If Negros Had Been Left To Their Own Devices...

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Arabs aren't White people, but unfortunately are Caucasoid.

What difference would it make that Arabs came up with a alphabet in 300 AD, or not?

The concept of race was largely formulated much later, considering much of Sub-Saharan Africa was unexplored at 300 AD.

check your bottle for contamination with methanol----you are babbling again

You Jews aren't unlike Negroes, both are obnoxious big mouths.

You can tell by how many Jews have curly hair, that you have the blood of Negroes flowing through you.

Jews are not the original Hebrews. They are european converts. Ashkenazis.

Ashkeanzi Jews are largely E1b1b haplogroup like North, and East Africans, and J haplogroup like Arabs.
The maternal DNA is mostly Italian.

All putrid Mediterranean's, a mistake upon Humanity.

Where did you get E1b1b? Thats not correct.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

About 20% of Ashkenazi Jewish haplogroups on the male, or Y end are E1b1b.

European Y-DNA haplogroups frequencies by country

 

[Asclepias]

check your bottle for contamination with methanol----you are babbling again

You Jews aren't unlike Negroes, both are obnoxious big mouths.

You can tell by how many Jews have curly hair, that you have the blood of Negroes flowing through you.

Jews are not the original Hebrews. They are european converts. Ashkenazis.

Ashkeanzi Jews are largely E1b1b haplogroup like North, and East Africans, and J haplogroup like Arabs.
The maternal DNA is mostly Italian.

All putrid Mediterranean's, a mistake upon Humanity.

Where did you get E1b1b? Thats not correct.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

About 20% of Ashkenazi Jewish haplogroups on the male, or Y end are E1b1b.

European Y-DNA haplogroups frequencies by country

Can you quote that in your link? I dont see what your claiming and not really inclined to look as I already posted the link I read that said they were predominately european.

 

[Ventura77]

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

This is actually dead wrong..
No pre-contact sub-Saharan African society ever created even a written language, or weaved cloth, or forged steel, or invented the wheel, or plow, or devised a calendar, or code of laws, or any social organization, or system of measurement, or math, or built a multi-story structure, or sewer, or infrastructure of any kind.

They never drilled a well or irrigated or created any agriculture, or built a road, or sea-worthy vessel. They never domesticated animals, or exploited underground natural resources, or produced anything that could be considered a mechanical device. Blacks were still living in the Stone Age when Whites discovered them just 400 years ago. Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced — but they never advanced at all. Blacks lived alone in Africa, a vast continent with temperate climates and abundant resources for 60,000 years; so they cannot blame racism, colonialism, culture, environment, or anything else for their failures. 19 of the 20 poorest countries are sub-Saharan African (Haiti). There has never been a successful Black nation. The only successful African nations were White-governed (Rhodesia, South Africa). No modern creations or civilization exists in sub-Saharan Africa that was not brought there by Whites. There are no White Third-World nations, but all Black ones are. Put Whites on an island and you get England; put Asians on an island and you get Japan; put Blacks on an island and you get Haiti. Nowhere Blacks live are they considered achievers. Blacks are universally viewed as unproductive and disruptive to society. Simply, life is an IQ test. All Black civilization is in fact transplanted White civilization. No Black society has ever independently developed and maintained its own technological way of life..

Who told you it was wrong? Multiple sources point to the fact that Blacks created civilizations long before whites became self aware and stopped living in caves. How do you think the Nile got diverted? How about the Great Pyramids of Egypt and the Pyramids in Nubia?

..and naturally you just neglected to post any proof of your assertions...right? According to your unproven theory Blacks regressed from this elevated pre-white position of cultural dominance and declined to the point where the languish today...right Spanky? Blacks have the lowest average IQ and the most violent propensity---hardly a winning combo however it does explain why Africa has been in tribal turmoil for its entire history in spite of the wealth of natural resources and minerals...

I already posted my "proof" not that I need to prove anything to you. If youre still riding the IQ thing I already explained its been proven whites lack the intelligence to come up with a test that accurately measures intelligence.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

This is actually dead wrong..
No pre-contact sub-Saharan African society ever created even a written language, or weaved cloth, or forged steel, or invented the wheel, or plow, or devised a calendar, or code of laws, or any social organization, or system of measurement, or math, or built a multi-story structure, or sewer, or infrastructure of any kind.

They never drilled a well or irrigated or created any agriculture, or built a road, or sea-worthy vessel. They never domesticated animals, or exploited underground natural resources, or produced anything that could be considered a mechanical device. Blacks were still living in the Stone Age when Whites discovered them just 400 years ago. Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced — but they never advanced at all. Blacks lived alone in Africa, a vast continent with temperate climates and abundant resources for 60,000 years; so they cannot blame racism, colonialism, culture, environment, or anything else for their failures. 19 of the 20 poorest countries are sub-Saharan African (Haiti). There has never been a successful Black nation. The only successful African nations were White-governed (Rhodesia, South Africa). No modern creations or civilization exists in sub-Saharan Africa that was not brought there by Whites. There are no White Third-World nations, but all Black ones are. Put Whites on an island and you get England; put Asians on an island and you get Japan; put Blacks on an island and you get Haiti. Nowhere Blacks live are they considered achievers. Blacks are universally viewed as unproductive and disruptive to society. Simply, life is an IQ test. All Black civilization is in fact transplanted White civilization. No Black society has ever independently developed and maintained its own technological way of life..

Who told you it was wrong? Multiple sources point to the fact that Blacks created civilizations long before whites became self aware and stopped living in caves. How do you think the Nile got diverted? How about the Great Pyramids of Egypt and the Pyramids in Nubia?

..and naturally you just neglected to post any proof of your assertions...right? According to your unproven theory Blacks regressed from this elevated pre-white position of cultural dominance and declined to the point where the languish today...right Spanky? Blacks have the lowest average IQ and the most violent propensity---hardly a winning combo however it does explain why Africa has been in tribal turmoil for its entire history in spite of the wealth of natural resources and minerals...

I already posted my "proof" not that I need to prove anything to you. If youre still riding the IQ thing I already explained its been proven whites lack the intelligence to come up with a test that accurately measures intelligence.

Seriously you cannot be this dumb...you posted pulp---stories...find someone a bit bright to explain the definition of [ proof ] to you....


THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE

DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY

J. Philippe Rushton

The University of Western Ontario

Arthur R. Jensen

University of California, Berkeley

The culture-only (0% genetic–100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50%

genetic–50% environmental) models of the causes of mean Black–White differences

in cognitive ability are compared and contrasted across 10 categories of evidence:

the worldwide distribution of test scores, g factor of mental ability, heritability, brain

size and cognitive ability, transracial adoption, racial admixture, regression, related

life-history traits, human origins research, and hypothesized environmental variables.

The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in

Black–White differences in mean IQ. The implication for public policy is that the

discrimination model (i.e., Black–White differences in socially valued outcomes

will be equal barring discrimination) must be tempered by a distributional model

(i.e., Black–White outcomes reflect underlying group characteristics).

Section 1: Background

Throughout the history of psychology, no question has been so persistent or

so resistant to resolution as that of the relative roles of nature and nurture in

causing individual and group differences in cognitive ability (Degler, 1991;

Loehlin, Lindzey, & Spuhler, 1975). The scientific debate goes back to the

mid-19th century (e.g., Galton, 1869; Nott & Glidden, 1854). Starting with the

widespread use of standardized mental tests in World War I, average ethnic and

racial group differences were found. Especially vexing has been the cause(s) of

the 15-point Black–White IQ difference in the United States.

