the point made, which I quote: "Too bad your white IQ
> >> is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and Asians." The statement is
> >> largely incorrect.
>
> >> --
> >> Dirk
>
> >>http://www.transcendence.me.uk/-Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/-A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe-Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > IQ tests are culturally biased.  The proof is in the pudding.   I
> > measure IQs with advanced degrees profound business success in hard
> > science.  The rest is flim flam or hucksterism.   So the statement is
> > profoundly correct.
>
> Well, as for cultural bias, it seems that Asians do OK on "White Man's
> Tests". Only Africans do really badly.
> Perhaps you can point me to an IQ test devised around African culture,
> and designed as far as possible (like Western IQ tests) to be as culture
> free as possible and not knowledge based.
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Years ago there was a question on an IQ test.  It wen something like
this:

If you lost your wallet or something valuable in a field how would you
go about
finding it?  The answer.  You walk in cocentric circles, (getting
successfully smaller
until you find it.   The perception amongst our erstwhile
psychobabblists was that
American Indians must have been stupid because they said they could
easily
track their steps.

Again I submit, kick all arab, east Indian and Asian immigrants out of
this country
(th US) and or Western Europe and you better sell all of your tech
stocks because they
are going to go to hell.  It seems that a bunch of tattooed punctured
cowboy ignoramusses
don't contribute muct to the economy.

On 7 Nov, 04:18, AndrewJH  wrote:
>
> Years ago there was a question on an IQ test.  It wen something like
> this:
>
> If you lost your wallet or something valuable in a field how would you
> go about
> finding it?  The answer.  You walk in cocentric circles, (getting
> successfully smaller
> until you find it.  

Does one have to search in a spiral pattern, or would any systematic
pattern suffice?


> The perception amongst our erstwhile
> psychobabblists was that
> American Indians must have been stupid because they said they could
> easily
> track their steps.

It's interesting that because if you'd asked me the question "how do
you find the wallet", I'd have said "you look for it", and if that
didn't suffice then the next thing I'd have said would have been "you
retrace your steps". Starting at the edge of the field and visiting
each corner would usually be an absurd waste of time. Of course, IQ
tests aren't very amenable to answers that are outside of the box.

Ste wrote:
> On 6 Nov, 23:54, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>>> On 6 Nov, 15:46, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>>>> Ste wrote:
>>>>> On 6 Nov, 02:36, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern
>>>>>>>>>> recognition and prediction
>>>>>>>>> Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes,
>>>>>>>>> or do you mean, say, patterns and prediction in human behaviour (i.e.
>>>>>>>>> the ability to recognise whether a person is trustworthy)?
>>>>>>>> Patterns in general.
>>>>>>> But you do realise that no intelligence test tests the pattern that I
>>>>>>> mentioned (i.e. the ability to discern patterns in human behaviour)?
>>>>>> I imagine that such tests do exist, probably under the heading
>>>>>> "emotional intelligence".
>>>>> Actually you're right - we have "EQ" for example. So I did some
>>>>> research quickly, and apparently minority groups tend to do slightly
>>>>> (but not significantly) better in EQ tests. If we accept that EQ is a
>>>>> valid "intelligence" measure, then it seems to me we're already on our
>>>>> way to accepting that IQ does not measure "intelligence" in any
>>>>> generalised sense, but measures some specific, narrow abilities.
>>>>> But what of the contention that IQ is a measurement (or a proxy
>>>>> measurement) of certain specific cognitive abilities that happen to be
>>>>> economically useful in Western society at present. Well, they've done
>>>>> studies on IQ and found that it does not correlate significantly with
>>>>> future income - so that doesn't tie in very well with the idea that
>>>>> people with high IQs have especially useful skills.
>>>> Maybe you should look at the pay of scientists and engineers.
>>>> Clearly not especially useful skills.
>>> Maybe we should, because scientists and engineers are often not that
>>> highly paid at all. They certainly aren't "the rich" of our society.
>>> And more to the point, IQ does not correlate particularly well with
>>> being a successful scientist or engineer, or with success at all. So
>>> the idea that IQ captures some skill of general importance is just
>>> absurd.
>> Actually, IQ does correlate strongly with being an engineer or scientist.
> 
> Perhaps engineers and scientists tend to have a higher IQ than average
> (and incidentally I have a reasonably high IQ and I'm interested in
> many types of engineering - including "social engineering" I suppose),
> but that is not the same as saying people with a higher IQ tend to
> become engineers or scientists. And as I said, once we look at *income
> or wealth*, there is no relationship at all with IQ.

But one can say with certainty that people with low IQ do not become 
qualified engineers or scientists.

>>>>> So I'm still confused here. Blacks on average measure lower on IQ
>>>>> tests, which measures some subset of pattern-recognition behaviour.
>>>>> And (I ask rhetorically) do we draw from that the conclusion that
>>>>> blacks are stupid and should be sent back from whence they came?
>>>> We draw from that that Blacks are worse placed to function in a
>>>> technological society.
>>> By the same argument, so would people with low IQs generally. Surely,
>>> if we were considering such a solution at all, it would make more
>>> sense simply to eject all those with a low IQ?
>> I'm not suggesting ejecting anyone.
>> OTOH I would suggest not letting in the unskilled, which does correlate
>> strongly with low IQ.
> 
> Yes, but there's an argument there that they have a low IQ *because*
> they are unskilled, untrained, uneducated. What is more, there is
> demand in our economy for cheap, unskilled labour. If we don't allow
> cheap, unskilled immigrants in (and I'm not necessarily saying that we
> should allow them in), then who does those jobs?

We import unskilled labour because it is *cheap*.
If we did not import that labour either the jobs would not get done ie 
we can do without them, or the wages would rise. I would certainly 
consider cleaning toilets for my profession if I was paid £100k a year.


>>> Also, why is it exactly that our society requires scientists and
>>> engineers with such a high degree of ability? Could we genuinely not
>>> make do with people who are just a teeny-bit less able?
>> Why not - Africa does.
> 
> Yes, but it seems we're going back to this leap of logic that all of
> Africa's problems are caused by low IQ, when of course that is still

Not all caused by low IQ, but certainly vastly exacerbated.
No other area in the world has such chronic problems and can so little 
help itself. In fact, lots of nations have had far worse colonial 
experiences than much of Africa eg Vietnam, Korea, large parts of China, 
S America etc and are doing well.

> under dispute (and actually I'll be frank and say I find the
> explanation ludicrous). Indeed, when you bear in mind that studies
> have suggested that, by today's standards, the average IQ of an
> Englishman in 1900 was something like 58, and we certainly weren't
> living in a way comparible to any modern-day African state - indeed we
> were one of the most economically and socially advanced nations in the
> world.

Flynn Effect.
That's why I think the real gap between Africans and everyone else is 
actually smaller than apparently currently exists.


>>>>>>>> Obviously some people will be stronger in some areas and weaker in
>>>>>>>> others. However, in a technological society the more abstract pattern
>>>>>>>> recognition and prediction is essential. That includes everything from
>>>>>>>> reading skills to mathematics to technology in general.
>>>>>>> Such abilities may be useful, but they are by no means "essential" in
>>>>>>> any fundamental sense.
>>>>>> They are to society in general.
>>>>> But as I've just found out, the research seems to suggest that IQ is
>>>>> *not* correlated significantly with income. So these abilities can't
>>>>> be all that useful to the economy, otherwise surely they'd be more
>>>>> highly paid.
>>>> You are assuming that income correlates to social usefulness.
>>>> Bankers?
>>> Well we certainly agree. But then what is social usefulnesss?
>> In measurable terms, those who increase the wealth of society as a whole
>> or directly facilitate those who do.
> 
> But do we then measure social usefulness by a person's income or
> wealth? Or do you mean "wealth" measured in some way other than by the
> market economy?

