Why Do Blacks Dislike, Distrust, Whites?

[Barb]

Blacks on average have the lowest IQ's and the highest testosterone levels of all races of people.

Low IQ and high testosterone is not good for a civil socity.

Neither are ignorance and stupidity which you undoubtedly possess in abundance.

Show he's wrong instead of just saying he's stupid.

Racial inferiority theory is basically a more explicitly prejudiced version of the “cultural underclass” theory.
Statistics show that three to one, white Americans favor the theory of lower ability over discrimination concerning the status of poor black and Hispanic people. The history of racial inferiority theory goes back in time, back and forth between groups and nations, and spans the globe. It remains a popular theory in justifying colonialism abroad, and to explain away the economic disparity between classes and races in the US. It is much easier for some white people to believe that “blacks are poor because they are not smart, and they are not smart because they are black,” rather then try to understand that there are inequities that they benefit from at the expense of others. There is no reliable measurement of intelligence, and where differences in IQ exist, there are no natural causes that cannot be changed by the improvement of socioeconomic and environmental conditions, and in no way explains the 50% lower income of black and Hispanic people on average compared to white people.

Bradley R. Schiller, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination Tenth Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ, US, 2008 172-180

Geneticists believe anthropologists know what a race is, ethnologists assume their racial classifications are backed up by genetics, and politicians believe that their prejudices have the sanction of both genetics and anthropology. Bradley R. Schiller, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination Tenth Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ, US, 2008 Unknown English zoologist cited, 169

 

[kal-el]

gee its funny how you have to drag up what a dead guy did 70 years ago to defend your racists.

Actually, it would be funny if it weren't so damned hypocritical how leftists get a "free pass" on their racism shticks. Byrd was a clan wizard, but because he was a Democrat, it was swept under the rug. Dr. Duke meanwhile, gets constant flak because he was a member some 30 years ago. From my view, the Democrats are the party of concealed racists. They do not wish for any black or brown to succeed, so they keep on giving them freebies. That's why any black that is successful, they are quick to label an "Uncle Tom." Look at Micheal Steele. Now personally, I think the Republicans just put him up to bring in the blacks. Steele is nothing but a token. Or Steele could secretly be working to get Soetoro another term. Ya know, dismantling the enemy from the inside. With all of the stupid things he has said recently, it makes one stop and think.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

where is the proof he was a republican?

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican - HUMAN EVENTS

There's no proof he was ever a Republican, you monkeys need to quit playing with yourselves trying to make believers out of other people's lies.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Prove it.

They seceded from the nation and started war to prove they were better than the slaves.

And lost.

Proof enough?

Thanks for revealing your ignorance to everyone, although I already knew you were ignorant. Although slavery was a small part of the dispute the main reason for the Civil war was because the Confederate States felt that each state should govern themselves. In a nutshell is was about "states rights". But an ignorant fuck like you will never understand it.

While what you say is true, the proximal state's rights issue of the time was slavery. Unfortunately we kept the South in the union, and they poisoned social policy for another century.

They dont distrust whites they distrust the republicans

Really? It was the republicans who fought to have the freed.

Haha good point. It is the democratic party that isn't what it used to be. The Republican party hasn't changed in at least a hundred years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

gee its funny how you have to drag up what a dead guy did 70 years ago to defend your racists.

Actually, it would be funny if it weren't so damned hypocritical how leftists get a "free pass" on their racism shticks. Byrd was a clan wizard, but because he was a Democrat, it was swept under the rug. Dr. Duke meanwhile, gets constant flak because he was a member some 30 years ago. From my view, the Democrats are the party of concealed racists. They do not wish for any black or brown to succeed, so they keep on giving them freebies. That's why any black that is successful, they are quick to label an "Uncle Tom." Look at Micheal Steele. Now personally, I think the Republicans just put him up to bring in the blacks. Steele is nothing but a token. Or Steele could secretly be working to get Soetoro another term. Ya know, dismantling the enemy from the inside. With all of the stupid things he has said recently, it makes one stop and think.

Your misreading of history is exactly the type of thinking that will keep the GOP in the minority for a long time to come. America is becoming younger and darker, committed to the future not the past, and mastering technology. You don't have the numbers now, and the GOP is losing even more numbers every election. A fact is a fact. You are the minority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They seceded from the nation and started war to prove they were better than the slaves.

And lost.

Proof enough?