In 1969, the Harvard Educational Review published Arthur Jensen’s lengthy

article, “How Much Can We Boost IQ and School Achievement?” Jensen concluded

that (a) IQ tests measure socially relevant general ability; (b) individual

differences in IQ have a high heritability, at least for the White populations of the

United States and Europe; (c) compensatory educational programs have proved

generally ineffective in raising the IQs or school achievement of individuals or

groups; (d) because social mobility is linked to ability, social class differences in

IQ probably have an appreciable genetic component; and tentatively, but most

controversially, (e) the mean Black–White group difference in IQ probably has

some genetic component.

Jensen’s (1969) article was covered in Time, Newsweek, Life, U.S. News &

World Report, and New York Times Magazine. His conclusions, the theoretical

issues they raised, and the public policy recommendations that many saw as

stemming directly from them were dubbed “Jensenism,” a term which entered the dictionary. Since 1969, Jensen has continued to publish prolifically on all of these

issues, and increasing numbers of psychometricians and behavioral geneticists

have come to agree with one or more of the tenets of Jensenism (Snyderman &

Rothman, 1987, 1988).

The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) presented general readers an

update of the evidence for the hereditarian position along with several policy

recommendations and an original analysis of 11,878 youths (including 3,022

Blacks) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It found that

most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test,

regardless of ethnic background, went on to occupational success by their late 20s

and early 30s, whereas those with low scores were more inclined to welfare

dependency. The study also found that the average IQ for African Americans was

lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103,

106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273–278).

Currently, the 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between Blacks

and Whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute. A

meta-analytic review by Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001) showed

it also holds for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic

Aptitude Test (SAT; N _ 2.4 million) and the Graduate Record Examination

(GRE; N _ 2.3 million), as well as for tests for job applicants in corporate settings

(N _ 0.5 million) and in the military (N _ 0.4 million). Because test scores are

the best predictor of economic success in Western society (Schmidt & Hunter,

1998), these group differences have important societal outcomes (R. A. Gordon,

1997; Gottfredson, 1997).

The question that still remains is whether the cause of group differences in

average IQ is purely social, economic, and cultural or whether genetic factors are

also involved. Following publication of The Bell Curve, the American Psychological

Association (APA) established an 11-person Task Force (Neisser et al.,

1996) to evaluate the book’s conclusions. Based on their review of twin and other

kinship studies, the Task Force for the most part agreed with Jensen’s (1969)

Harvard Educational Review article and The Bell Curve, that within the White

population the heritability of IQ is “around .75” (p. 85). As to the cause of the

mean Black–White group difference, however, the Task Force concluded: “There

is certainly no support for a genetic interpretation” (p. 97).

Among the factors contributing to the longstanding lack of resolution of this

important and controversial issue are the difficulty of the subject matter, the

political issues associated with it and the emotions they arouse, and the different

meta-theoretical perspectives of the experimental and correlational methodologies.

Cronbach (1957) referred to these conflicting approaches as the two “halves”

of psychology because researchers are predisposed to draw different conclusions

depending on whether they adopt a “manipulations-lead-to-change” or a “correlations-

find-stability” paradigm.

Here we review in detail the research that has accumulated since Jensen’s

(1969) article and compare our findings with earlier reviews and evaluations such

as those by Loehlin et al. (1975), P. E. Vernon (1979), Herrnstein and Murray

(1994), the APA Task Force (Neisser et al., 1996), and Nisbett (1998). Facts in

themselves typically do not answer scientific questions. For a question so complex

as the cause of the average Black–White group difference in IQ, no one fact, one study, nor indeed any single line of evidence, can hope to be determinative.

Rather, resolving the issue requires examining several independent lines of

evidence to determine if, when taken together, they confirm or refute rival

hypotheses and research programs.

The philosophy of science methodology used here is guided by the view that,

just as in individual studies the principal of aggregation holds that a set of

measurements provides a more reliable indicator than any single measure taken

from the set (Rushton, Brainerd, & Pressley, 1983), so in reviewing multiple lines

of evidence, making strong inferences from a number of contending hypotheses

is more efficacious than considering only one hypothesis at a time (Platt, 1964).

Although strong inference is the method of science, it has, more often than not,

been eschewed in this controversial debate.

The final section of this article addresses the question of what these conclusions

imply for policy, specifically for the issues of educational and psychological

testing, health, race relations, and conflicting worldviews about the essence of

human nature. It suggests that the distributional model that takes genetic factors

into account must temper the discrimination model that explains Black–White

differences in socially valued outcomes.

Section 2: The Two Conflicting Research Programs

Here, we review the research on Black–White difference in average IQ

published since Jensen’s (1969) now 36-year-old article. We then apply the

philosophy of science methodologies of Platt (1964), Lakatos (1970, 1978), and

Urbach (1974a, 1974b) to determine if the preponderance of this new evidence

strengthens or weakens Jensen’s (1969) tentative assertion that it is more likely

than not that some part of

 

[BlackSand]

When people become obsessed with genetics, racial purity and superiority...and judge people on that basis, I get this awful feeling of dejas vous.

It is repulsive.

I get this awful and repulsive feeling when you refer to them as people ... Is there any way we could make them the first Martians ...
Seriously ... I don't mind if they have to eat their poop on the way to Mars ... Better than us.

.

 

[Ventura77]

You Jews aren't unlike Negroes, both are obnoxious big mouths.

You can tell by how many Jews have curly hair, that you have the blood of Negroes flowing through you.

Jews are not the original Hebrews. They are european converts. Ashkenazis.

Ashkeanzi Jews are largely E1b1b haplogroup like North, and East Africans, and J haplogroup like Arabs.
The maternal DNA is mostly Italian.

All putrid Mediterranean's, a mistake upon Humanity.

Where did you E1b1b? Thats not correct.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

lite advice: if you are pre-disposed to tell some they are wrong, please offer more than your ego...LOL

You cant give me any advice. That would be like me taking advice from a retarded chimp.

moron

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

You Jews aren't unlike Negroes, both are obnoxious big mouths.

You can tell by how many Jews have curly hair, that you have the blood of Negroes flowing through you.

Jews are not the original Hebrews. They are european converts. Ashkenazis.

Ashkeanzi Jews are largely E1b1b haplogroup like North, and East Africans, and J haplogroup like Arabs.
The maternal DNA is mostly Italian.

All putrid Mediterranean's, a mistake upon Humanity.

Where did you E1b1b? Thats not correct.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

You article admits that Ashkenazi Jews are basically when Semitic men met Italian women, there might be some German,Polish, or Russian DNA in Ashkenazi Jews, but it's just minimal.

Where does it say its minimal?

"
The team found that four founders were responsible for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced to other European lineages.

All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."

Here's a DNA study from Eurogenes putting Ashkenazi Jews at just over 11% Polish, over 30% Italian Tuscan, and over 33.% Near-Eastern Samaritan.