Wealth measured by overall economic input from the sector they are 
employed in.

> And moreover, what if you have someone who is useless at one moment in
> time, but may be useful in the future when circumstances change? Do
> you support them in the interim (even though they presently have no
> contribution to make)?

I don't think that suddenly low IQ people are going to become a gold 
mine no matter what happens in future.

>>>>>>>>>> leading to positive adaptive solutions to
>>>>>>>>>> problems.
>>>>>>>>> Positive for whom?
>>>>>>>> Positive for the person trying to solve the problem.
>>>>>>> So are black men who turn to crime or rioting making a "positive
>>>>>>> adaptation" to their circumstances?
>>>>>> Only if they are successful.
>>>>> What if they are doing something that has a *chance* of being
>>>>> successful, but where success is not guaranteed? Are people who take
>>>>> risks engaging in "negative adaptation"?
>>>> Depends on the penalties for failure.
>>> What if the penalty for *not* taking the chance is being an
>>> evolutionary dead end? In other words, let's say taking the risk
>>> involves a chance of success, and also a chance of failing and
>>> therefore being an evolutionary dead end. Let's also say that, if one
>>> doesn't take the risk at all, the penalty is being an evolutionary
>>> dead end. Is it then positively adaptive to take the risk, even if the
>>> face of *any* penalty, because failing to take the risk will incur the
>>> same penalty for sure?
>> Not having children makes on an evolutionary dead end.
> 
> I know, which is why successful crime pays, because it often brings
> with it status, money, and sex. Of course I don't want to over-
> simplify human behaviour, but if you imagine that poverty is akin to
> an evolutionary concentration camp, it becomes more easy to see why
> people take apparently absurd risks to escape from it, because
> waiting, or complying with the camp rules, is likely to have an
> adverse effect on survival (especially once the screw is turned
> tighter and tighter, which it would be but for the opposing resistance
> of the people within the camp). If even only one in 100 escape from
> the camp, over the long term the survivors of the camp will number one
> instead of zero.
> 
> I think when you look at things like the Brixton riots, it's easier to
> see it in terms of the screw being turned tighter and tighter by the
> authorities, and hence the ultimatum given that things change or else.

The problem with Blacks and crime probably has more to do with higher 
testosterone levels than anything else. That is, using testosterone as a 
correlate to aggression and impulsiveness in the males. Couple that with 
lower IQ and you get what you might expect.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

AndrewJH wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:42 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> wrote:
>> AndrewJH wrote:
>>> On Nov 5, 6:49 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
>>> wrote:
>>>> AndrewJH wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 5, 5:58 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> AndrewJH wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 9:55 am, White Spirit  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
>>>>>>>> percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
>>>>>>>> clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
>>>>>>>> culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
>>>>>>>> IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
>>>>>>>> measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
>>>>>>>> framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish
>>>>>>>> to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
>>>>>>>> required by our civilisation?
>>>>>>>> It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
>>>>>>>> in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
>>>>>>>> country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
>>>>>>>> aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative
>>>>>>>> traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
>>>>>>>> all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
>>>>>>>> and rationale.
>>>>>>>> That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
>>>>>>>> is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
>>>>>>>> succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
>>>>>>>> nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
>>>>>>>> to do with compassion.
>>>>>>> Too bad your white IQ is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and
>>>>>>> Asians.   You just proved that everybody wants somebody lower than
>>>>>>> himself.
>>>>>> Arabs are less than European average, Israelis the same and non-Israeli
>>>>>> Jews much higher. After Jews come Mongoloids with Korea having the
>>>>>> highest average. Indians are somewhat lower than Europeans and Negroids
>>>>>> far down the scale. Of course, much of this is complicated by factors
>>>>>> such as childhood nutrition and the Flynn Effect.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dirk
>>>>>> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/-TranscendenceUKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/-AUK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe-OccultTalk Show- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> Oh excuse me.  You must be refering to some psychobabble tests.    I
>>>>> was thinking of the scores of PhD scientists, Doctors and
>>>>> entrepreneurs.
>>>> I was referring to the point made, which I quote: "Too bad your white IQ
>>>> is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and Asians." The statement is
>>>> largely incorrect.
>>>> --
>>>> Dirk
>>>> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/-Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/-A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe-Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> IQ tests are culturally biased.  The proof is in the pudding.   I
>>> measure IQs with advanced degrees profound business success in hard
>>> science.  The rest is flim flam or hucksterism.   So the statement is
>>> profoundly correct.
>> Well, as for cultural bias, it seems that Asians do OK on "White Man's
>> Tests". Only Africans do really badly.
>> Perhaps you can point me to an IQ test devised around African culture,
>> and designed as far as possible (like Western IQ tests) to be as culture
>> free as possible and not knowledge based.
>>
>> --
>> Dirk
>>
>> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Years ago there was a question on an IQ test.  It wen something like
> this:
> 
> If you lost your wallet or something valuable in a field how would you
> go about
> finding it?  The answer.  You walk in cocentric circles, (getting
> successfully smaller
> until you find it.   The perception amongst our erstwhile
> psychobabblists was that
> American Indians must have been stupid because they said they could
> easily
> track their steps.
> 
> Again I submit, kick all arab, east Indian and Asian immigrants out of
> this country
> (th US) and or Western Europe and you better sell all of your tech
> stocks because they
> are going to go to hell.  It seems that a bunch of tattooed punctured
> cowboy ignoramusses
> don't contribute muct to the economy.

I see you don't include Blacks in your "kick out" statement.
Is that to imply that if they were kicked out the only difference would 
be less crime?

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Ste wrote:
> On 7 Nov, 04:18, AndrewJH  wrote:
>> Years ago there was a question on an IQ test.  It wen something like
>> this:
>>
>> If you lost your wallet or something valuable in a field how would you
>> go about
>> finding it?  The answer.  You walk in cocentric circles, (getting
>> successfully smaller
>> until you find it.  
> 
> Does one have to search in a spiral pattern, or would any systematic
> pattern suffice?
> 
> 
>> The perception amongst our erstwhile
>> psychobabblists was that
>> American Indians must have been stupid because they said they could
>> easily
>> track their steps.
> 
> It's interesting that because if you'd asked me the question "how do
> you find the wallet", I'd have said "you look for it", and if that
> didn't suffice then the next thing I'd have said would have been "you
> retrace your steps". Starting at the edge of the field and visiting
> each corner would usually be an absurd waste of time. Of course, IQ
> tests aren't very amenable to answers that are outside of the box.

The optimal method is to retrace the path and keep retracing it, but 
expanding the route by 1 meter either side with each iteration.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