Thanks for revealing your ignorance to everyone, although I already knew you were ignorant. Although slavery was a small part of the dispute the main reason for the Civil war was because the Confederate States felt that each state should govern themselves. In a nutshell is was about "states rights". But an ignorant fuck like you will never understand it.

While what you say is true, the proximal state's rights issue of the time was slavery. Unfortunately we kept the South in the union, and they poisoned social policy for another century.

They dont distrust whites they distrust the republicans

Really? It was the republicans who fought to have the freed.

Haha good point. It is the democratic party that isn't what it used to be. The Republican party hasn't changed in at least a hundred years.

Lonestar_Logic is correct in that states rights was the right to own other humans.

 

[jeffrockit]

They dont distrust whites they distrust the republicans

And if the Republicans are black they're deemed "Uncle Toms" aka race traitors.

Well they do vote for a party that repeately has worked to keep black people from voting in elections.

And blacks vote for the party that continues to pass entitlement programs that do nothing to help them succeed. You think giving someone something helps them to work harder for anything?

 

[jeffrockit]

Well they do vote for a party that repeately has worked to keep black people from voting in elections.

Truth do me a favor and check out a few things from history.

1) Find out who (president) segregated our armed forces
2) Find out who (senator) filibustered the civil rights act
3) Find out who (president) started a war to end slavery


I'm not attacking your posts i'm just asking you to study up on a little history and I think if you research these things on your own you may learn some stuff you didn't know about.

The republican party used to be a decent party but the last 30 years it has been corrupt.

This is why blacks do not vote for the republcian party anymore.

Blacks don't vote republican because that party is in favor of reducing govt spending which would cut entitlement programs. These same programs that provide services for many minorities. Minorities are being led down the fear path by Democrats telling them that Repubs are going to take away their welfare. The facts are that welfare actually serves to keep minorities from achieving.

 

[Douger]

Hint

 

[topspin]

much to be learned by my white brothers, how long will it take the black man ask the republican. LOFL
You need to learn about the goal of all races coming together, until you learn the full extent of the black man's oppression you are swinging blindly.

I got to keep on walking, on the road to Zion man.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Oh shut your disgusting lying face up, blacks have been bamboozled by both Democrats and Republicans and in this recent age republicans have done exactly nothing to lure black voters into their except to lie about MLK being a Republican and using token Negroes to attract black voters. Just because some blacks are democrats doesn't mean they automatically support most of the BS you just posted you shameless monkey.

Martin Luther King was a registered Republican.

He was *NOT* a Republican


Controversial Ad Links MLK, GOP - washingtonpost.com

You have been smacked down again, a shameless monkey like you ´deserves one thing:

Apparently you're not intelligent enough to read the link I provided. Fact is Martin Luther King was a registered Republican, deny it all you want to but the facts are facts.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Neither are ignorance and stupidity which you undoubtedly possess in abundance.

Show he's wrong instead of just saying he's stupid.

Racial inferiority theory is basically a more explicitly prejudiced version of the “cultural underclass” theory.
Statistics show that three to one, white Americans favor the theory of lower ability over discrimination concerning the status of poor black and Hispanic people. The history of racial inferiority theory goes back in time, back and forth between groups and nations, and spans the globe. It remains a popular theory in justifying colonialism abroad, and to explain away the economic disparity between classes and races in the US. It is much easier for some white people to believe that “blacks are poor because they are not smart, and they are not smart because they are black,” rather then try to understand that there are inequities that they benefit from at the expense of others. There is no reliable measurement of intelligence, and where differences in IQ exist, there are no natural causes that cannot be changed by the improvement of socioeconomic and environmental conditions, and in no way explains the 50% lower income of black and Hispanic people on average compared to white people.

Bradley R. Schiller, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination Tenth Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ, US, 2008 172-180

Geneticists believe anthropologists know what a race is, ethnologists assume their racial classifications are backed up by genetics, and politicians believe that their prejudices have the sanction of both genetics and anthropology. Bradley R. Schiller, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination Tenth Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ, US, 2008 Unknown English zoologist cited, 169

That "theory" proves nothing.

 

[Barb]

Barb honey, i do understand. Remember we are talking about NOW...and how about we narrow it down from the 80's on

That generation, and i would assume 2 or more by now, have NO excuses. You cant continually blame your state of being on the past and FAR past. At some point you have to take responsibility for yourself.

Public school is what you make of it. Do you really think that today's blacks are doing well in school or that their parents care one bit if they succeed? I never had after school programs so that is not an excuse. All teachers must be accredited to teach.