`Ashkenazi
Anatolia_ChL 7.9
Arab_Israel_1 15.65
Avar 0.6
Bashkir 0.05
Cossack 0
Italian_Tuscan 30.45
Polish 11.75
Samaritan 33.6
Uygur 0

 

[Asclepias]

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

This is actually dead wrong..
No pre-contact sub-Saharan African society ever created even a written language, or weaved cloth, or forged steel, or invented the wheel, or plow, or devised a calendar, or code of laws, or any social organization, or system of measurement, or math, or built a multi-story structure, or sewer, or infrastructure of any kind.

They never drilled a well or irrigated or created any agriculture, or built a road, or sea-worthy vessel. They never domesticated animals, or exploited underground natural resources, or produced anything that could be considered a mechanical device. Blacks were still living in the Stone Age when Whites discovered them just 400 years ago. Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced — but they never advanced at all. Blacks lived alone in Africa, a vast continent with temperate climates and abundant resources for 60,000 years; so they cannot blame racism, colonialism, culture, environment, or anything else for their failures. 19 of the 20 poorest countries are sub-Saharan African (Haiti). There has never been a successful Black nation. The only successful African nations were White-governed (Rhodesia, South Africa). No modern creations or civilization exists in sub-Saharan Africa that was not brought there by Whites. There are no White Third-World nations, but all Black ones are. Put Whites on an island and you get England; put Asians on an island and you get Japan; put Blacks on an island and you get Haiti. Nowhere Blacks live are they considered achievers. Blacks are universally viewed as unproductive and disruptive to society. Simply, life is an IQ test. All Black civilization is in fact transplanted White civilization. No Black society has ever independently developed and maintained its own technological way of life..

Who told you it was wrong? Multiple sources point to the fact that Blacks created civilizations long before whites became self aware and stopped living in caves. How do you think the Nile got diverted? How about the Great Pyramids of Egypt and the Pyramids in Nubia?

..and naturally you just neglected to post any proof of your assertions...right? According to your unproven theory Blacks regressed from this elevated pre-white position of cultural dominance and declined to the point where the languish today...right Spanky? Blacks have the lowest average IQ and the most violent propensity---hardly a winning combo however it does explain why Africa has been in tribal turmoil for its entire history in spite of the wealth of natural resources and minerals...

I already posted my "proof" not that I need to prove anything to you. If youre still riding the IQ thing I already explained its been proven whites lack the intelligence to come up with a test that accurately measures intelligence.

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

This is actually dead wrong..
No pre-contact sub-Saharan African society ever created even a written language, or weaved cloth, or forged steel, or invented the wheel, or plow, or devised a calendar, or code of laws, or any social organization, or system of measurement, or math, or built a multi-story structure, or sewer, or infrastructure of any kind.

They never drilled a well or irrigated or created any agriculture, or built a road, or sea-worthy vessel. They never domesticated animals, or exploited underground natural resources, or produced anything that could be considered a mechanical device. Blacks were still living in the Stone Age when Whites discovered them just 400 years ago. Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced — but they never advanced at all. Blacks lived alone in Africa, a vast continent with temperate climates and abundant resources for 60,000 years; so they cannot blame racism, colonialism, culture, environment, or anything else for their failures. 19 of the 20 poorest countries are sub-Saharan African (Haiti). There has never been a successful Black nation. The only successful African nations were White-governed (Rhodesia, South Africa). No modern creations or civilization exists in sub-Saharan Africa that was not brought there by Whites. There are no White Third-World nations, but all Black ones are. Put Whites on an island and you get England; put Asians on an island and you get Japan; put Blacks on an island and you get Haiti. Nowhere Blacks live are they considered achievers. Blacks are universally viewed as unproductive and disruptive to society. Simply, life is an IQ test. All Black civilization is in fact transplanted White civilization. No Black society has ever independently developed and maintained its own technological way of life..

Who told you it was wrong? Multiple sources point to the fact that Blacks created civilizations long before whites became self aware and stopped living in caves. How do you think the Nile got diverted? How about the Great Pyramids of Egypt and the Pyramids in Nubia?

..and naturally you just neglected to post any proof of your assertions...right? According to your unproven theory Blacks regressed from this elevated pre-white position of cultural dominance and declined to the point where the languish today...right Spanky? Blacks have the lowest average IQ and the most violent propensity---hardly a winning combo however it does explain why Africa has been in tribal turmoil for its entire history in spite of the wealth of natural resources and minerals...

I already posted my "proof" not that I need to prove anything to you. If youre still riding the IQ thing I already explained its been proven whites lack the intelligence to come up with a test that accurately measures intelligence.

Seriously you cannot be this dumb...you posted pulp---stories...find someone a bit bright to explain the definition of [ proof ] to you....


THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE

DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY

J. Philippe Rushton

The University of Western Ontario

Arthur R. Jensen

University of California, Berkeley

The culture-only (0% genetic–100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50%

genetic–50% environmental) models of the causes of mean Black–White differences

in cognitive ability are compared and contrasted across 10 categories of evidence:

the worldwide distribution of test scores, g factor of mental ability, heritability, brain

size and cognitive ability, transracial adoption, racial admixture, regression, related

life-history traits, human origins research, and hypothesized environmental variables.

The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in

Black–White differences in mean IQ. The implication for public policy is that the

discrimination model (i.e., Black–White differences in socially valued outcomes

will be equal barring discrimination) must be tempered by a distributional model

(i.e., Black–White outcomes reflect underlying group characteristics).

Section 1: Background

Throughout the history of psychology, no question has been so persistent or

so resistant to resolution as that of the relative roles of nature and nurture in

causing individual and group differences in cognitive ability (Degler, 1991;

Loehlin, Lindzey, & Spuhler, 1975). The scientific debate goes back to the

mid-19th century (e.g., Galton, 1869; Nott & Glidden, 1854). Starting with the

widespread use of standardized mental tests in World War I, average ethnic and

racial group differences were found. Especially vexing has been the cause(s) of

the 15-point Black–White IQ difference in the United States.

In 1969, the Harvard Educational Review published Arthur Jensen’s lengthy

article, “How Much Can We Boost IQ and School Achievement?” Jensen concluded

that (a) IQ tests measure socially relevant general ability; (b) individual

differences in IQ have a high heritability, at least for the White populations of the

United States and Europe; (c) compensatory educational programs have proved

generally ineffective in raising the IQs or school achievement of individuals or

groups; (d) because social mobility is linked to ability, social class differences in

IQ probably have an appreciable genetic component; and tentatively, but most

controversially, (e) the mean Black–White group difference in IQ probably has

some genetic component.

Jensen’s (1969) article was covered in Time, Newsweek, Life, U.S. News &

World Report, and New York Times Magazine. His conclusions, the theoretical

issues they raised, and the public policy recommendations that many saw as

stemming directly from them were dubbed “Jensenism,” a term which entered the dictionary. Since 1969, Jensen has continued to publish prolifically on all of these

issues, and increasing numbers of psychometricians and behavioral geneticists

have come to agree with one or more of the tenets of Jensenism (Snyderman &

Rothman, 1987, 1988).

The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) presented general readers an

update of the evidence for the hereditarian position along with several policy

recommendations and an original analysis of 11,878 youths (including 3,022

Blacks) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It found that

most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test,

regardless of ethnic background, went on to occupational success by their late 20s

and early 30s, whereas those with low scores were more inclined to welfare

dependency. The study also found that the average IQ for African Americans was

lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103,

106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273–278).