On 7 Nov, 11:15, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 6 Nov, 23:54, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> >> Ste wrote:
> >>> On 6 Nov, 15:46, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> >>>> Ste wrote:
> >>>>> On 6 Nov, 02:36, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern
> >>>>>>>>>> recognition and prediction
> >>>>>>>>> Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes,
> >>>>>>>>> or do you mean, say, patterns and prediction in human behaviour (i.e.
> >>>>>>>>> the ability to recognise whether a person is trustworthy)?
> >>>>>>>> Patterns in general.
> >>>>>>> But you do realise that no intelligence test tests the pattern that I
> >>>>>>> mentioned (i.e. the ability to discern patterns in human behaviour)?
> >>>>>> I imagine that such tests do exist, probably under the heading
> >>>>>> "emotional intelligence".
> >>>>> Actually you're right - we have "EQ" for example. So I did some
> >>>>> research quickly, and apparently minority groups tend to do slightly
> >>>>> (but not significantly) better in EQ tests. If we accept that EQ is a
> >>>>> valid "intelligence" measure, then it seems to me we're already on our
> >>>>> way to accepting that IQ does not measure "intelligence" in any
> >>>>> generalised sense, but measures some specific, narrow abilities.
> >>>>> But what of the contention that IQ is a measurement (or a proxy
> >>>>> measurement) of certain specific cognitive abilities that happen to be
> >>>>> economically useful in Western society at present. Well, they've done
> >>>>> studies on IQ and found that it does not correlate significantly with
> >>>>> future income - so that doesn't tie in very well with the idea that
> >>>>> people with high IQs have especially useful skills.
> >>>> Maybe you should look at the pay of scientists and engineers.
> >>>> Clearly not especially useful skills.
> >>> Maybe we should, because scientists and engineers are often not that
> >>> highly paid at all. They certainly aren't "the rich" of our society.
> >>> And more to the point, IQ does not correlate particularly well with
> >>> being a successful scientist or engineer, or with success at all. So
> >>> the idea that IQ captures some skill of general importance is just
> >>> absurd.
> >> Actually, IQ does correlate strongly with being an engineer or scientist.
>
> > Perhaps engineers and scientists tend to have a higher IQ than average
> > (and incidentally I have a reasonably high IQ and I'm interested in
> > many types of engineering - including "social engineering" I suppose),
> > but that is not the same as saying people with a higher IQ tend to
> > become engineers or scientists. And as I said, once we look at *income
> > or wealth*, there is no relationship at all with IQ.
>
> But one can say with certainty that people with low IQ do not become
> qualified engineers or scientists.

One can say with some degree of accuracy that there is an inverse
correlation between IQ and the likelihood of being an engineer or
scientist. However, there is some evidence to suggest that people
acquire a high IQ by virtue of becoming skilled in scientific and
engineering type tasks, and therefore to say people with a low IQ
don't go on to become scientists or engineers is to put the cart
before the horse - it certainly seems to be more correct to say that
engineers and scientists don't go on to have a low IQ.

In any event, I'm still struggling here to get to the nub of the issue
of why you think that having the *best* scientists or engineers is so
important, as opposed to having merely good or even mediocre
scientists and engineers.



> >>>>> So I'm still confused here. Blacks on average measure lower on IQ
> >>>>> tests, which measures some subset of pattern-recognition behaviour.
> >>>>> And (I ask rhetorically) do we draw from that the conclusion that
> >>>>> blacks are stupid and should be sent back from whence they came?
> >>>> We draw from that that Blacks are worse placed to function in a
> >>>> technological society.
> >>> By the same argument, so would people with low IQs generally. Surely,
> >>> if we were considering such a solution at all, it would make more
> >>> sense simply to eject all those with a low IQ?
> >> I'm not suggesting ejecting anyone.
> >> OTOH I would suggest not letting in the unskilled, which does correlate
> >> strongly with low IQ.
>
> > Yes, but there's an argument there that they have a low IQ *because*
> > they are unskilled, untrained, uneducated. What is more, there is
> > demand in our economy for cheap, unskilled labour. If we don't allow
> > cheap, unskilled immigrants in (and I'm not necessarily saying that we
> > should allow them in), then who does those jobs?
>
> We import unskilled labour because it is *cheap*.

Indeed. I certainly agree that this is the agenda behind it.



> If we did not import that labour either the jobs would not get done ie
> we can do without them, or the wages would rise. I would certainly
> consider cleaning toilets for my profession if I was paid £100k a year.

I imagine I would too. But you do realise that this would be fatal to
the economy?



> >>> Also, why is it exactly that our society requires scientists and
> >>> engineers with such a high degree of ability? Could we genuinely not
> >>> make do with people who are just a teeny-bit less able?
> >> Why not - Africa does.
>
> > Yes, but it seems we're going back to this leap of logic that all of
> > Africa's problems are caused by low IQ, when of course that is still
>
> Not all caused by low IQ, but certainly vastly exacerbated.

On what evidence? Where is your evidence to suggest that social
disorder is caused by low IQ? Is Africa really so war-torn simply
because people in those societies are marginally less able to rotate
geometric shapes in their mind? Are there not more compelling
explanations available amongst all the wealth of Western learning?



> No other area in the world has such chronic problems and can so little
> help itself.

What country can help itself when it is pillaged so heavily by other
nations? As I say, even to this day the West continues to make loans
at huge interest rates to dictators mostly for their personal use, and
the cost of repayment cripples their whole economies. And you'll
remember that the crippling reparations imposed on the German economy,
and it's resulting dire condition, were substantially responsible for
Hitler's rise to power.



> In fact, lots of nations have had far worse colonial
> experiences than much of Africa eg Vietnam, Korea, large parts of China,
> S America etc and are doing well.

That depends - and again I think you're tending towards simplistic
comparisons. The aborigines haven't done that well in North America.
Countless jungle tribes have become completely extinct in South
America. China is subject to a brutal dictatorship where millions have
died. North Korea's government is considered one of the most dangerous
on earth, etc. And as I say, many of these African countries are
barely 30 years out of civil wars or independence struggles - as I
say, to explain the problem one has to look to history and the
political circumstances, and it is absurd to explain things like
political instability in terms of African people simply being stupid.



> > under dispute (and actually I'll be frank and say I find the
> > explanation ludicrous). Indeed, when you bear in mind that studies
> > have suggested that, by today's standards, the average IQ of an
> > Englishman in 1900 was something like 58, and we certainly weren't
> > living in a way comparible to any modern-day African state - indeed we
> > were one of the most economically and socially advanced nations in the
> > world.
>
> Flynn Effect.
> That's why I think the real gap between Africans and everyone else is
> actually smaller than apparently currently exists.

Indeed.



> >>>>>>>> Obviously some people will be stronger in some areas and weaker in
> >>>>>>>> others. However, in a technological society the more abstract pattern
> >>>>>>>> recognition and prediction is essential. That includes everything from
> >>>>>>>> reading skills to mathematics to technology in general.
> >>>>>>> Such abilities may be useful, but they are by no means "essential" in
> >>>>>>> any fundamental sense.
> >>>>>> They are to society in general.
> >>>>> But as I've just found out, the research seems to suggest that IQ is
> >>>>> *not* correlated significantly with income. So these abilities can't
> >>>>> be all that useful to the economy, otherwise surely they'd be more
> >>>>> highly paid.
> >>>> You are assuming that income correlates to social usefulness.
> >>>> Bankers?
> >>> Well we certainly agree. But then what is social usefulnesss?
> >> In measurable terms, those who increase the wealth of society as a whole
> >> or directly facilitate those who do.
>
> > But do we then measure social usefulness by a person's income or
> > wealth? Or do you mean "wealth" measured in some way other than by the
> > market economy?
>
> Wealth measured by overall economic input from the sector they are
> employed in.

You mean economic output? If so, why *should* we judge usefulness by
economic output? And I ask because, for example, studies have shown
that people's life satisfaction is not enhanced by economic growth.



> > And moreover, what if you have someone who is useless at one moment in
> > time, but may be useful in the future when circumstances change? Do
> > you support them in the interim (even though they presently have no
> > contribution to make)?
>
> I don't think that suddenly low IQ people are going to become a gold
> mine no matter what happens in future.

What if you have a war, and you need infantrymen?

And on a different prong, what is a gold mine? As I said above,
increased economic output does not make people more satisfied with
their lives. What good is a brilliant engineer who doubles
productivity, and makes no one any happier?