Blacks are not the only ones working while attending college. Not every white person in this world is rich. Its all about the willingness to WORK to get ahead in the world.

To tell you the truth Barb, yes blacks had a GREATER opportunity for everything as i grew up. They had a grater chance for top choice of every program simply because they are black.

The fucked up part is that the blacks didnt/dont HAVE to get good grades to apply to the best of everything. All they need to do is apply themselves and take responsibility for their lives. Get the hell of welfare and entitlement programs get an education and get a job.

Chapter 11: Discrimination in Education
In considering discrimination, racism, and prejudice, it is important to come to a clearly understood definition of terms. “Prejudiced people may or may not discriminate, and discrimination does not necessarily imply the existence of racism.” Discrimination can be passive or unconscious, and prejudice can remain un-acted upon, but when the two come together in a purposeful way, they produce active racism. The “relevancy standard” partially defines racism as “discrimination based on irrelevant criteria.”

In employment, aptitude tests were found to be a discriminatory tool used to cover racist employment practices. In housing, redlining black and Hispanic people out of white communities trapped them in inferior housing and degraded neighborhoods. In past chapters we have seen that wealthier neighborhoods have better public transportation, roads, police protections, schools, grocery stores, and hospitals. The construction and maintenance of low rent housing is deficient, and in many cases, the environment is degraded. If only a few widely dispersed white people discriminated based on race in their preference of neighbors, redlining would not be such a problem, but this type of discrimination is too prevalent to allow the market’s “invisible hand” to sort out.

A 2001 survey of perceptions shows that: 78% of white people do not believe there is discrimination in housing where only 51% of black people feel the same; 85% of white people feel there is no discrimination in education where only 51% of black people feel the same; and 78% of white people feel there is no discrimination in employment, where only 33% of black people feel the same. These perceptions have substantial policy implications, given the racial makeup of Congress and the Supreme Court.
There are significant short-term benefits for individual and groups of white people. Benefits to the ego of those who enjoy privilege and place, maintenance of comfort zones, and economic advantages are of highest importance. However, there is no benefit from discrimination for society as a whole, only costs:

Where discrimination against minorities is pervasive, society as a whole loses potential human capital. The abilities and creativity of the minority communities remain underdeveloped and underemployed. Hence, total output of goods and services is less than it would be in the absence of discrimination. […] In addition, much of the output we do produce is directed to relatively unattractive uses such as the surveillance of homes, streets, jails, and welfare caseloads. Thus, whatever direct gains or losses individual whites incur are overwhelmed by the very large indirect losses to the economy as a whole.

This was a very long block quote, but the points made are of major importance and mutually reliant, so I wanted to keep them together the way they are stated. The willful stifling of over half of our talent degrades our ability to construct a beneficial society, not only economically, but in every measure of social good.
Offensively noticeable discrimination is easier to identify than more subtle and pervasive forms more often practiced today. Discrimination in education, housing, and employment as practiced in the US used to be both, and legitimized by US law. Citizens now enter the education system equally, but upon exiting, there still remains vast inequality. What happens between kindergarten and 12 grade, or college? Segregation is illegal, and supposedly nonexistent, but Schiller points out that one black student in a population of 2,000, or one white student added to a population of 1,999 black students does not add up to integration except on paper, and “racial isolation in the schools is still the hallmark of the American education system.” Moreover, the separateness is still coupled with inequality of building construction and maintenance, supplies, quality and number of teachers, and technology, and integration within the school systems does not always translate to integration within the schools or classrooms.

Past segregation restricted opportunity to develop abilities, and tracking systems and IQ testing traps students in remedial education while schools invest more time and offer greater opportunity for “gifted” students to excel.

Studies undertaken to try to gauge the scope of effective segregation have been exhaustive in detail, yet the findings have been inconclusive as a measure, and all we still know is that school segregation continues to be “major determinants of black achievement and status.”

Racism’s ugly stepbrother is classism, and racial discrimination in the schools is coupled with economic segregation. Housing and the ability to afford it make neighborhoods more stratified by economic class then racial makeup, and the discussion above about disparities in public goods and services apply here as well. The way school budgets are allocated, students attending schools in poor communities receive lower shares of funding, and like those students discriminated against based on race, work with poorer supplies, uncertified and fewer teachers, outdated technologies, and low expectations of reward for hard work.

