Zone1 What is race realism?

[flacaltenn]

The reason that most American Negroes have higher averages than African Negroes is because most American Negroes have some white ancestry.

Probably not. Because in the surveys I posted on Sub-Saharan diffs in Africa versus Europe, the INCREASE shows up in just a couple generations. AND the increase in IQ is MOSTLY at the LOW end. So -- heavily suspicious of it just being in an ENVIRONMENT that stimulates and challenges critical thinking, problem solving and the like.

Same could be said about the 1/4 of blacks in Americans -- if your numbers are right. The gang-bangers and their enablers are fairly UNEDUCATED given the damnable reports of near zero student proficiency for reading, writing, math in inner cities. Or the crappy graduation rates.

THAT'S environment also. You KIDNAP a bunch of those kids (they'll live longer and better lives) and REMOVE them from that environment, put them in quality military style schools and a supportive family -- go BACK and RESTEST their IQs in 6 years and they will be OUT of the lower quintiles of IQ.

I've always said -- you could take a bunch of Burger King employees at 16 or 17 who are looking at dropping out of school and turn them into STEM or other professions in six years or so. It's NOT TOO LATE at that age. It's a matter of MAKING them intellectual sponges. And seeing the VALUE self-fulfillment of education.

GUARANTEED. Because WE KNOW -- you can LOSE IQ points rather easily from DISUSE and MISUSE and ABUSE of your brain over time.

So -- like I said -- NOBODY WINS this discussion you want to have. And there is PLENTY of evidence that RACE is not the primary driver of IQ.

 

[flacaltenn]

Work for several semesters as a substitute teacher in a black majority public school, and see if you still think everyone can be educated.

Oh - absolutely I do. But they would have to be REMOVED from their environment to succeed. See my posts above.

Funny you mention that because my uncle and aunt were big school principals in the NYCity system. They TOOK assignments in the WORST schools in the system and they LOVED their jobs. It was DANGEROUS and emotional. My uncle had 3 cars stripped and damaged, a couple ER visits, etc.

He would INSIST when we visited on a WORK day to take me to his schools and "audit classes". I was like 15 to 18 at the time. I was in a diff world and got poked and examined by the other students like an alien being. Later on in life we had some deep discussions on all that.

I asked him about the Federal help that they got. This ultra-lefty uncle told me whatever they RECEIVED as help was more work for THEM than help.

I asked him what his biggest challenges was -- and that was NOT ENOUGH or in reality -- NO cooperation from the parents. Couldn't get report cards signed. Couldn't get parent conferences. Had to make decisions WITHOUT family involvement.

AND -- he's the one that confirmed my belief that these kids COULD BE academics. Or at least be good students -- but you would have to take them OUT of that environment.

Since my ultra-lefty uncle was saying these things 35 years ago - I think he's been proven correct. The CURRENT left IGNORES this problem. Thinks money and MORE Fed control is the answer. It's not the answer. Neither is REMOVING parental choice and involvement in education.

Like most lefty ideas -- that is the OPPOSITE of what you want to do to solve issues like these.

 

[Lisa558]

Probably not. Because in the surveys I posted on Sub-Saharan diffs in Africa versus Europe, the INCREASE shows up in just a couple generations. AND the increase in IQ is MOSTLY at the LOW end. So -- heavily suspicious of it just being in an ENVIRONMENT that stimulates and challenges critical thinking, problem solving and the like.

Same could be said about the 1/4 of blacks in Americans -- if your numbers are right. The gang-bangers and their enablers are fairly UNEDUCATED given the damnable reports of near zero student proficiency for reading, writing, math in inner cities. Or the crappy graduation rates.

THAT'S environment also. You KIDNAP a bunch of those kids (they'll live longer and better lives) and REMOVE them from that environment, put them in quality military style schools and a supportive family -- go BACK and RESTEST their IQs in 6 years and they will be OUT of the lower quintiles of IQ.

I've always said -- you could take a bunch of Burger King employees at 16 or 17 who are looking at dropping out of school and turn them into STEM or other professions in six years or so. It's NOT TOO LATE at that age. It's a matter of MAKING them intellectual sponges. And seeing the VALUE self-fulfillment of education.

GUARANTEED. Because WE KNOW -- you can LOSE IQ points rather easily from DISUSE and MISUSE and ABUSE of your brain over time.

So -- like I said -- NOBODY WINS this discussion you want to have. And there is PLENTY of evidence that RACE is not the primary driver of IQ.

Absolutely NOT on your claim that you could turn Burger King employees into graduates of STEM programs in six years.