> >>>>>>>>>> leading to positive adaptive solutions to
> >>>>>>>>>> problems.
> >>>>>>>>> Positive for whom?
> >>>>>>>> Positive for the person trying to solve the problem.
> >>>>>>> So are black men who turn to crime or rioting making a "positive
> >>>>>>> adaptation" to their circumstances?
> >>>>>> Only if they are successful.
> >>>>> What if they are doing something that has a *chance* of being
> >>>>> successful, but where success is not guaranteed? Are people who take
> >>>>> risks engaging in "negative adaptation"?
> >>>> Depends on the penalties for failure.
> >>> What if the penalty for *not* taking the chance is being an
> >>> evolutionary dead end? In other words, let's say taking the risk
> >>> involves a chance of success, and also a chance of failing and
> >>> therefore being an evolutionary dead end. Let's also say that, if one
> >>> doesn't take the risk at all, the penalty is being an evolutionary
> >>> dead end. Is it then positively adaptive to take the risk, even if the
> >>> face of *any* penalty, because failing to take the risk will incur the
> >>> same penalty for sure?
> >> Not having children makes on an evolutionary dead end.
>
> > I know, which is why successful crime pays, because it often brings
> > with it status, money, and sex. Of course I don't want to over-
> > simplify human behaviour, but if you imagine that poverty is akin to
> > an evolutionary concentration camp, it becomes more easy to see why
> > people take apparently absurd risks to escape from it, because
> > waiting, or complying with the camp rules, is likely to have an
> > adverse effect on survival (especially once the screw is turned
> > tighter and tighter, which it would be but for the opposing resistance
> > of the people within the camp). If even only one in 100 escape from
> > the camp, over the long term the survivors of the camp will number one
> > instead of zero.
>
> > I think when you look at things like the Brixton riots, it's easier to
> > see it in terms of the screw being turned tighter and tighter by the
> > authorities, and hence the ultimatum given that things change or else.
>
> The problem with Blacks and crime probably has more to do with higher
> testosterone levels than anything else. That is, using testosterone as a
> correlate to aggression and impulsiveness in the males.

Yes, but even if we accept that, high testosterone levels may have
been selected for, for the very reason that they produce behaviours
that are beneficial for survival under those conditions. As I say,
when people are getting the screw turned on them, the reaction one
would expect from them according to evolutionary theory is that they
will start resisting the turn of the screw (and the more the screw
continues to turn, the more extreme the resistance will become).



> Couple that with
> lower IQ and you get what you might expect.

We seem to be back to this IQ issue again. I don't see *any*
expectation or inference that can be drawn from a person having a low
IQ. Why would you expect a person with a low IQ to behave differently
in any way from a person with high IQ? This "expectation" really is
the elephant in the room here.

On 7 Nov, 11:18, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 7 Nov, 04:18, AndrewJH  wrote:
> >> Years ago there was a question on an IQ test.  It wen something like
> >> this:
>
> >> If you lost your wallet or something valuable in a field how would you
> >> go about
> >> finding it?  The answer.  You walk in cocentric circles, (getting
> >> successfully smaller
> >> until you find it.  
>
> > Does one have to search in a spiral pattern, or would any systematic
> > pattern suffice?
>
> >> The perception amongst our erstwhile
> >> psychobabblists was that
> >> American Indians must have been stupid because they said they could
> >> easily
> >> track their steps.
>
> > It's interesting that because if you'd asked me the question "how do
> > you find the wallet", I'd have said "you look for it", and if that
> > didn't suffice then the next thing I'd have said would have been "you
> > retrace your steps". Starting at the edge of the field and visiting
> > each corner would usually be an absurd waste of time. Of course, IQ
> > tests aren't very amenable to answers that are outside of the box.
>
> The optimal method is to retrace the path and keep retracing it, but
> expanding the route by 1 meter either side with each iteration.

I agree. The only time the spiral pattern would be at all tolerable is
if you had, for example, played a game of football on the field,
travelling to and from all edges, and did not know when the wallet had
dropped (and thus it could literally be anywhere on the field). But
even then, I would be inclined to start at one edge, and go up and
down in a snaking fashion, rather than a spiral pattern where it would
be incredibly difficult to maintain an accurate and effective path.

Indeed, the spiral pattern is attractive only in abstract theory, when
of course "intelligence" has to be about what is most effective in the
real world. I recall an anecdote about a brilliant mathematician, and
an uneducated but successful businessman, who together watch a coin be
tossed 10 times with heads resulting each time. They're then asked
what the odds are of a tails result on the next throw, and the
mathematician says energetically "50:50 - previous results do not
affect future odds", and the businessman says "Pff! I'd say very
little chance of a tails. The coin is clearly weighted".

Of course either of them may be right depending on the circumstances,
but therein lies the cultural subjectivity of the question - the
businessman, due to his experience of dealing with all sorts of people
in the real world, thinks it more likely to be a trick than just an
unusual sequence of results, whereas the mathematician, accustomed to
reasoning over abstract rules with honest colleagues, probably doesn't
even imagine the possibility of a trick. Neither can be sure, but each
immediately and implicitly assumes that the circumstances will be
similar to those they have commonly experienced before in their
cultural background.

Ste wrote:
> On 7 Nov, 11:15, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>>> On 6 Nov, 23:54, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>>>> Ste wrote:
>>>>> On 6 Nov, 15:46, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>>>>>> Ste wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6 Nov, 02:36, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern
>>>>>>>>>>>> recognition and prediction
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes,
>>>>>>>>>>> or do you mean, say, patterns and prediction in human behaviour (i.e.
>>>>>>>>>>> the ability to recognise whether a person is trustworthy)?
>>>>>>>>>> Patterns in general.
>>>>>>>>> But you do realise that no intelligence test tests the pattern that I
>>>>>>>>> mentioned (i.e. the ability to discern patterns in human behaviour)?
>>>>>>>> I imagine that such tests do exist, probably under the heading
>>>>>>>> "emotional intelligence".
>>>>>>> Actually you're right - we have "EQ" for example. So I did some
>>>>>>> research quickly, and apparently minority groups tend to do slightly
>>>>>>> (but not significantly) better in EQ tests. If we accept that EQ is a
>>>>>>> valid "intelligence" measure, then it seems to me we're already on our
>>>>>>> way to accepting that IQ does not measure "intelligence" in any
>>>>>>> generalised sense, but measures some specific, narrow abilities.
>>>>>>> But what of the contention that IQ is a measurement (or a proxy
>>>>>>> measurement) of certain specific cognitive abilities that happen to be
>>>>>>> economically useful in Western society at present. Well, they've done
>>>>>>> studies on IQ and found that it does not correlate significantly with
>>>>>>> future income - so that doesn't tie in very well with the idea that
>>>>>>> people with high IQs have especially useful skills.
>>>>>> Maybe you should look at the pay of scientists and engineers.
>>>>>> Clearly not especially useful skills.
>>>>> Maybe we should, because scientists and engineers are often not that
>>>>> highly paid at all. They certainly aren't "the rich" of our society.
>>>>> And more to the point, IQ does not correlate particularly well with
>>>>> being a successful scientist or engineer, or with success at all. So
>>>>> the idea that IQ captures some skill of general importance is just
>>>>> absurd.
>>>> Actually, IQ does correlate strongly with being an engineer or scientist.
>>> Perhaps engineers and scientists tend to have a higher IQ than average
>>> (and incidentally I have a reasonably high IQ and I'm interested in
>>> many types of engineering - including "social engineering" I suppose),
>>> but that is not the same as saying people with a higher IQ tend to
>>> become engineers or scientists. And as I said, once we look at *income
>>> or wealth*, there is no relationship at all with IQ.
>> But one can say with certainty that people with low IQ do not become
>> qualified engineers or scientists.
> 
> One can say with some degree of accuracy that there is an inverse
> correlation between IQ and the likelihood of being an engineer or
> scientist. However, there is some evidence to suggest that people
> acquire a high IQ by virtue of becoming skilled in scientific and
> engineering type tasks, and therefore to say people with a low IQ
> don't go on to become scientists or engineers is to put the cart
> before the horse - it certainly seems to be more correct to say that
> engineers and scientists don't go on to have a low IQ.
> 
> In any event, I'm still struggling here to get to the nub of the issue
> of why you think that having the *best* scientists or engineers is so
> important, as opposed to having merely good or even mediocre
> scientists and engineers.