The dropout rate for poor students in K-12th grades is twice as high as that for non-poor students, and those who do make it to graduation day often cannot afford the cost in tuition and time away from employment to attend college, and the disparity in college attendance rates has more to do with economic class than it does racial demographics. While flawed and prejudicial theories regarding the ability of minority students, similar to assumptions made regarding minorities, color the perceptions society has of the poor, Schiller explained that many talented but economically disadvantaged students do not enjoy the same opportunities wealthier student do.

Children do not control family finances or where they attend primary and secondary education, but the flawed character theory as applied to parents poisons the social well for the children. This is grossly unfair, and speaks to the discussion question regarding our treatment of children. It seems that support for income maintenance programs for the sick, disabled, and elderly are highly favored by society while aid programs that help children are widely unpopular. Because anything done to help the children of the poor also helps their parents, often viewed to be “undeserving,” and the children are thus denied the support (or even the sympathy) of society at a time in their development when it would provide them, and society, the most benefit.

Bradley R. Schiller, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination Tenth Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ, US, 2008

 

[Barb]

Show he's wrong instead of just saying he's stupid.

Racial inferiority theory is basically a more explicitly prejudiced version of the “cultural underclass” theory.
Statistics show that three to one, white Americans favor the theory of lower ability over discrimination concerning the status of poor black and Hispanic people. The history of racial inferiority theory goes back in time, back and forth between groups and nations, and spans the globe. It remains a popular theory in justifying colonialism abroad, and to explain away the economic disparity between classes and races in the US. It is much easier for some white people to believe that “blacks are poor because they are not smart, and they are not smart because they are black,” rather then try to understand that there are inequities that they benefit from at the expense of others. There is no reliable measurement of intelligence, and where differences in IQ exist, there are no natural causes that cannot be changed by the improvement of socioeconomic and environmental conditions, and in no way explains the 50% lower income of black and Hispanic people on average compared to white people.

Bradley R. Schiller, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination Tenth Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ, US, 2008 172-180

Geneticists believe anthropologists know what a race is, ethnologists assume their racial classifications are backed up by genetics, and politicians believe that their prejudices have the sanction of both genetics and anthropology. Bradley R. Schiller, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination Tenth Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ, US, 2008 Unknown English zoologist cited, 169

That "theory" proves nothing.

Well, it wouldn't to you, would it?

 

[Barb]

Chapter 10: Education and Ability

In theory, attainment of higher education and maintenance of superior grades, the attendance to human capital leads to success, and so success equals virtue. Chapter ten asks if education determines who is poor, and also if it determines how many are poor. In the labor market, a high school diploma opens doors, a college degree opens more doors, and a graduate degree opens doors to the most highly paid jobs. Conversely, those with little education find many of those doors closed and padlocked. They are also the first to be let go in hard economic times, and in a buyers labor market find their job search harder and longer in duration.

This would suggest that all one has to do is attend to one’s education, but all is not what it seems. There are overlapping causes of lower education and poverty than merely the lack of will to work hard and stay in school. As Schiller explains, “Education attainments themselves are an outcome of an earlier process.” This process includes individual traits and external environments, as well as how wealthy one’s family is during childhood, as wealth provides many of those who succeed with the tools and connections to do so.

Education as an investment requires the sacrifice of time spent not doing other things. One of those other things is earning a living. And those whose families can afford to pay for Ivy League educations are also more likely to be able to afford the lower paid internships during college that put them on the fast track to a high paid career when they finish their degrees.

Education rewards for white men are much higher than they are for minorities and women. Men with an undergraduate degree earn much more on average than women who attain graduate education. Consequently, even those with the exact same levels of attainment face hugely disparate income levels, and unequal rewards tend to depress motivation.

While degrees are close to number one on the list of sorting devices used to weed through applicants, greater numbers of graduates do not increase the number of available jobs. Instead, employers raise the demands for education and experience for even lower wage work, putting those with little in the way of education and skills out of work entirely, and causing the economic value of higher education attainment to be lower. This is especially true during times of high unemployment. Accordingly, Schiller questions the usefulness of debating whether changing the structure or availability of education would be better, as improving supply does nothing to increase the number of available jobs.

This all calls into question the correlation people assume between ability and income. Does greater ability really lead to greater rewards, and does income distribution truly reflect the distribution of ability? All people do not have the opportunity or support to fully develop their abilities, so the attainment of measurable degrees and test scores are not indicative of potential. Additionally, income depends on which abilities, knowledge, skills and experiences are currently valued in the labor market. Wage measurements as a comparative tool lead us to assume those with higher incomes have greater ability, but the connection between income and ability is a very loose one, especially so where the opportunity to develop ability is delineated by class, race, and gender. Therefore, while there is an “association” between prosperity, higher education, and ability, there is little “causation,” and a high supply of labor coupled with little demand is a much greater predictor of poverty and low wages than lack of educational attainment by either an individual or a community.