And that’s because not everything is due to environment. There is also such a thing as innate intelligence (along with motivation levels). It takes an IQ far above average to succeed in a difficult engineering program, for example.(There’s a reason the average IQ of engineering students is 130.)

The average Joe off the street, with an IQ of 100, could NOT succeed in a difficult STEM program.

You‘re sounding more and more like a liberal, where how people turn out is all the result of their environment - and where their own individual attributes (intelligence, motivation, discipline, responsibility) has nothing to do with it. How else can you explain how poor people, raised in a tenement or a ghetto, become successful?

Also, not everyone is college material, in general. People with average intelligence, or less, would be better off in a vocational training program.

 

[Friends]

Probably not. Because in the surveys I posted on Sub-Saharan diffs in Africa versus Europe, the INCREASE shows up in just a couple generations. AND the increase in IQ is MOSTLY at the LOW end. So -- heavily suspicious of it just being in an ENVIRONMENT that stimulates and challenges critical thinking, problem solving and the like.

Where is the increase you are talking about? Where is evidence of the increase?

 

[Friends]

Oh - absolutely I do. But they would have to be REMOVED from their environment to succeed. See my posts above.

IQ Are Mostly Genetic,
Not Cultural
Medical Research News
7-25-7

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)."... 5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89... 7. IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100... 10. Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict. Race Differences In IQ Mostly Genetic, Not Cultural rense.com ------------- The following chart illustrates what is asserted in #7 above: whites from lower middle class families average higher SAT scores than blacks from upper class families.

 

[flacaltenn]

And that’s because not everything is due to environment. There is also such a thing as innate intelligence (along with motivation levels). It takes an IQ far above average to succeed in a difficult engineering program, for example.(There’s a reason the average IQ of engineering students is 130.)

The average Joe off the street, with an IQ of 100, could NOT succeed in a difficult STEM program.

40 years in science and engineering and no one ever asked me about IQ. Furthermore, the color of my skin did not automatically answer ANYTHING about IQ. Ingenuity and problem solving is bought by experience and dilligence and patience.

Some high functioning IQ individuals are incapable of making choices, have monumental biases that affect their decisions, many have problems communicating and working in groups, and often no integrity or professionalism. A PhD in one field doesn't mean any of your innate abilities or IQ metrics would get you thru a DIFFERENT field.

CLEARLY -- science has become a chew toy for activists in labcoats. It showed during the Covid fiasco, it's a FEATURE of Global Warming science and it's invaded the STEM sciences like a super-virus.

Those Burger King front-liners only have to master basic science and math to GET a Batchelor of Science degree and a great job. But -- they must show a LOVE for learning and handle the pain of INTENSE study. THEIR DEFICIT -- came from schools THAT GAVE UP ON THEM BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY SHOWED any promise. And the harder part of that task if I took the challenge and went for it -- would NOT BE their IQ -- but overcoming the DEFICITS of learning from long years in school where it was ASSUMED -- they'd work at Burger King.

 

[flacaltenn]

IQ Are Mostly Genetic,
Not Cultural
Medical Research News
7-25-7

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)."... 5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89... 7. IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100... 10. Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict. Race Differences In IQ Mostly Genetic, Not Cultural rense.com ------------- The following chart illustrates what is asserted in #7 above: whites from lower middle class families average higher SAT scores than blacks from upper class families. View attachment 686475

Rense is full of fake science and conspiracies. Whoever WROTE the article lacks many language and writing skills, doesn't portray the sources correctly and MIGHT LACK a few IQ points themselves.

It's packed with sketchy examples. Like the chart at the END for instance. For GOD'S SAKE man that chart shows a 200 point different IQ MEAN for blacks between poverty and over $200K per year. THAT's just taking INCOME and not even parental schooling into account. THAT'S SIGNIFICANT as an ENVIRONMENTAL factor.

And MORE importantly -- In the "White column" of that chart the IQ improvement for THEM up to $200K was only more like 110 points! That ONE enviro factor moved the LOWER END OF the Black spectrum TWICE AS HIGH as it did for Whites.

You just PROVED what I SAID in my previous post about "environmental/cultural" RAISING the lower ENDS of the IQ spectrum. And if you realize that there is DIMINISHING RETURN in associating environment with ONLY income as you go higher -- all those "generic" blacks versus every else GROUP statistics would be GREATLY improved with better jobs and education and LOVE of learning.

And you MISSED analyzing that -- by relying on a KNOWN weak source to SERVE YOU what you web-searched for.