Currently, the 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between Blacks

and Whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute. A

meta-analytic review by Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001) showed

it also holds for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic

Aptitude Test (SAT; N _ 2.4 million) and the Graduate Record Examination

(GRE; N _ 2.3 million), as well as for tests for job applicants in corporate settings

(N _ 0.5 million) and in the military (N _ 0.4 million). Because test scores are

the best predictor of economic success in Western society (Schmidt & Hunter,

1998), these group differences have important societal outcomes (R. A. Gordon,

1997; Gottfredson, 1997).

The question that still remains is whether the cause of group differences in

average IQ is purely social, economic, and cultural or whether genetic factors are

also involved. Following publication of The Bell Curve, the American Psychological

Association (APA) established an 11-person Task Force (Neisser et al.,

1996) to evaluate the book’s conclusions. Based on their review of twin and other

kinship studies, the Task Force for the most part agreed with Jensen’s (1969)

Harvard Educational Review article and The Bell Curve, that within the White

population the heritability of IQ is “around .75” (p. 85). As to the cause of the

mean Black–White group difference, however, the Task Force concluded: “There

is certainly no support for a genetic interpretation” (p. 97).

Among the factors contributing to the longstanding lack of resolution of this

important and controversial issue are the difficulty of the subject matter, the

political issues associated with it and the emotions they arouse, and the different

meta-theoretical perspectives of the experimental and correlational methodologies.

Cronbach (1957) referred to these conflicting approaches as the two “halves”

of psychology because researchers are predisposed to draw different conclusions

depending on whether they adopt a “manipulations-lead-to-change” or a “correlations-

find-stability” paradigm.

Here we review in detail the research that has accumulated since Jensen’s

(1969) article and compare our findings with earlier reviews and evaluations such

as those by Loehlin et al. (1975), P. E. Vernon (1979), Herrnstein and Murray

(1994), the APA Task Force (Neisser et al., 1996), and Nisbett (1998). Facts in

themselves typically do not answer scientific questions. For a question so complex

as the cause of the average Black–White group difference in IQ, no one fact, one study, nor indeed any single line of evidence, can hope to be determinative.

Rather, resolving the issue requires examining several independent lines of

evidence to determine if, when taken together, they confirm or refute rival

hypotheses and research programs.

The philosophy of science methodology used here is guided by the view that,

just as in individual studies the principal of aggregation holds that a set of

measurements provides a more reliable indicator than any single measure taken

from the set (Rushton, Brainerd, & Pressley, 1983), so in reviewing multiple lines

of evidence, making strong inferences from a number of contending hypotheses

is more efficacious than considering only one hypothesis at a time (Platt, 1964).

Although strong inference is the method of science, it has, more often than not,

been eschewed in this controversial debate.

The final section of this article addresses the question of what these conclusions

imply for policy, specifically for the issues of educational and psychological

testing, health, race relations, and conflicting worldviews about the essence of

human nature. It suggests that the distributional model that takes genetic factors

into account must temper the discrimination model that explains Black–White

differences in socially valued outcomes.

Section 2: The Two Conflicting Research Programs

Here, we review the research on Black–White difference in average IQ

published since Jensen’s (1969) now 36-year-old article. We then apply the

philosophy of science methodologies of Platt (1964), Lakatos (1970, 1978), and

Urbach (1974a, 1974b) to determine if the preponderance of this new evidence

strengthens or weakens Jensen’s (1969) tentative assertion that it is more likely

than not that some part of

This guy is a white. He has no credibility. You actually lowered your credibility by posting him as your source.This is your proof?

.

 

[Asclepias]

Jews are not the original Hebrews. They are european converts. Ashkenazis.

Ashkeanzi Jews are largely E1b1b haplogroup like North, and East Africans, and J haplogroup like Arabs.
The maternal DNA is mostly Italian.

All putrid Mediterranean's, a mistake upon Humanity.

Where did you E1b1b? Thats not correct.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

You article admits that Ashkenazi Jews are basically when Semitic men met Italian women, there might be some German,Polish, or Russian DNA in Ashkenazi Jews, but it's just minimal.

Where does it say its minimal?

"
The team found that four founders were responsible for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced to other European lineages.

All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."

Here's a DNA study from Eurogenes putting Ashkenazi Jews at just over 11% Polish, over 30% Italian Tuscan, and over 33.% Near-Eastern Samaritan.

`Ashkenazi
Anatolia_ChL 7.9
Arab_Israel_1 15.65
Avar 0.6
Bashkir 0.05
Cossack 0
Italian_Tuscan 30.45
Polish 11.75
Samaritan 33.6
Uygur 0

Where is your link? I dont see a study.

 

[Asclepias]

Jews are not the original Hebrews. They are european converts. Ashkenazis.

Ashkeanzi Jews are largely E1b1b haplogroup like North, and East Africans, and J haplogroup like Arabs.
The maternal DNA is mostly Italian.

All putrid Mediterranean's, a mistake upon Humanity.

Where did you E1b1b? Thats not correct.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

lite advice: if you are pre-disposed to tell some they are wrong, please offer more than your ego...LOL

You cant give me any advice. That would be like me taking advice from a retarded chimp.

moron

No need to announce yourself. I pretty much suspected you were a moron.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

You Jews aren't unlike Negroes, both are obnoxious big mouths.

You can tell by how many Jews have curly hair, that you have the blood of Negroes flowing through you.

Jews are not the original Hebrews. They are european converts. Ashkenazis.

Ashkeanzi Jews are largely E1b1b haplogroup like North, and East Africans, and J haplogroup like Arabs.
The maternal DNA is mostly Italian.

All putrid Mediterranean's, a mistake upon Humanity.

Where did you E1b1b? Thats not correct.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

You article admits that Ashkenazi Jews are basically when Semitic men met Italian women, there might be some German,Polish, or Russian DNA in Ashkenazi Jews, but it's just minimal.

Where does it say its minimal?

"
The team found that four founders were responsible for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced to other European lineages.

All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."

That's only the maternal line.

Your link also admits this.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

Past research found that 50 percent to 80 percent of DNA from the Ashkenazi Y chromosome, which is used to trace the male lineage, originated in the Near East, Richards said. That supported a story wherein Jews came from Israel and largely eschewed intermarriage when they settled in Europe. [The Holy Land: 7 Amazing Archaeological Fin

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Ashkeanzi Jews are largely E1b1b haplogroup like North, and East Africans, and J haplogroup like Arabs.
The maternal DNA is mostly Italian.

All putrid Mediterranean's, a mistake upon Humanity.

Where did you E1b1b? Thats not correct.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

You article admits that Ashkenazi Jews are basically when Semitic men met Italian women, there might be some German,Polish, or Russian DNA in Ashkenazi Jews, but it's just minimal.

Where does it say its minimal?

"
The team found that four founders were responsible for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced to other European lineages.

All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."

Here's a DNA study from Eurogenes putting Ashkenazi Jews at just over 11% Polish, over 30% Italian Tuscan, and over 33.% Near-Eastern Samaritan.

`Ashkenazi
Anatolia_ChL 7.9
Arab_Israel_1 15.65
Avar 0.6
Bashkir 0.05
Cossack 0
Italian_Tuscan 30.45
Polish 11.75
Samaritan 33.6
Uygur 0

Where is your link? I dont see a study.