Bradley R. Schiller, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination Tenth Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ, US, 2008

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Racial inferiority theory is basically a more explicitly prejudiced version of the “cultural underclass” theory.
Statistics show that three to one, white Americans favor the theory of lower ability over discrimination concerning the status of poor black and Hispanic people. The history of racial inferiority theory goes back in time, back and forth between groups and nations, and spans the globe. It remains a popular theory in justifying colonialism abroad, and to explain away the economic disparity between classes and races in the US. It is much easier for some white people to believe that “blacks are poor because they are not smart, and they are not smart because they are black,” rather then try to understand that there are inequities that they benefit from at the expense of others. There is no reliable measurement of intelligence, and where differences in IQ exist, there are no natural causes that cannot be changed by the improvement of socioeconomic and environmental conditions, and in no way explains the 50% lower income of black and Hispanic people on average compared to white people.

Bradley R. Schiller, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination Tenth Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ, US, 2008 172-180

That "theory" proves nothing.

Well, it wouldn't to you, would it?

No it wouldn't and if you trust in theories I could provide you with a slew of them.

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.

The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.
"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

1.The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Hint

Betcha of the people that did that, not a single one voted Republican in election just previous to the lynching depicted there.

 

[Barb]

That "theory" proves nothing.

Well, it wouldn't to you, would it?

No it wouldn't and if you trust in theories I could provide you with a slew of them.

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.

The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.
"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

1.The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

This has already been refuted, and a collection of scholarly sources were provided by the only poster I saw on that page that didn't seem to be a stormfront member:

Bond (1924) early last century pointed out that the average IQ scores of African Americans from several northern states were higher than those for whites from many southern states (Bond, 1924a, p. 63). He argued that African Americans who migrated to the North must have left their "duller and less accomplished White fellows in the South." Bond also believed that IQ test scores reflected social and educational training. Inline with this belief, Jenkins's (1936) reported the results of IQ tests given to Black and White children in Illinois, and found that the proportion of students with scores over 130 was the same among Black and White children when environmental influences were comparable. A later study, involving Caribbean children, would in essence replicate these findings. The results from that study showed that when raised in the same enriched institutional environments as white children, black children demonstrated superior IQ test scores. IQs were: Black children 108, Mixed children 106, and White children 103 (Tizard et al, 1972).

Studies also show that upward of 99% of group IQ score differences between healthy black and white Americans are eliminated after controlling for cultural factors. Manly et al (1998) found that after cultural factors such as linguistic behavior (e.g. black vs. standard English) are controlled between healthy black and white Americans that IQ score differences between these populations virtually disappear; becoming insignificant in all but only one area (a reading section)! Some argue that because those who construct standardized tests come from a narrow social group that it follows that test items will contain information and structures that match the background knowledge of some people more than others (Richardson, 2000). This may explain why “acculturation” is found to predict IQ score differences better than virtually any other variable, aside from literacy levels (which is essentially another mediator of culture). Other studies have shown similar results, after controlling for cultural factors. Fagan and Holland (2002) found that where exposure to specific information was required; whites knew more about the meanings of different sayings than did Blacks, due to exposure. But, when comprehension was based on generally available information, Whites and Blacks did not differ (Fagan and Holland, 2002; see also, Fagan and Holland, 2007). This study also found that when Blacks and Whites are matched as to the comprehension of sayings requiring specific knowledge that Blacks were superior to Whites on intelligence tests (ibid). Crawford-Nutt (1976)

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Well, it wouldn't to you, would it?

No it wouldn't and if you trust in theories I could provide you with a slew of them.

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.

The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.
"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

1.The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

This has already been refuted, and a collection of scholarly sources were provided by the only poster I saw on that page that didn't seem to be a stormfront member:

Bond (1924) early last century pointed out that the average IQ scores of African Americans from several northern states were higher than those for whites from many southern states (Bond, 1924a, p. 63). He argued that African Americans who migrated to the North must have left their "duller and less accomplished White fellows in the South." Bond also believed that IQ test scores reflected social and educational training. Inline with this belief, Jenkins's (1936) reported the results of IQ tests given to Black and White children in Illinois, and found that the proportion of students with scores over 130 was the same among Black and White children when environmental influences were comparable. A later study, involving Caribbean children, would in essence replicate these findings. The results from that study showed that when raised in the same enriched institutional environments as white children, black children demonstrated superior IQ test scores. IQs were: Black children 108, Mixed children 106, and White children 103 (Tizard et al, 1972).

