Nobel Prize scientist - Black people are dumb

[Arnold_O]

when it comes to subjects like math and science i would just about bet my life on it that james watson is correct. when was the last time some major scientific discovery came from africa or from an american black? i know that there are some brilliant black physicists but their numbers are small compared to asian, jewish and caucasians

now on the other hand, you have to have street smarts to survive in the hood and street smarts is not to be taken lightly. same with surviving in an area where you can get eaten by a lion.

[foal]

your logic is pretty weak there, dude

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would like to point out at this point that anyone arguing that negroes do not enjoy both an advantage at athletics and a disadvantage at swimming compared to caucasians is flat out retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is also retarded to assume that "negroes" is a group that explains much in terms of overall genetic composition. I don't think anybody would argue that certain populations have different physical characteristics based on genetics. However, it is important to note that "black people" does not really narrow down the population that you are commenting on. It conflates many different groups that have wildly varying attributes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but my statement will be true no matter how you define the groups.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would like to point out at this point that anyone arguing that negroes do not enjoy both an advantage at athletics and a disadvantage at swimming compared to caucasians is flat out retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is also retarded to assume that "negroes" is a group that explains much in terms of overall genetic composition. I don't think anybody would argue that certain populations have different physical characteristics based on genetics. However, it is important to note that "black people" does not really narrow down the population that you are commenting on. It conflates many different groups that have wildly varying attributes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but my statement will be true no matter how you define the groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's incorrect. Certain populations of "black people" excel at certain sports and other populations of black people do well in different sports. I'm specifically thinking of the East/West African difference. Referring to them as the same group is misleading.

I don't really disagree with your overall point in this case, I just think it is very important to clarify exactly what we are talking about in these instances. There is a bit of history regarding these issues, so we should be careful in stating what our claims actually are.

[Taraz]

I dug up an interesting opinion article on why g is not a good measure of anything. You can read the whole thing here: http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html

[ QUOTE ]

Anyone who wanders into the bleak and monotonous desert of IQ and the nature-vs-nurture dispute eventually gets trapped in the especially arid question of what, if anything, g, the supposed general factor of intelligence, tells us about these matters. By calling g a "statistical myth" before, I made clear my conclusion, but none of my reasoning. This topic being what it is, I hardly expect this will change anyone's mind, but I feel a duty to explain myself.

To summarize what follows below ("shorter sloth", as it were), the case for g rests on a statistical technique, factor analysis, which works solely on correlations between tests. Factor analysis is handy for summarizing data, but can't tell us where the correlations came from; it always says that there is a general factor whenever there only positive correlations. The appearance of g is a trivial reflection of that correlation structure. A clear example, known since 1916, shows that factor analysis can give the appearance of a general factor when there are actually many thousands of completely independent and equally strong causes at work. Heritability doesn't distinguish these alternatives either. Exploratory factor analysis being no good at discovering causal structure, it provides no support for the reality of g.

These purely methodological points don't, themselves, give reason to doubt the reality and importance of g, but do show that a certain line of argument is invalid and some supposed evidence is irrelevant. Since that's about the only case which anyone does advance for g, however, which accords very poorly with other evidence, from neuroscience and cognitive psychology, about the structure of the mind, it is very hard for me to find any reason to believe in the importance of g, and many to reject it. These are all pretty elementary points, and the persistence of the debates, and in particular the fossilized invocation of ancient statistical methods, is really pretty damn depressing.

[/ QUOTE ]

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but my statement will be true no matter how you define the groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I contend that whites (natives of the Dinaric Alps) are better basketball players than blacks (the Bambuti).

How you define the groups is kind of relevant.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but my statement will be true no matter how you define the groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I contend that whites (natives of the Dinaric Alps) are better basketball players than blacks (the Bambuti).

How you define the groups is kind of relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]


White men can't jump, you know it.

[Arnold_O]

[ QUOTE ]


Okay, I contend that whites (natives of the Dinaric Alps) are better basketball players than blacks (the Bambuti).

relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't know about that, they pretty filthy from 3 pt range

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
when it comes to subjects like math and science i would just about bet my life on it that james watson is correct. when was the last time some major scientific discovery came from africa or from an american black? i know that there are some brilliant black physicists but their numbers are small compared to asian, jewish and caucasians

now on the other hand, you have to have street smarts to survive in the hood and street smarts is not to be taken lightly. same with surviving in an area where you can get eaten by a lion.

[/ QUOTE ]

And posts like this is probably why Watson should just shut up.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Environment?

[/ QUOTE ]

They should also test family dynamics. One or two parent home. Do children from stable families perform better than those from broken homes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they do, but all reputable studies already control for such things to the extent the data are available, which they often are. And for educational level of the mother (if available), family income, and a host of other factors.