Because the world is becoming a harsher and more competitive place.
The West could, for the last few centuries, afford the mediocre. Soon we 
will be competing with Asia, which is generally committed to excellence. 
The Chinese approach to everything is rapacious beyond belief - ask 
people who know first hand. That's our coming world.


>>>>>>> So I'm still confused here. Blacks on average measure lower on IQ
>>>>>>> tests, which measures some subset of pattern-recognition behaviour.
>>>>>>> And (I ask rhetorically) do we draw from that the conclusion that
>>>>>>> blacks are stupid and should be sent back from whence they came?
>>>>>> We draw from that that Blacks are worse placed to function in a
>>>>>> technological society.
>>>>> By the same argument, so would people with low IQs generally. Surely,
>>>>> if we were considering such a solution at all, it would make more
>>>>> sense simply to eject all those with a low IQ?
>>>> I'm not suggesting ejecting anyone.
>>>> OTOH I would suggest not letting in the unskilled, which does correlate
>>>> strongly with low IQ.
>>> Yes, but there's an argument there that they have a low IQ *because*
>>> they are unskilled, untrained, uneducated. What is more, there is
>>> demand in our economy for cheap, unskilled labour. If we don't allow
>>> cheap, unskilled immigrants in (and I'm not necessarily saying that we
>>> should allow them in), then who does those jobs?
>> We import unskilled labour because it is *cheap*.
> 
> Indeed. I certainly agree that this is the agenda behind it.
> 
> 
> 
>> If we did not import that labour either the jobs would not get done ie
>> we can do without them, or the wages would rise. I would certainly
>> consider cleaning toilets for my profession if I was paid £100k a year.
> 
> I imagine I would too. But you do realise that this would be fatal to
> the economy?

I suggest that it would actually mop up our own mediocre and low IQ 
people, as well as culling jobs not worth doing.
Indeed, the price of a Big Mac might double.


>>>>> Also, why is it exactly that our society requires scientists and
>>>>> engineers with such a high degree of ability? Could we genuinely not
>>>>> make do with people who are just a teeny-bit less able?
>>>> Why not - Africa does.
>>> Yes, but it seems we're going back to this leap of logic that all of
>>> Africa's problems are caused by low IQ, when of course that is still
>> Not all caused by low IQ, but certainly vastly exacerbated.
> 
> On what evidence? Where is your evidence to suggest that social
> disorder is caused by low IQ? Is Africa really so war-torn simply
> because people in those societies are marginally less able to rotate
> geometric shapes in their mind? Are there not more compelling
> explanations available amongst all the wealth of Western learning?

It's the inability to make things work. the more complex the task, the 
higher IQ it requires.
If there are not enough people of high IQ the complex stuff stops working.


>> No other area in the world has such chronic problems and can so little
>> help itself.
> 
> What country can help itself when it is pillaged so heavily by other
> nations? As I say, even to this day the West continues to make loans

Like India? S America? Virtually all of Asia?

> at huge interest rates to dictators mostly for their personal use, and
> the cost of repayment cripples their whole economies. And you'll
> remember that the crippling reparations imposed on the German economy,
> and it's resulting dire condition, were substantially responsible for
> Hitler's rise to power.

And Hitler got them out from under in less than 5 years.

>> In fact, lots of nations have had far worse colonial
>> experiences than much of Africa eg Vietnam, Korea, large parts of China,
>> S America etc and are doing well.
> 
> That depends - and again I think you're tending towards simplistic
> comparisons. The aborigines haven't done that well in North America.
> Countless jungle tribes have become completely extinct in South
> America. China is subject to a brutal dictatorship where millions have
> died. North Korea's government is considered one of the most dangerous
> on earth, etc. And as I say, many of these African countries are
> barely 30 years out of civil wars or independence struggles - as I
> say, to explain the problem one has to look to history and the
> political circumstances, and it is absurd to explain things like
> political instability in terms of African people simply being stupid.

Like I said, it's a factor.

>>> under dispute (and actually I'll be frank and say I find the
>>> explanation ludicrous). Indeed, when you bear in mind that studies
>>> have suggested that, by today's standards, the average IQ of an
>>> Englishman in 1900 was something like 58, and we certainly weren't
>>> living in a way comparible to any modern-day African state - indeed we
>>> were one of the most economically and socially advanced nations in the
>>> world.
>> Flynn Effect.
>> That's why I think the real gap between Africans and everyone else is
>> actually smaller than apparently currently exists.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously some people will be stronger in some areas and weaker in
>>>>>>>>>> others. However, in a technological society the more abstract pattern
>>>>>>>>>> recognition and prediction is essential. That includes everything from
>>>>>>>>>> reading skills to mathematics to technology in general.
>>>>>>>>> Such abilities may be useful, but they are by no means "essential" in
>>>>>>>>> any fundamental sense.
>>>>>>>> They are to society in general.
>>>>>>> But as I've just found out, the research seems to suggest that IQ is
>>>>>>> *not* correlated significantly with income. So these abilities can't
>>>>>>> be all that useful to the economy, otherwise surely they'd be more
>>>>>>> highly paid.
>>>>>> You are assuming that income correlates to social usefulness.
>>>>>> Bankers?
>>>>> Well we certainly agree. But then what is social usefulnesss?
>>>> In measurable terms, those who increase the wealth of society as a whole
>>>> or directly facilitate those who do.
>>> But do we then measure social usefulness by a person's income or
>>> wealth? Or do you mean "wealth" measured in some way other than by the
>>> market economy?
>> Wealth measured by overall economic input from the sector they are
>> employed in.
> 
> You mean economic output? If so, why *should* we judge usefulness by
> economic output? And I ask because, for example, studies have shown
> that people's life satisfaction is not enhanced by economic growth.

Ask people who are starving.

>>> And moreover, what if you have someone who is useless at one moment in
>>> time, but may be useful in the future when circumstances change? Do
>>> you support them in the interim (even though they presently have no
>>> contribution to make)?
>> I don't think that suddenly low IQ people are going to become a gold
>> mine no matter what happens in future.
> 
> What if you have a war, and you need infantrymen?

In wars the men with highest IQs suffer the highest casualties.
Besides, WW1 style mass infantry wars can no longer be fought.

> And on a different prong, what is a gold mine? As I said above,
> increased economic output does not make people more satisfied with
> their lives. What good is a brilliant engineer who doubles
> productivity, and makes no one any happier?

I rather think that an engineer who doubles productivity is likely to 
make more people happier than not.

>>>>>>>>>>>> leading to positive adaptive solutions to
>>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
>>>>>>>>>>> Positive for whom?
>>>>>>>>>> Positive for the person trying to solve the problem.
>>>>>>>>> So are black men who turn to crime or rioting making a "positive
>>>>>>>>> adaptation" to their circumstances?
>>>>>>>> Only if they are successful.
>>>>>>> What if they are doing something that has a *chance* of being
>>>>>>> successful, but where success is not guaranteed? Are people who take
>>>>>>> risks engaging in "negative adaptation"?
>>>>>> Depends on the penalties for failure.
>>>>> What if the penalty for *not* taking the chance is being an
>>>>> evolutionary dead end? In other words, let's say taking the risk
>>>>> involves a chance of success, and also a chance of failing and
>>>>> therefore being an evolutionary dead end. Let's also say that, if one
>>>>> doesn't take the risk at all, the penalty is being an evolutionary
>>>>> dead end. Is it then positively adaptive to take the risk, even if the
>>>>> face of *any* penalty, because failing to take the risk will incur the
>>>>> same penalty for sure?
>>>> Not having children makes on an evolutionary dead end.
>>> I know, which is why successful crime pays, because it often brings
>>> with it status, money, and sex. Of course I don't want to over-
>>> simplify human behaviour, but if you imagine that poverty is akin to
>>> an evolutionary concentration camp, it becomes more easy to see why
>>> people take apparently absurd risks to escape from it, because
>>> waiting, or complying with the camp rules, is likely to have an
>>> adverse effect on survival (especially once the screw is turned
>>> tighter and tighter, which it would be but for the opposing resistance
>>> of the people within the camp). If even only one in 100 escape from
>>> the camp, over the long term the survivors of the camp will number one
>>> instead of zero.
>>> I think when you look at things like the Brixton riots, it's easier to
>>> see it in terms of the screw being turned tighter and tighter by the
>>> authorities, and hence the ultimatum given that things change or else.
>> The problem with Blacks and crime probably has more to do with higher
>> testosterone levels than anything else. That is, using testosterone as a
>> correlate to aggression and impulsiveness in the males.
> 
> Yes, but even if we accept that, high testosterone levels may have
> been selected for, for the very reason that they produce behaviours
> that are beneficial for survival under those conditions. As I say,
> when people are getting the screw turned on them, the reaction one
> would expect from them according to evolutionary theory is that they
> will start resisting the turn of the screw (and the more the screw
> continues to turn, the more extreme the resistance will become).