The other Rense stuff is similarly weak,. Like the use of adoption as a proxy for IQ, since without READING THE ACTUAL STUDIES -- because you'd NEVER KNOW the age range at adoption, or the adopting family income and environment or any IQ enriching factors involved. And it's ONLY TRANS-RACIAL as opposed to adoptions in general which COULD MEAN things like the celebrity FAD of going to Africa or China to adopt. And the analysis as WRITTEN is NOT scientific or even coherent. Just a "dump" of factoids without reading the ORIGINAL studies.

 

[flacaltenn]

You‘re sounding more and more like a liberal, where how people turn out is all the result of their environment - and where their own individual attributes (intelligence, motivation, discipline, responsibility) has nothing to do with it. How else can you explain how poor people, raised in a tenement or a ghetto, become successful?

think you just contradicted yourself here. INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES (minus IQ) like motivation, discipline, responsibility are PREDOMINANTLY "environmental". You've made that argument YOURSELF here in this forum multiple times. You dont GET those things without parental involvement, stable naturing oversight or MENTORS or extremely skilled teachers or religious leaders.

We're at the beginning of a Lord of the Flies experiment where kids electronic devices RAISE them. As any sucessful parent can tell you -- having dinner at the SAME TABLE -- a small thing to ask -- is an ANCHOR for developing those traits you mentioned. The teachers get them for 6 hours a day, their parents are lucky if they get them for 2 hours. The REMAINING hours -- the WEB is raising them...

Flash mobs are replacing "play dates". BOTH are actually counter-productive to growing up with the right "individual attributes".

 

[Lisa558]

40 years in science and engineering and no one ever asked me about IQ. Furthermore, the color of my skin did not automatically answer ANYTHING about IQ. Ingenuity and problem solving is bought by experience and dilligence and patience.

Some high functioning IQ individuals are incapable of making choices, have monumental biases that affect their decisions, many have problems communicating and working in groups, and often no integrity or professionalism. A PhD in one field doesn't mean any of your innate abilities or IQ metrics would get you thru a DIFFERENT field.

CLEARLY -- science has become a chew toy for activists in labcoats. It showed during the Covid fiasco, it's a FEATURE of Global Warming science and it's invaded the STEM sciences like a super-virus.

Those Burger King front-liners only have to master basic science and math to GET a Batchelor of Science degree and a great job. But -- they must show a LOVE for learning and handle the pain of INTENSE study. THEIR DEFICIT -- came from schools THAT GAVE UP ON THEM BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY SHOWED any promise. And the harder part of that task if I took the challenge and went for it -- would NOT BE their IQ -- but overcoming the DEFICITS of learning from long years in school where it was ASSUMED -- they'd work at Burger King.

Just because nobody asked you about IQ doesn’t negate the fact that the average IQ of engineering grads is in the 130s.

Sorry, but you are very likely NOT going to be able to take a person whose most difficult challenge is asking “fries with that?” - these days, they don’t even have to figure out change - and think they can earn a B.S. in Science.

 

[Lisa558]

think you just contradicted yourself here. INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES (minus IQ) like motivation, discipline, responsibility are PREDOMINANTLY "environmental". You've made that argument YOURSELF here in this forum multiple times. You dont GET those things without parental involvement, stable naturing oversight or MENTORS or extremely skilled teachers or religious leaders.

We're at the beginning of a Lord of the Flies experiment where kids electronic devices RAISE them. As any sucessful parent can tell you -- having dinner at the SAME TABLE -- a small thing to ask -- is an ANCHOR for developing those traits you mentioned. The teachers get them for 6 hours a day, their parents are lucky if they get them for 2 hours. The REMAINING hours -- the WEB is raising them...

Flash mobs are replacing "play dates". BOTH are actually counter-productive to growing up with the right "individual attributes".

NOPE….wrong again! Traits like discipline and motivation are largely innate, and not environmental. Our parents raised us exactly the same - and my sister is the most unmotivated person you’d ever want to meet, and I’m the opposite.

You are sounding more and more like a liberal - blaming or crediting everything on one’s environment. Instead of holding people responsible for their own actions, or giving them credit for their own positive traits, it’s always thanks to someone else, or the fault of someone else. In other words…

”You didn’t build that!”