Eurogenes Blog: Estonian Biocentre Human Genome Diversity Panel (EGDP)

 

[Ventura77]

Ashkeanzi Jews are largely E1b1b haplogroup like North, and East Africans, and J haplogroup like Arabs.
The maternal DNA is mostly Italian.

All putrid Mediterranean's, a mistake upon Humanity.

Where did you E1b1b? Thats not correct.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

lite advice: if you are pre-disposed to tell some they are wrong, please offer more than your ego...LOL

You cant give me any advice. That would be like me taking advice from a retarded chimp.

moron

No need to announce yourself. I pretty much suspected you were a moron.

The funniest part is that you clearly lack the knowledge or basic intelligence to even wade into an argument you scarcely comprehend...the irony is scathing and I am howling with laughter!!

 

[IM2]

Egypt conquered Nubia.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Egypt conquered Nubia.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Egypt conquered Nubia.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Egypt conquered Nubia.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Egypt conquered Nubia.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

Egypt conquered Nubia.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

This is actually dead wrong..
No pre-contact sub-Saharan African society ever created even a written language, or weaved cloth, or forged steel, or invented the wheel, or plow, or devised a calendar, or code of laws, or any social organization, or system of measurement, or math, or built a multi-story structure, or sewer, or infrastructure of any kind.

They never drilled a well or irrigated or created any agriculture, or built a road, or sea-worthy vessel. They never domesticated animals, or exploited underground natural resources, or produced anything that could be considered a mechanical device. Blacks were still living in the Stone Age when Whites discovered them just 400 years ago. Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced — but they never advanced at all. Blacks lived alone in Africa, a vast continent with temperate climates and abundant resources for 60,000 years; so they cannot blame racism, colonialism, culture, environment, or anything else for their failures. 19 of the 20 poorest countries are sub-Saharan African (Haiti). There has never been a successful Black nation. The only successful African nations were White-governed (Rhodesia, South Africa). No modern creations or civilization exists in sub-Saharan Africa that was not brought there by Whites. There are no White Third-World nations, but all Black ones are. Put Whites on an island and you get England; put Asians on an island and you get Japan; put Blacks on an island and you get Haiti. Nowhere Blacks live are they considered achievers. Blacks are universally viewed as unproductive and disruptive to society. Simply, life is an IQ test. All Black civilization is in fact transplanted White civilization. No Black society has ever independently developed and maintained its own technological way of life..

OK, have you said what you want?

Because all of this is wrong.

Thank you for your participation.

If its 'wrong' then you should've posted a refutation instead of this tepid bit of empty arrogance...essentially none of it is wrong, and more to the point in follows a pattern right up to the present...thanks you for your awkward denial...

I posted what I wanted to post. Your shit is wrong.

 

[Ventura77]

This is actually dead wrong..
No pre-contact sub-Saharan African society ever created even a written language, or weaved cloth, or forged steel, or invented the wheel, or plow, or devised a calendar, or code of laws, or any social organization, or system of measurement, or math, or built a multi-story structure, or sewer, or infrastructure of any kind.

They never drilled a well or irrigated or created any agriculture, or built a road, or sea-worthy vessel. They never domesticated animals, or exploited underground natural resources, or produced anything that could be considered a mechanical device. Blacks were still living in the Stone Age when Whites discovered them just 400 years ago. Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced — but they never advanced at all. Blacks lived alone in Africa, a vast continent with temperate climates and abundant resources for 60,000 years; so they cannot blame racism, colonialism, culture, environment, or anything else for their failures. 19 of the 20 poorest countries are sub-Saharan African (Haiti). There has never been a successful Black nation. The only successful African nations were White-governed (Rhodesia, South Africa). No modern creations or civilization exists in sub-Saharan Africa that was not brought there by Whites. There are no White Third-World nations, but all Black ones are. Put Whites on an island and you get England; put Asians on an island and you get Japan; put Blacks on an island and you get Haiti. Nowhere Blacks live are they considered achievers. Blacks are universally viewed as unproductive and disruptive to society. Simply, life is an IQ test. All Black civilization is in fact transplanted White civilization. No Black society has ever independently developed and maintained its own technological way of life..

Who told you it was wrong? Multiple sources point to the fact that Blacks created civilizations long before whites became self aware and stopped living in caves. How do you think the Nile got diverted? How about the Great Pyramids of Egypt and the Pyramids in Nubia?

..and naturally you just neglected to post any proof of your assertions...right? According to your unproven theory Blacks regressed from this elevated pre-white position of cultural dominance and declined to the point where the languish today...right Spanky? Blacks have the lowest average IQ and the most violent propensity---hardly a winning combo however it does explain why Africa has been in tribal turmoil for its entire history in spite of the wealth of natural resources and minerals...

I already posted my "proof" not that I need to prove anything to you. If youre still riding the IQ thing I already explained its been proven whites lack the intelligence to come up with a test that accurately measures intelligence.

This is actually dead wrong..
No pre-contact sub-Saharan African society ever created even a written language, or weaved cloth, or forged steel, or invented the wheel, or plow, or devised a calendar, or code of laws, or any social organization, or system of measurement, or math, or built a multi-story structure, or sewer, or infrastructure of any kind.

They never drilled a well or irrigated or created any agriculture, or built a road, or sea-worthy vessel. They never domesticated animals, or exploited underground natural resources, or produced anything that could be considered a mechanical device. Blacks were still living in the Stone Age when Whites discovered them just 400 years ago. Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced — but they never advanced at all. Blacks lived alone in Africa, a vast continent with temperate climates and abundant resources for 60,000 years; so they cannot blame racism, colonialism, culture, environment, or anything else for their failures. 19 of the 20 poorest countries are sub-Saharan African (Haiti). There has never been a successful Black nation. The only successful African nations were White-governed (Rhodesia, South Africa). No modern creations or civilization exists in sub-Saharan Africa that was not brought there by Whites. There are no White Third-World nations, but all Black ones are. Put Whites on an island and you get England; put Asians on an island and you get Japan; put Blacks on an island and you get Haiti. Nowhere Blacks live are they considered achievers. Blacks are universally viewed as unproductive and disruptive to society. Simply, life is an IQ test. All Black civilization is in fact transplanted White civilization. No Black society has ever independently developed and maintained its own technological way of life..

Who told you it was wrong? Multiple sources point to the fact that Blacks created civilizations long before whites became self aware and stopped living in caves. How do you think the Nile got diverted? How about the Great Pyramids of Egypt and the Pyramids in Nubia?

..and naturally you just neglected to post any proof of your assertions...right? According to your unproven theory Blacks regressed from this elevated pre-white position of cultural dominance and declined to the point where the languish today...right Spanky? Blacks have the lowest average IQ and the most violent propensity---hardly a winning combo however it does explain why Africa has been in tribal turmoil for its entire history in spite of the wealth of natural resources and minerals...

I already posted my "proof" not that I need to prove anything to you. If youre still riding the IQ thing I already explained its been proven whites lack the intelligence to come up with a test that accurately measures intelligence.

Seriously you cannot be this dumb...you posted pulp---stories...find someone a bit bright to explain the definition of [ proof ] to you....


THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE

DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY

J. Philippe Rushton

The University of Western Ontario

Arthur R. Jensen

University of California, Berkeley

The culture-only (0% genetic–100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50%

genetic–50% environmental) models of the causes of mean Black–White differences

in cognitive ability are compared and contrasted across 10 categories of evidence:

the worldwide distribution of test scores, g factor of mental ability, heritability, brain

size and cognitive ability, transracial adoption, racial admixture, regression, related

life-history traits, human origins research, and hypothesized environmental variables.

The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in

Black–White differences in mean IQ. The implication for public policy is that the

discrimination model (i.e., Black–White differences in socially valued outcomes

will be equal barring discrimination) must be tempered by a distributional model

(i.e., Black–White outcomes reflect underlying group characteristics).

Section 1: Background

Throughout the history of psychology, no question has been so persistent or

so resistant to resolution as that of the relative roles of nature and nurture in

causing individual and group differences in cognitive ability (Degler, 1991;

Loehlin, Lindzey, & Spuhler, 1975). The scientific debate goes back to the

mid-19th century (e.g., Galton, 1869; Nott & Glidden, 1854). Starting with the

widespread use of standardized mental tests in World War I, average ethnic and

racial group differences were found. Especially vexing has been the cause(s) of

the 15-point Black–White IQ difference in the United States.

In 1969, the Harvard Educational Review published Arthur Jensen’s lengthy

article, “How Much Can We Boost IQ and School Achievement?” Jensen concluded

that (a) IQ tests measure socially relevant general ability; (b) individual

differences in IQ have a high heritability, at least for the White populations of the

United States and Europe; (c) compensatory educational programs have proved

generally ineffective in raising the IQs or school achievement of individuals or

groups; (d) because social mobility is linked to ability, social class differences in

IQ probably have an appreciable genetic component; and tentatively, but most

controversially, (e) the mean Black–White group difference in IQ probably has

some genetic component.

Jensen’s (1969) article was covered in Time, Newsweek, Life, U.S. News &

World Report, and New York Times Magazine. His conclusions, the theoretical

issues they raised, and the public policy recommendations that many saw as

stemming directly from them were dubbed “Jensenism,” a term which entered the dictionary. Since 1969, Jensen has continued to publish prolifically on all of these

issues, and increasing numbers of psychometricians and behavioral geneticists

have come to agree with one or more of the tenets of Jensenism (Snyderman &

Rothman, 1987, 1988).

The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) presented general readers an

update of the evidence for the hereditarian position along with several policy

recommendations and an original analysis of 11,878 youths (including 3,022

Blacks) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It found that

most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test,

regardless of ethnic background, went on to occupational success by their late 20s

and early 30s, whereas those with low scores were more inclined to welfare

dependency. The study also found that the average IQ for African Americans was

lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103,

106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273–278).

Currently, the 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between Blacks

and Whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute. A

meta-analytic review by Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001) showed

it also holds for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic

Aptitude Test (SAT; N _ 2.4 million) and the Graduate Record Examination

(GRE; N _ 2.3 million), as well as for tests for job applicants in corporate settings

(N _ 0.5 million) and in the military (N _ 0.4 million). Because test scores are

the best predictor of economic success in Western society (Schmidt & Hunter,

1998), these group differences have important societal outcomes (R. A. Gordon,

1997; Gottfredson, 1997).

The question that still remains is whether the cause of group differences in

average IQ is purely social, economic, and cultural or whether genetic factors are

also involved. Following publication of The Bell Curve, the American Psychological

Association (APA) established an 11-person Task Force (Neisser et al.,

1996) to evaluate the book’s conclusions. Based on their review of twin and other

kinship studies, the Task Force for the most part agreed with Jensen’s (1969)

Harvard Educational Review article and The Bell Curve, that within the White

population the heritability of IQ is “around .75” (p. 85). As to the cause of the

mean Black–White group difference, however, the Task Force concluded: “There

is certainly no support for a genetic interpretation” (p. 97).

Among the factors contributing to the longstanding lack of resolution of this

important and controversial issue are the difficulty of the subject matter, the

political issues associated with it and the emotions they arouse, and the different

meta-theoretical perspectives of the experimental and correlational methodologies.

Cronbach (1957) referred to these conflicting approaches as the two “halves”

of psychology because researchers are predisposed to draw different conclusions

depending on whether they adopt a “manipulations-lead-to-change” or a “correlations-

find-stability” paradigm.

Here we review in detail the research that has accumulated since Jensen’s

(1969) article and compare our findings with earlier reviews and evaluations such

as those by Loehlin et al. (1975), P. E. Vernon (1979), Herrnstein and Murray

(1994), the APA Task Force (Neisser et al., 1996), and Nisbett (1998). Facts in

themselves typically do not answer scientific questions. For a question so complex

as the cause of the average Black–White group difference in IQ, no one fact, one study, nor indeed any single line of evidence, can hope to be determinative.

Rather, resolving the issue requires examining several independent lines of

evidence to determine if, when taken together, they confirm or refute rival

hypotheses and research programs.

The philosophy of science methodology used here is guided by the view that,

just as in individual studies the principal of aggregation holds that a set of

measurements provides a more reliable indicator than any single measure taken

from the set (Rushton, Brainerd, & Pressley, 1983), so in reviewing multiple lines

of evidence, making strong inferences from a number of contending hypotheses

is more efficacious than considering only one hypothesis at a time (Platt, 1964).

Although strong inference is the method of science, it has, more often than not,

been eschewed in this controversial debate.

The final section of this article addresses the question of what these conclusions

imply for policy, specifically for the issues of educational and psychological

testing, health, race relations, and conflicting worldviews about the essence of

human nature. It suggests that the distributional model that takes genetic factors

into account must temper the discrimination model that explains Black–White

differences in socially valued outcomes.

Section 2: The Two Conflicting Research Programs

Here, we review the research on Black–White difference in average IQ

published since Jensen’s (1969) now 36-year-old article. We then apply the

philosophy of science methodologies of Platt (1964), Lakatos (1970, 1978), and

Urbach (1974a, 1974b) to determine if the preponderance of this new evidence

strengthens or weakens Jensen’s (1969) tentative assertion that it is more likely

than not that some part of

This guy is a white. He has no credibility. You actually lowered your credibility by posting him as your source.This is your proof?

.

Not the imbecile's comment: he dismisses this man's 'credibility' because he is White...if there is a more solid definition of moron I am unaware of it....WOW

 

[Ventura77]

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

not exactly-----Egyptians and Nubians were "interacting"
for millennia--------where there is "interaction" between
human beans-------there results HYBRID human beans

Drop the colorblind racism. You can't understand it is whites who created the concept of race. What we are doing is defending the reality that blacks existed in places like Egypt and that blacks actually did have advanced civilizations or at least civilizations equal to any white one.

This is actually dead wrong..
No pre-contact sub-Saharan African society ever created even a written language, or weaved cloth, or forged steel, or invented the wheel, or plow, or devised a calendar, or code of laws, or any social organization, or system of measurement, or math, or built a multi-story structure, or sewer, or infrastructure of any kind.