In which case they are unsuited for the kind of societies we have in the 
West and most of Asia.

>> Couple that with
>> lower IQ and you get what you might expect.
> 
> We seem to be back to this IQ issue again. I don't see *any*
> expectation or inference that can be drawn from a person having a low
> IQ. Why would you expect a person with a low IQ to behave differently
> in any way from a person with high IQ? This "expectation" really is
> the elephant in the room here.

I expect people of low IQ to have less ability to reason through complex 
chains of cause and effect than people with high IQ.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Ste wrote:
> On 7 Nov, 11:18, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>>> On 7 Nov, 04:18, AndrewJH  wrote:
>>>> Years ago there was a question on an IQ test.  It wen something like
>>>> this:
>>>> If you lost your wallet or something valuable in a field how would you
>>>> go about
>>>> finding it?  The answer.  You walk in cocentric circles, (getting
>>>> successfully smaller
>>>> until you find it.  
>>> Does one have to search in a spiral pattern, or would any systematic
>>> pattern suffice?
>>>> The perception amongst our erstwhile
>>>> psychobabblists was that
>>>> American Indians must have been stupid because they said they could
>>>> easily
>>>> track their steps.
>>> It's interesting that because if you'd asked me the question "how do
>>> you find the wallet", I'd have said "you look for it", and if that
>>> didn't suffice then the next thing I'd have said would have been "you
>>> retrace your steps". Starting at the edge of the field and visiting
>>> each corner would usually be an absurd waste of time. Of course, IQ
>>> tests aren't very amenable to answers that are outside of the box.
>> The optimal method is to retrace the path and keep retracing it, but
>> expanding the route by 1 meter either side with each iteration.
> 
> I agree. The only time the spiral pattern would be at all tolerable is
> if you had, for example, played a game of football on the field,
> travelling to and from all edges, and did not know when the wallet had
> dropped (and thus it could literally be anywhere on the field). But
> even then, I would be inclined to start at one edge, and go up and
> down in a snaking fashion, rather than a spiral pattern where it would
> be incredibly difficult to maintain an accurate and effective path.

Even then I'm not sure how that would compare to a binary chop, dividing 
the field into repeated halves


-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

On 7 Nov, 14:42, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 7 Nov, 11:18, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> >> Ste wrote:
> >>> On 7 Nov, 04:18, AndrewJH  wrote:
> >>>> Years ago there was a question on an IQ test.  It wen something like
> >>>> this:
> >>>> If you lost your wallet or something valuable in a field how would you
> >>>> go about
> >>>> finding it?  The answer.  You walk in cocentric circles, (getting
> >>>> successfully smaller
> >>>> until you find it.  
> >>> Does one have to search in a spiral pattern, or would any systematic
> >>> pattern suffice?
> >>>> The perception amongst our erstwhile
> >>>> psychobabblists was that
> >>>> American Indians must have been stupid because they said they could
> >>>> easily
> >>>> track their steps.
> >>> It's interesting that because if you'd asked me the question "how do
> >>> you find the wallet", I'd have said "you look for it", and if that
> >>> didn't suffice then the next thing I'd have said would have been "you
> >>> retrace your steps". Starting at the edge of the field and visiting
> >>> each corner would usually be an absurd waste of time. Of course, IQ
> >>> tests aren't very amenable to answers that are outside of the box.
> >> The optimal method is to retrace the path and keep retracing it, but
> >> expanding the route by 1 meter either side with each iteration.
>
> > I agree. The only time the spiral pattern would be at all tolerable is
> > if you had, for example, played a game of football on the field,
> > travelling to and from all edges, and did not know when the wallet had
> > dropped (and thus it could literally be anywhere on the field). But
> > even then, I would be inclined to start at one edge, and go up and
> > down in a snaking fashion, rather than a spiral pattern where it would
> > be incredibly difficult to maintain an accurate and effective path.
>
> Even then I'm not sure how that would compare to a binary chop, dividing
> the field into repeated halves

I actually had to look that up and was pleasantly surprised to find
that it's a programming technique for searching sorted records.
However, I'm not sure how that applies to searching a field for a
missing wallet, but I'm *very* interested to know.

On Nov 7, 5:02 am, Ste  wrote:
> On 7 Nov, 04:18, AndrewJH  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Years ago there was a question on an IQ test.  It wen something like
> > this:
>
> > If you lost your wallet or something valuable in a field how would you
> > go about
> > finding it?  The answer.  You walk in cocentric circles, (getting
> > successfully smaller
> > until you find it.  
>
> Does one have to search in a spiral pattern, or would any systematic
> pattern suffice?
>
> > The perception amongst our erstwhile
> > psychobabblists was that
> > American Indians must have been stupid because they said they could
> > easily
> > track their steps.
>
> It's interesting that because if you'd asked me the question "how do
> you find the wallet", I'd have said "you look for it", and if that
> didn't suffice then the next thing I'd have said would have been "you
> retrace your steps". Starting at the edge of the field and visiting
> each corner would usually be an absurd waste of time. Of course, IQ
> tests aren't very amenable to answers that are outside of the box.

You would have flunked the question.  That would have put your score
lower.
The point is: Your answer is a very good one, but a psychologists
knows more about
what intelligence is (I am being sarcastic).

On Nov 7, 5:18 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 7 Nov, 04:18, AndrewJH  wrote:
> >> Years ago there was a question on an IQ test.  It wen something like
> >> this:
>
> >> If you lost your wallet or something valuable in a field how would you
> >> go about
> >> finding it?  The answer.  You walk in cocentric circles, (getting
> >> successfully smaller
> >> until you find it.  
>
> > Does one have to search in a spiral pattern, or would any systematic
> > pattern suffice?
>
> >> The perception amongst our erstwhile
> >> psychobabblists was that
> >> American Indians must have been stupid because they said they could
> >> easily
> >> track their steps.
>
> > It's interesting that because if you'd asked me the question "how do
> > you find the wallet", I'd have said "you look for it", and if that
> > didn't suffice then the next thing I'd have said would have been "you
> > retrace your steps". Starting at the edge of the field and visiting
> > each corner would usually be an absurd waste of time. Of course, IQ
> > tests aren't very amenable to answers that are outside of the box.
>
> The optimal method is to retrace the path and keep retracing it, but
> expanding the route by 1 meter either side with each iteration.
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wrong answer.  Schedule an appointment with Dr. Phil.  Bring Crazy
Horse with you.  Maybe he will help redefining intelligence.