 

[flacaltenn]

IQ Are Mostly Genetic,
Not Cultural
Medical Research News
7-25-7

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)."... 5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89... 7. IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100... 10. Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict. Race Differences In IQ Mostly Genetic, Not Cultural rense.com ------------- The following chart illustrates what is asserted in #7 above: whites from lower middle class families average higher SAT scores than blacks from upper class families. View attachment 686475

BTW dude -- to put a laser sight directly ON RENSE as a TERRIBLE source of ANYTHING science - 2 of the 3 SUBSOURCES they used in the 1st paragraph of your article are either GONE or something other than a "study". The link to Psychology goes to their DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) page and has NO "IQ science" there. The link that goes to AmerPsychAssoc goes to an article on "fetal alcohol syndrome". Which tells me that you didn't even try to verify the sub-sources.

Dont let bad sources drive your "opinions".

 

[flacaltenn]

NOPE….wrong again! Traits like discipline and motivation are largely innate, and not environmental. Our parents raised us exactly the same - and my sister is the most unmotivated person you’d ever want to meet, and I’m the opposite.

You are sounding more and more like a liberal - blaming or crediting everything on one’s environment. Instead of holding people responsible for their own actions, or giving them credit for their own positive traits, it’s always thanks to someone else, or the fault of someone else. In other words…

”You didn’t build that!”

Those traits are CHOICES that get made. You can lead a kid to success, but cant MAKE them drink. If IQ WAS MOSTLY GENETIC -- there'd not likely be a huge difference in that factor.

If the TOTAL "environment" entices them to ignore advice and guidance, and parents didn't intervene or increase the POSITIVE reinforcement of those traits - than other factors intervened in their environment. IQ does NOT drive those traits. There's a plethora of evil geniuses in the world to demonstrate that.

I lost a brother to bad choices a couple years ago. It was LONG in the making. It takes YEARS to destroy your chances for success of any kind and replace it with angst, fear, jealousy, or laziness.

 

[Lisa558]

Just because nobody asked you about IQ doesn’t negate the fact that the average IQ of engineering grads is in the 130s.

Sorry, but you are very likely NOT going to be able to take a person whose most difficult challenge is asking “fries with that?” - these days, they don’t even have to figure out change - and think they can earn a B.S. in Science.

Those traits are CHOICES that get made. You can lead a kid to success, but cant MAKE them drink. If IQ WAS MOSTLY GENETIC -- there'd not likely be a huge difference in that factor.

If the TOTAL "environment" entices them to ignore advice and guidance, and parents didn't intervene or increase the POSITIVE reinforcement of those traits - than other factors intervened in their environment. IQ does NOT drive those traits. There's a plethora of evil geniuses in the world to demonstrate that.

Being a motivated or conscientious person is not a choice. It is an inherited trait.

I am a very conscientious person - to a fault - and it‘s just in my nature. I would have to intentionally work to be less conscientious, and it would be difficult - against my nature.

Personal traits are not choices.

P.S. I am sorry about your brother.

 

[flacaltenn]

Where is the increase you are talking about? Where is evidence of the increase?

It's in the more than a dozen studies they used to COMPILE the improvement by changing "culture and environment" when they were moved from Sub-Saharan Africa to England, US, and the Netherlands.

The numbers in the Table at the source I gave is a "meta-study average" of those improvements.

 

[Lisa558]

Speaking of inherited traits, you might be surprised to learn that “respect for authority” is more than 50% inherited. So when a wise-ass starts mouthing off to a teacher, or later a boss, it’s not so much that he learned to be disrespectful from his parent, but that he INHERITED that trait.

 

[Friends]

Rense is full of fake science and conspiracies. Whoever WROTE the article lacks many language and writing skills, doesn't portray the sources correctly and MIGHT LACK a few IQ points themselves.

The website was originally on the Medical Research News. The article is the lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

The chart that shows that lower middle class white teenagers tend to perform better on the SAT than upper middle class black teenagers comes from the College Board.

 

[Friends]

RACE, INTELLIGENCE, AND THE BRAIN: THE ERRORS AND OMISSIONS OF THE ‘REVISED’ EDITION OF S. J. GOULD’S THE MISMEASURE OF MAN (1996) J. Philippe Rushton Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario. London, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canada

Gould withholds from his readers that The Bell Curve is mainly an empirical work about the causes of social stratification and that it reached its conclusions only after fully analyzing a 12-year longitudinal study of 12,486 youths (3022 of whom were African-American), which showed that most 17-year-olds with high IQs (Blacks as well as Whites) went on to occupational success by their late 20s and early 30s whereas many of those with low IQs (both Black and White) went on to welfare dependency.

The average IQ for African-Americans was found to be lower than those for Latino-, White-, Asian-, and Jewish-Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 115, respectively, pp. 273-278). Failure to mention these data fosters the false belief that IQ tests are not predictive and are biased in favor of North Europeans.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.543.2771&rep=rep1&type=pdf