They never drilled a well or irrigated or created any agriculture, or built a road, or sea-worthy vessel. They never domesticated animals, or exploited underground natural resources, or produced anything that could be considered a mechanical device. Blacks were still living in the Stone Age when Whites discovered them just 400 years ago. Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced — but they never advanced at all. Blacks lived alone in Africa, a vast continent with temperate climates and abundant resources for 60,000 years; so they cannot blame racism, colonialism, culture, environment, or anything else for their failures. 19 of the 20 poorest countries are sub-Saharan African (Haiti). There has never been a successful Black nation. The only successful African nations were White-governed (Rhodesia, South Africa). No modern creations or civilization exists in sub-Saharan Africa that was not brought there by Whites. There are no White Third-World nations, but all Black ones are. Put Whites on an island and you get England; put Asians on an island and you get Japan; put Blacks on an island and you get Haiti. Nowhere Blacks live are they considered achievers. Blacks are universally viewed as unproductive and disruptive to society. Simply, life is an IQ test. All Black civilization is in fact transplanted White civilization. No Black society has ever independently developed and maintained its own technological way of life..

OK, have you said what you want?

Because all of this is wrong.

Thank you for your participation.

If its 'wrong' then you should've posted a refutation instead of this tepid bit of empty arrogance...essentially none of it is wrong, and more to the point in follows a pattern right up to the present...thanks you for your awkward denial...

I posted what I wanted to post. Your shit is wrong.

then prove it or withdraw...you are clearly out of your depth! If you accuse any poster of being wrong you are essentially obligating yourself to post proof...anything less identifies you as not only incorrect but a fool to boot...LOL

 

[Asclepias]

Jews are not the original Hebrews. They are european converts. Ashkenazis.

Ashkeanzi Jews are largely E1b1b haplogroup like North, and East Africans, and J haplogroup like Arabs.
The maternal DNA is mostly Italian.

All putrid Mediterranean's, a mistake upon Humanity.

Where did you E1b1b? Thats not correct.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

You article admits that Ashkenazi Jews are basically when Semitic men met Italian women, there might be some German,Polish, or Russian DNA in Ashkenazi Jews, but it's just minimal.

Where does it say its minimal?

"
The team found that four founders were responsible for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced to other European lineages.

All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."

That's only the maternal line.

Your link also admits this.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

Past research found that 50 percent to 80 percent of DNA from the Ashkenazi Y chromosome, which is used to trace the male lineage, originated in the Near East, Richards said. That supported a story wherein Jews came from Israel and largely eschewed intermarriage when they settled in Europe. [The Holy Land: 7 Amazing Archaeological Fin

Yeah but right under that it says this? I mean like the next paragraph.

"But historical documents tell a slightly different tale. Based on accounts such as those of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, by the time of the destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70, as many as 6 million Jews were living in the Roman Empire, but outside Israel, mainly in Italy and Southern Europe."

 

[Asclepias]

Where did you E1b1b? Thats not correct.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

lite advice: if you are pre-disposed to tell some they are wrong, please offer more than your ego...LOL

You cant give me any advice. That would be like me taking advice from a retarded chimp.

moron

No need to announce yourself. I pretty much suspected you were a moron.

The funniest part is that you clearly lack the knowledge or basic intelligence to even wade into an argument you scarcely comprehend...the irony is scathing and I am howling with laughter!!

Monkeys typical howl. You cite some weirdo and you expect me to take you seriously? Come on recessive guy. Really?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Ashkeanzi Jews are largely E1b1b haplogroup like North, and East Africans, and J haplogroup like Arabs.
The maternal DNA is mostly Italian.

All putrid Mediterranean's, a mistake upon Humanity.

Where did you E1b1b? Thats not correct.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

You article admits that Ashkenazi Jews are basically when Semitic men met Italian women, there might be some German,Polish, or Russian DNA in Ashkenazi Jews, but it's just minimal.

Where does it say its minimal?

"
The team found that four founders were responsible for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced to other European lineages.

All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."

That's only the maternal line.

Your link also admits this.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

Past research found that 50 percent to 80 percent of DNA from the Ashkenazi Y chromosome, which is used to trace the male lineage, originated in the Near East, Richards said. That supported a story wherein Jews came from Israel and largely eschewed intermarriage when they settled in Europe. [The Holy Land: 7 Amazing Archaeological Fin

Yeah but right under that it says this? I mean like the next paragraph.

"But historical documents tell a slightly different tale. Based on accounts such as those of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, by the time of the destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70, as many as 6 million Jews were living in the Roman Empire, but outside Israel, mainly in Italy and Southern Europe."

So, they're Italians?
Certainly not very White.

 

[BlackSand]

Ashkeanzi Jews are largely E1b1b haplogroup like North, and East Africans, and J haplogroup like Arabs.
The maternal DNA is mostly Italian.

All putrid Mediterranean's, a mistake upon Humanity.

Where did you E1b1b? Thats not correct.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

You article admits that Ashkenazi Jews are basically when Semitic men met Italian women, there might be some German,Polish, or Russian DNA in Ashkenazi Jews, but it's just minimal.

Where does it say its minimal?

"
The team found that four founders were responsible for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced to other European lineages.

All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."

That's only the maternal line.

Your link also admits this.

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

Past research found that 50 percent to 80 percent of DNA from the Ashkenazi Y chromosome, which is used to trace the male lineage, originated in the Near East, Richards said. That supported a story wherein Jews came from Israel and largely eschewed intermarriage when they settled in Europe. [The Holy Land: 7 Amazing Archaeological Fin

Yeah but right under that it says this? I mean like the next paragraph.

"But historical documents tell a slightly different tale. Based on accounts such as those of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, by the time of the destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70, as many as 6 million Jews were living in the Roman Empire, but outside Israel, mainly in Italy and Southern Europe."

And below that it even said ... "Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook."

Ha ...

.

 

[Asclepias]

Who told you it was wrong? Multiple sources point to the fact that Blacks created civilizations long before whites became self aware and stopped living in caves. How do you think the Nile got diverted? How about the Great Pyramids of Egypt and the Pyramids in Nubia?

..and naturally you just neglected to post any proof of your assertions...right? According to your unproven theory Blacks regressed from this elevated pre-white position of cultural dominance and declined to the point where the languish today...right Spanky? Blacks have the lowest average IQ and the most violent propensity---hardly a winning combo however it does explain why Africa has been in tribal turmoil for its entire history in spite of the wealth of natural resources and minerals...

I already posted my "proof" not that I need to prove anything to you. If youre still riding the IQ thing I already explained its been proven whites lack the intelligence to come up with a test that accurately measures intelligence.

Who told you it was wrong? Multiple sources point to the fact that Blacks created civilizations long before whites became self aware and stopped living in caves. How do you think the Nile got diverted? How about the Great Pyramids of Egypt and the Pyramids in Nubia?

..and naturally you just neglected to post any proof of your assertions...right? According to your unproven theory Blacks regressed from this elevated pre-white position of cultural dominance and declined to the point where the languish today...right Spanky? Blacks have the lowest average IQ and the most violent propensity---hardly a winning combo however it does explain why Africa has been in tribal turmoil for its entire history in spite of the wealth of natural resources and minerals...

I already posted my "proof" not that I need to prove anything to you. If youre still riding the IQ thing I already explained its been proven whites lack the intelligence to come up with a test that accurately measures intelligence.

Seriously you cannot be this dumb...you posted pulp---stories...find someone a bit bright to explain the definition of [ proof ] to you....


THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE

DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY

J. Philippe Rushton

The University of Western Ontario

Arthur R. Jensen

University of California, Berkeley

The culture-only (0% genetic–100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50%

genetic–50% environmental) models of the causes of mean Black–White differences

in cognitive ability are compared and contrasted across 10 categories of evidence:

the worldwide distribution of test scores, g factor of mental ability, heritability, brain

size and cognitive ability, transracial adoption, racial admixture, regression, related

life-history traits, human origins research, and hypothesized environmental variables.

The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in

Black–White differences in mean IQ. The implication for public policy is that the

discrimination model (i.e., Black–White differences in socially valued outcomes

will be equal barring discrimination) must be tempered by a distributional model

(i.e., Black–White outcomes reflect underlying group characteristics).

Section 1: Background

Throughout the history of psychology, no question has been so persistent or

so resistant to resolution as that of the relative roles of nature and nurture in

causing individual and group differences in cognitive ability (Degler, 1991;

Loehlin, Lindzey, & Spuhler, 1975). The scientific debate goes back to the

mid-19th century (e.g., Galton, 1869; Nott & Glidden, 1854). Starting with the

widespread use of standardized mental tests in World War I, average ethnic and

racial group differences were found. Especially vexing has been the cause(s) of

the 15-point Black–White IQ difference in the United States.

In 1969, the Harvard Educational Review published Arthur Jensen’s lengthy

article, “How Much Can We Boost IQ and School Achievement?” Jensen concluded

that (a) IQ tests measure socially relevant general ability; (b) individual

differences in IQ have a high heritability, at least for the White populations of the

United States and Europe; (c) compensatory educational programs have proved

generally ineffective in raising the IQs or school achievement of individuals or

groups; (d) because social mobility is linked to ability, social class differences in

IQ probably have an appreciable genetic component; and tentatively, but most

controversially, (e) the mean Black–White group difference in IQ probably has

some genetic component.

Jensen’s (1969) article was covered in Time, Newsweek, Life, U.S. News &

World Report, and New York Times Magazine. His conclusions, the theoretical

issues they raised, and the public policy recommendations that many saw as

stemming directly from them were dubbed “Jensenism,” a term which entered the dictionary. Since 1969, Jensen has continued to publish prolifically on all of these

issues, and increasing numbers of psychometricians and behavioral geneticists

have come to agree with one or more of the tenets of Jensenism (Snyderman &

Rothman, 1987, 1988).

The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) presented general readers an

update of the evidence for the hereditarian position along with several policy

recommendations and an original analysis of 11,878 youths (including 3,022

Blacks) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It found that

most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test,

regardless of ethnic background, went on to occupational success by their late 20s

and early 30s, whereas those with low scores were more inclined to welfare

dependency. The study also found that the average IQ for African Americans was

lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103,

106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273–278).

Currently, the 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between Blacks

and Whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute. A

meta-analytic review by Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001) showed

it also holds for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic

Aptitude Test (SAT; N _ 2.4 million) and the Graduate Record Examination

(GRE; N _ 2.3 million), as well as for tests for job applicants in corporate settings

(N _ 0.5 million) and in the military (N _ 0.4 million). Because test scores are

the best predictor of economic success in Western society (Schmidt & Hunter,

1998), these group differences have important societal outcomes (R. A. Gordon,

1997; Gottfredson, 1997).

The question that still remains is whether the cause of group differences in

average IQ is purely social, economic, and cultural or whether genetic factors are

also involved. Following publication of The Bell Curve, the American Psychological

Association (APA) established an 11-person Task Force (Neisser et al.,

1996) to evaluate the book’s conclusions. Based on their review of twin and other

kinship studies, the Task Force for the most part agreed with Jensen’s (1969)

Harvard Educational Review article and The Bell Curve, that within the White

population the heritability of IQ is “around .75” (p. 85). As to the cause of the

mean Black–White group difference, however, the Task Force concluded: “There

is certainly no support for a genetic interpretation” (p. 97).

Among the factors contributing to the longstanding lack of resolution of this

important and controversial issue are the difficulty of the subject matter, the

political issues associated with it and the emotions they arouse, and the different

meta-theoretical perspectives of the experimental and correlational methodologies.

Cronbach (1957) referred to these conflicting approaches as the two “halves”

of psychology because researchers are predisposed to draw different conclusions

depending on whether they adopt a “manipulations-lead-to-change” or a “correlations-

find-stability” paradigm.

Here we review in detail the research that has accumulated since Jensen’s

(1969) article and compare our findings with earlier reviews and evaluations such

as those by Loehlin et al. (1975), P. E. Vernon (1979), Herrnstein and Murray

(1994), the APA Task Force (Neisser et al., 1996), and Nisbett (1998). Facts in

themselves typically do not answer scientific questions. For a question so complex

as the cause of the average Black–White group difference in IQ, no one fact, one study, nor indeed any single line of evidence, can hope to be determinative.

Rather, resolving the issue requires examining several independent lines of

evidence to determine if, when taken together, they confirm or refute rival

hypotheses and research programs.

The philosophy of science methodology used here is guided by the view that,

just as in individual studies the principal of aggregation holds that a set of

measurements provides a more reliable indicator than any single measure taken

from the set (Rushton, Brainerd, & Pressley, 1983), so in reviewing multiple lines

of evidence, making strong inferences from a number of contending hypotheses

is more efficacious than considering only one hypothesis at a time (Platt, 1964).

Although strong inference is the method of science, it has, more often than not,

been eschewed in this controversial debate.

The final section of this article addresses the question of what these conclusions

imply for policy, specifically for the issues of educational and psychological

testing, health, race relations, and conflicting worldviews about the essence of

human nature. It suggests that the distributional model that takes genetic factors

into account must temper the discrimination model that explains Black–White

differences in socially valued outcomes.

Section 2: The Two Conflicting Research Programs

Here, we review the research on Black–White difference in average IQ

published since Jensen’s (1969) now 36-year-old article. We then apply the

philosophy of science methodologies of Platt (1964), Lakatos (1970, 1978), and

Urbach (1974a, 1974b) to determine if the preponderance of this new evidence

strengthens or weakens Jensen’s (1969) tentative assertion that it is more likely

than not that some part of

This guy is a white. He has no credibility. You actually lowered your credibility by posting him as your source.This is your proof?

.

Not the imbecile's comment: he dismisses this man's 'credibility' because he is White...if there is a more solid definition of moron I am unaware of it....WOW

Yeah whites lie a lot. Besides...he is some kind of sexual weirdo and racist. Why you think he is credible is something that is typical of you lice attracting white boys.

This guy is a fucking moron and little dick wimp like you.

"Although his training is unrelated to biology or genetics, Rushton has not hesitated to spread his controversial opinions far and wide, especially through his major published work, Race, Evolution and Behavior. His findings: black people have larger genitals, breasts and buttocks — characteristics that Rushton alleges have an inverse relationship to brain size and, thus, intelligence. Although the University of Western Ontario has always been careful to defend Rushton’s academic freedom, officials did reprimand him twice for carrying out research on human subjects in 1988 without required prior approval. In the first incident, Rushton surveyed first-year psychology students, asking questions about penis length, distance of ejaculation, and number of sex partners.

In the second, he surveyed customers at a Toronto shopping mall, paying 50 white people, 50 black people and 50 Asians five dollars apiece to answer questions about their sexual habits."