On 7 Nov, 14:40, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 7 Nov, 11:15, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> >> Ste wrote:
> >>> On 6 Nov, 23:54, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> >>>> Ste wrote:
> >>>>> On 6 Nov, 15:46, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> >>>>>> Ste wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 6 Nov, 02:36, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I would say intelligence is a range of abilities involving pattern
> >>>>>>>>>>>> recognition and prediction
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes,
> >>>>>>>>>>> or do you mean, say, patterns and prediction in human behaviour (i.e.
> >>>>>>>>>>> the ability to recognise whether a person is trustworthy)?
> >>>>>>>>>> Patterns in general.
> >>>>>>>>> But you do realise that no intelligence test tests the pattern that I
> >>>>>>>>> mentioned (i.e. the ability to discern patterns in human behaviour)?
> >>>>>>>> I imagine that such tests do exist, probably under the heading
> >>>>>>>> "emotional intelligence".
> >>>>>>> Actually you're right - we have "EQ" for example. So I did some
> >>>>>>> research quickly, and apparently minority groups tend to do slightly
> >>>>>>> (but not significantly) better in EQ tests. If we accept that EQ is a
> >>>>>>> valid "intelligence" measure, then it seems to me we're already on our
> >>>>>>> way to accepting that IQ does not measure "intelligence" in any
> >>>>>>> generalised sense, but measures some specific, narrow abilities.
> >>>>>>> But what of the contention that IQ is a measurement (or a proxy
> >>>>>>> measurement) of certain specific cognitive abilities that happen to be
> >>>>>>> economically useful in Western society at present. Well, they've done
> >>>>>>> studies on IQ and found that it does not correlate significantly with
> >>>>>>> future income - so that doesn't tie in very well with the idea that
> >>>>>>> people with high IQs have especially useful skills.
> >>>>>> Maybe you should look at the pay of scientists and engineers.
> >>>>>> Clearly not especially useful skills.
> >>>>> Maybe we should, because scientists and engineers are often not that
> >>>>> highly paid at all. They certainly aren't "the rich" of our society> >>>>> And more to the point, IQ does not correlate particularly well with
> >>>>> being a successful scientist or engineer, or with success at all. So
> >>>>> the idea that IQ captures some skill of general importance is just
> >>>>> absurd.
> >>>> Actually, IQ does correlate strongly with being an engineer or scientist.
> >>> Perhaps engineers and scientists tend to have a higher IQ than average
> >>> (and incidentally I have a reasonably high IQ and I'm interested in
> >>> many types of engineering - including "social engineering" I suppose)> >>> but that is not the same as saying people with a higher IQ tend to
> >>> become engineers or scientists. And as I said, once we look at *income
> >>> or wealth*, there is no relationship at all with IQ.
> >> But one can say with certainty that people with low IQ do not become
> >> qualified engineers or scientists.
>
> > One can say with some degree of accuracy that there is an inverse
> > correlation between IQ and the likelihood of being an engineer or
> > scientist. However, there is some evidence to suggest that people
> > acquire a high IQ by virtue of becoming skilled in scientific and
> > engineering type tasks, and therefore to say people with a low IQ
> > don't go on to become scientists or engineers is to put the cart
> > before the horse - it certainly seems to be more correct to say that
> > engineers and scientists don't go on to have a low IQ.
>
> > In any event, I'm still struggling here to get to the nub of the issue
> > of why you think that having the *best* scientists or engineers is so
> > important, as opposed to having merely good or even mediocre
> > scientists and engineers.
>
> Because the world is becoming a harsher and more competitive place.

As a result of what, or whom?


> The West could, for the last few centuries, afford the mediocre. Soon we
> will be competing with Asia, which is generally committed to excellence.
> The Chinese approach to everything is rapacious beyond belief - ask
> people who know first hand. That's our coming world.

The advance of the Chinese has relied on cheap exports. If, as a
result of that, we see ourselves eventually coming into conflict with
them in the future, then why are we continuing to strengthen them?



> >>>>>>> So I'm still confused here. Blacks on average measure lower on IQ
> >>>>>>> tests, which measures some subset of pattern-recognition behaviour.
> >>>>>>> And (I ask rhetorically) do we draw from that the conclusion that
> >>>>>>> blacks are stupid and should be sent back from whence they came?
> >>>>>> We draw from that that Blacks are worse placed to function in a
> >>>>>> technological society.
> >>>>> By the same argument, so would people with low IQs generally. Surely,
> >>>>> if we were considering such a solution at all, it would make more
> >>>>> sense simply to eject all those with a low IQ?
> >>>> I'm not suggesting ejecting anyone.
> >>>> OTOH I would suggest not letting in the unskilled, which does correlate
> >>>> strongly with low IQ.
> >>> Yes, but there's an argument there that they have a low IQ *because*
> >>> they are unskilled, untrained, uneducated. What is more, there is
> >>> demand in our economy for cheap, unskilled labour. If we don't allow
> >>> cheap, unskilled immigrants in (and I'm not necessarily saying that we
> >>> should allow them in), then who does those jobs?
> >> We import unskilled labour because it is *cheap*.
>
> > Indeed. I certainly agree that this is the agenda behind it.
>
> >> If we did not import that labour either the jobs would not get done ie
> >> we can do without them, or the wages would rise. I would certainly
> >> consider cleaning toilets for my profession if I was paid £100k a year.
>
> > I imagine I would too. But you do realise that this would be fatal to
> > the economy?
>
> I suggest that it would actually mop up our own mediocre and low IQ
> people, as well as culling jobs not worth doing.

How would this work? And, once again, *why* would we want to do it?


> Indeed, the price of a Big Mac might double.

Lol.



> >>>>> Also, why is it exactly that our society requires scientists and
> >>>>> engineers with such a high degree of ability? Could we genuinely not
> >>>>> make do with people who are just a teeny-bit less able?
> >>>> Why not - Africa does.
> >>> Yes, but it seems we're going back to this leap of logic that all of
> >>> Africa's problems are caused by low IQ, when of course that is still
> >> Not all caused by low IQ, but certainly vastly exacerbated.
>
> > On what evidence? Where is your evidence to suggest that social
> > disorder is caused by low IQ? Is Africa really so war-torn simply
> > because people in those societies are marginally less able to rotate
> > geometric shapes in their mind? Are there not more compelling
> > explanations available amongst all the wealth of Western learning?
>
> It's the inability to make things work.

But even the greatest empires and dynasties have eventually succumbed
to "an inability to make things work". The Roman empire for example
didn't fall because IQ suddenly dropped, it was simply because the
practical reality of the matter meant it could no longer offer its
citizens the fruits of cooperation that had been the source of its
strength and support.



> the more complex the task, the
> higher IQ it requires.
> If there are not enough people of high IQ the complex stuff stops workingWhat "complex stuff" are you talking about? (I assume you mean society
itself, but it's best to confirm.)



> >> No other area in the world has such chronic problems and can so little
> >> help itself.
>
> > What country can help itself when it is pillaged so heavily by other
> > nations? As I say, even to this day the West continues to make loans
>
> Like India? S America? Virtually all of Asia?

None of those regions are as politically unstable as Africa.



> > at huge interest rates to dictators mostly for their personal use, and
> > the cost of repayment cripples their whole economies. And you'll
> > remember that the crippling reparations imposed on the German economy,
> > and it's resulting dire condition, were substantially responsible for
> > Hitler's rise to power.
>
> And Hitler got them out from under in less than 5 years.

Indeed he did, but he was also responsible for sparking one of the
most destructive wars in the history of mankind. And if he had won the
war, it would not have been to the common benefit of all the German
people, but only to certain classes of people - which does not really
seem substantially dissimilar to the tribal allegiances of African
dictators, of which White Spirit earlier spoke disparagingly.