Studies also show that upward of 99% of group IQ score differences between healthy black and white Americans are eliminated after controlling for cultural factors. Manly et al (1998) found that after cultural factors such as linguistic behavior (e.g. black vs. standard English) are controlled between healthy black and white Americans that IQ score differences between these populations virtually disappear; becoming insignificant in all but only one area (a reading section)! Some argue that because those who construct standardized tests come from a narrow social group that it follows that test items will contain information and structures that match the background knowledge of some people more than others (Richardson, 2000). This may explain why “acculturation” is found to predict IQ score differences better than virtually any other variable, aside from literacy levels (which is essentially another mediator of culture). Other studies have shown similar results, after controlling for cultural factors. Fagan and Holland (2002) found that where exposure to specific information was required; whites knew more about the meanings of different sayings than did Blacks, due to exposure. But, when comprehension was based on generally available information, Whites and Blacks did not differ (Fagan and Holland, 2002; see also, Fagan and Holland, 2007). This study also found that when Blacks and Whites are matched as to the comprehension of sayings requiring specific knowledge that Blacks were superior to Whites on intelligence tests (ibid). Crawford-Nutt (1976)

Are you suggesting a 1924 study debunks a 2005 study?

Too many studies have shown there is a difference in IQ according to one's genetic make-up which race is inherently part of. Even the study you cite confirms this although it looks at it from a cultural standpoint and not genetically. To ignore genetics when studying racial differences is disingenuous.

 

[Barb]

No it wouldn't and if you trust in theories I could provide you with a slew of them.

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.

The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.
"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

1.The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

This has already been refuted, and a collection of scholarly sources were provided by the only poster I saw on that page that didn't seem to be a stormfront member:

Bond (1924) early last century pointed out that the average IQ scores of African Americans from several northern states were higher than those for whites from many southern states (Bond, 1924a, p. 63). He argued that African Americans who migrated to the North must have left their "duller and less accomplished White fellows in the South." Bond also believed that IQ test scores reflected social and educational training. Inline with this belief, Jenkins's (1936) reported the results of IQ tests given to Black and White children in Illinois, and found that the proportion of students with scores over 130 was the same among Black and White children when environmental influences were comparable. A later study, involving Caribbean children, would in essence replicate these findings. The results from that study showed that when raised in the same enriched institutional environments as white children, black children demonstrated superior IQ test scores. IQs were: Black children 108, Mixed children 106, and White children 103 (Tizard et al, 1972).

Studies also show that upward of 99% of group IQ score differences between healthy black and white Americans are eliminated after controlling for cultural factors. Manly et al (1998) found that after cultural factors such as linguistic behavior (e.g. black vs. standard English) are controlled between healthy black and white Americans that IQ score differences between these populations virtually disappear; becoming insignificant in all but only one area (a reading section)! Some argue that because those who construct standardized tests come from a narrow social group that it follows that test items will contain information and structures that match the background knowledge of some people more than others (Richardson, 2000). This may explain why “acculturation” is found to predict IQ score differences better than virtually any other variable, aside from literacy levels (which is essentially another mediator of culture). Other studies have shown similar results, after controlling for cultural factors. Fagan and Holland (2002) found that where exposure to specific information was required; whites knew more about the meanings of different sayings than did Blacks, due to exposure. But, when comprehension was based on generally available information, Whites and Blacks did not differ (Fagan and Holland, 2002; see also, Fagan and Holland, 2007). This study also found that when Blacks and Whites are matched as to the comprehension of sayings requiring specific knowledge that Blacks were superior to Whites on intelligence tests (ibid). Crawford-Nutt (1976)

Are you suggesting a 1924 study debunks a 2005 study?

Too many studies have shown there is a difference in IQ according to one's genetic make-up which race is inherently part of. Even the study you cite confirms this although it looks at it from a cultural standpoint and not genetically. To ignore genetics when studying racial differences is disingenuous.

It is NOT disingenuous when study after study clearly shows that when socioeconomic conditions are equal, the difference in IQ disappears. What IS disingenuous is mentioning the oldest dated source as if more recent sources were not also included that reinforced that older source.