> >> In fact, lots of nations have had far worse colonial
> >> experiences than much of Africa eg Vietnam, Korea, large parts of China,
> >> S America etc and are doing well.
>
> > That depends - and again I think you're tending towards simplistic
> > comparisons. The aborigines haven't done that well in North America.
> > Countless jungle tribes have become completely extinct in South
> > America. China is subject to a brutal dictatorship where millions have
> > died. North Korea's government is considered one of the most dangerous
> > on earth, etc. And as I say, many of these African countries are
> > barely 30 years out of civil wars or independence struggles - as I
> > say, to explain the problem one has to look to history and the
> > political circumstances, and it is absurd to explain things like
> > political instability in terms of African people simply being stupid.
>
> Like I said, it's a factor.

I know you've plainly said that intelligence is a factor, but like La
Place I'm finding that I have no need of that hypothesis, which is why
I'm looking for you to explain to me in some more explicit terms what
link you can see that I don't.




> >>>>>>>>>> Obviously some people will be stronger in some areas and weaker in
> >>>>>>>>>> others. However, in a technological society the more abstract pattern
> >>>>>>>>>> recognition and prediction is essential. That includes everything from
> >>>>>>>>>> reading skills to mathematics to technology in general.
> >>>>>>>>> Such abilities may be useful, but they are by no means "essential" in
> >>>>>>>>> any fundamental sense.
> >>>>>>>> They are to society in general.
> >>>>>>> But as I've just found out, the research seems to suggest that IQ is
> >>>>>>> *not* correlated significantly with income. So these abilities can't
> >>>>>>> be all that useful to the economy, otherwise surely they'd be more
> >>>>>>> highly paid.
> >>>>>> You are assuming that income correlates to social usefulness.
> >>>>>> Bankers?
> >>>>> Well we certainly agree. But then what is social usefulnesss?
> >>>> In measurable terms, those who increase the wealth of society as a whole
> >>>> or directly facilitate those who do.
> >>> But do we then measure social usefulness by a person's income or
> >>> wealth? Or do you mean "wealth" measured in some way other than by the
> >>> market economy?
> >> Wealth measured by overall economic input from the sector they are
> >> employed in.
>
> > You mean economic output? If so, why *should* we judge usefulness by
> > economic output? And I ask because, for example, studies have shown
> > that people's life satisfaction is not enhanced by economic growth.
>
> Ask people who are starving.

But we in the West aren't starving, so it becomes somewhat pointless
to keep measuring "usefulness" by the level of economic output, once
further increments in output are failing to make any material
difference to the issues that matter in people's lives. And indeed,
given that the earth has finite resources, it becomes unnecessarily
destructive of our natural habitat to continue increasing output
beyond the level of need - a bit like chopping a whole forest down
because you need a small amount of firewood for the fire in the front
room.



> >>> And moreover, what if you have someone who is useless at one moment in
> >>> time, but may be useful in the future when circumstances change? Do
> >>> you support them in the interim (even though they presently have no
> >>> contribution to make)?
> >> I don't think that suddenly low IQ people are going to become a gold
> >> mine no matter what happens in future.
>
> > What if you have a war, and you need infantrymen?
>
> In wars the men with highest IQs suffer the highest casualties.

I'm not sure that the men with the *highest* IQs necessarily suffer
the highest casualties. And even people with very low IQs are only
spared insofar as you actually bar the mentally retarded from serving.

And of course the real point I'm making here is that virtually any
individual can be put to use in some way or another, and even what are
considered negative traits in some circumstances are considered
positive in others.



> Besides, WW1 style mass infantry wars can no longer be fought.

I think that shows either a very short term view, or a wholly
unjustified confidence in the future.



> > And on a different prong, what is a gold mine? As I said above,
> > increased economic output does not make people more satisfied with
> > their lives. What good is a brilliant engineer who doubles
> > productivity, and makes no one any happier?
>
> I rather think that an engineer who doubles productivity is likely to
> make more people happier than not.

How so? Would a baker who produced ten loaves of bread per day for
every man, woman, and child, by that fact alone, make everyone happier
than if he produced merely one loaf of bread per person per day? I
mean, it may make the baker himself happy if he saw it as a personal
challenge, but I would expect his activity to have only marginal
social usefulness, and could actually make other people less happy
(farmers and millers, for example, if they have to work ten times as
hard to supply the baker with flour).



> >>>>>>>>>>>> leading to positive adaptive solutions to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Positive for whom?
> >>>>>>>>>> Positive for the person trying to solve the problem.
> >>>>>>>>> So are black men who turn to crime or rioting making a "positive
> >>>>>>>>> adaptation" to their circumstances?
> >>>>>>>> Only if they are successful.
> >>>>>>> What if they are doing something that has a *chance* of being
> >>>>>>> successful, but where success is not guaranteed? Are people who take
> >>>>>>> risks engaging in "negative adaptation"?
> >>>>>> Depends on the penalties for failure.
> >>>>> What if the penalty for *not* taking the chance is being an
> >>>>> evolutionary dead end? In other words, let's say taking the risk
> >>>>> involves a chance of success, and also a chance of failing and
> >>>>> therefore being an evolutionary dead end. Let's also say that, if one
> >>>>> doesn't take the risk at all, the penalty is being an evolutionary
> >>>>> dead end. Is it then positively adaptive to take the risk, even if the
> >>>>> face of *any* penalty, because failing to take the risk will incur the
> >>>>> same penalty for sure?
> >>>> Not having children makes on an evolutionary dead end.
> >>> I know, which is why successful crime pays, because it often brings
> >>> with it status, money, and sex. Of course I don't want to over-
> >>> simplify human behaviour, but if you imagine that poverty is akin to
> >>> an evolutionary concentration camp, it becomes more easy to see why
> >>> people take apparently absurd risks to escape from it, because
> >>> waiting, or complying with the camp rules, is likely to have an
> >>> adverse effect on survival (especially once the screw is turned
> >>> tighter and tighter, which it would be but for the opposing resistance
> >>> of the people within the camp). If even only one in 100 escape from
> >>> the camp, over the long term the survivors of the camp will number one
> >>> instead of zero.
> >>> I think when you look at things like the Brixton riots, it's easier to
> >>> see it in terms of the screw being turned tighter and tighter by the
> >>> authorities, and hence the ultimatum given that things change or else> >> The problem with Blacks and crime probably has more to do with higher
> >> testosterone levels than anything else. That is, using testosterone as a
> >> correlate to aggression and impulsiveness in the males.
>
> > Yes, but even if we accept that, high testosterone levels may have
> > been selected for, for the very reason that they produce behaviours
> > that are beneficial for survival under those conditions. As I say,
> > when people are getting the screw turned on them, the reaction one
> > would expect from them according to evolutionary theory is that they
> > will start resisting the turn of the screw (and the more the screw
> > continues to turn, the more extreme the resistance will become).
>
> In which case they are unsuited for the kind of societies we have in the
> West and most of Asia.

That depends. If you happen to live in the West and you are having the
screw turned on you, or you perceive that the screw *could* be turned
on you, then you might want on your side these "aggressive" men who
will refuse to accept the screw being tightened.

And indeed, if the cause of social discontent is inequality and
repression, then if I were you then I could point the finger at the
"unintelligent" rich and powerful who simply aren't intelligent enough
to share. Of course, I actually have a much more nuanced view than
that.



> >> Couple that with
> >> lower IQ and you get what you might expect.
>
> > We seem to be back to this IQ issue again. I don't see *any*
> > expectation or inference that can be drawn from a person having a low
> > IQ. Why would you expect a person with a low IQ to behave differently
> > in any way from a person with high IQ? This "expectation" really is
> > the elephant in the room here.
>
> I expect people of low IQ to have less ability to reason through complex
> chains of cause and effect than people with high IQ.

But do you have any evidence to support this contention? For example,
can you refer me to any studies where a white man with an average
white IQ, and a black man with an average black IQ, have been asked to
predict the future consequences of their behaviour and there has been
a substantial discrepancy?