It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Black people 'less intelligent' scientist claims

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:59 AM

Originally posted by MrAnonUK
We all started out as white beings, (in my atheist belief system) early humans (hominids,) that originated and lived in equatorial Africa had a coat of hair that covered their entire body that protect them from the Sun’s harmful UV.

After hundreds of thousands of years our early primate ancestors started to evolve (evolutionary processes) and hair production diminished leaving their light skin exposed to the Sun’s rays, light skin that provided minimal protection. This therefore means a fair skinned person living near the equator is susceptible to several health risks, such as skin cancer (melanoma).

On the other hand, a person with darker skin meant greater protection and therefore had a greater survival advantage (through increased Melanin.) Thus, a process called Natural selection, filters out certain parental genes (those for lighter skin) in successive generations, producing offspring with slightly different characteristics and less genetic variability.

My beliefs (Atheism and evolutionary) are the reason I post this without any fear of ridicule and/or being labelled a racist person, as through my beliefs I do not feel it a need or necessity to possess a racist superiority complex of any sort.

The common consensus on this issue would raise an interesting discussion in my eyes, hopefully also leaving myself and others with an insight into how others believe regional evolution may decrease or increase a given peoples intellect.

I would like to close my initial input with a reminder to some... this is an observation by one scientist only (that I know of.) Any given differences I am sure are easily proven to be extremely small and not worthy of in sighting any hate or belief of superiority.

Please don’t make me regret raising this very sensitive issue, we’re all potentially above petty hate and maligned comments, please evaluate comments carefully before submitting them.
(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm not sure that hominids had "white" skin, like that of Nordic caucasians. Rather it's more likely that their skin was pink, like that of other species of mammals.

Humans did not directly evolve from earlier hominids. As a matter of fact, humans lived amongside them.

Some people suggest that "white" skin is symptomatic of a mutation caused by damaged DNA, due to dietary habits (processed wheat and sugar). People of all ethnicities have lived in Africa for thousands of years, without "evolving" negroid traits. Central Asia, South America and the Caribbean all have climates that are almost identical to that of equatorial Africa. People living in those regions haven't "evolved" negroid traits either.

Black people lived in Europe hundreds of years ago. Their skin must have been very dark: the Dutch, Swiss and Germans have traditions of wearing very dark blackface, probably in acknowledgment of the Moors who settled in those regions. They also love their chocolate and cheese, for some reason.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:02 PM
Blacks being more or less intelligent than Whites has less to do with genotype than with cultural values.

Maybe Blacks have learned not to value what this person considers to be markers of intelligence.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by vcwxvwligen

You’re probably correct; I'd like the tone to that of a shaved dog, monkey or any other naturally hairy animal. Most probably a pink/peachy colour.

The section you quoted is mostly pulled from another site and rehashed slightly, the section where it mentions white I'd guess it's just in reference to the colour being more closely matched to a 'white' person’s skin than that of any of modern race of our species.

And yes we clearly lived alongside many or a small group of hominids, but that is the inevitability of the evolutionary theory due to common ancestry. However, I would believe colour difference is indeed due to the acknowledged presence or lack of Melanin that ultimately determines our skin colour rather than any past settlements.

Melanin is increased to form a darker tone and increase protection against the Suns UV rays, either way it would gradually have changed our skin tone to be lighter or darker due to the absence of hair protecting us, this is which over time produced such varied skin tones ultimately resulting in modern day appearance differences.

The effect of knowing we was once covered in hair would point towards the opinions that we required less melanin, which would lead many to conclude that we at this stage had fairer skin whilst covered by a layer of hair.

The ice age would have also left each continents peoples requiring little Melanin, which would then in theory mean the tribes on the African continents (if they had lost the coating of hair at all by this point) should have been lighter skinned at that time, in the time since the process of natural selection dictates the genes passing on a higher presence of Melanin.

Ultimately though, I cannot see this relating to intellect in any way, I merely mentioned that in the hope that responders would see my beliefs and understandings as meaning my post wasn’t motivated by a superiority complex in any way. I anticipated a few responders would have inevitably accused me of such ignorance so tried to clear that up as much as possible.

Please feel free to correct me if you feel I’m incorrect, as all so often stated on this site... knowledge is power.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:00 PM
What's new?
Mormons have known this for years!

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:09 PM
i think its to do with culture
this is from my own experiences as the person i would consider my best friend is black, i belive black people have there history and culture drilled into them more growing up. my freinds family are 3 generations past being jamacan, yet they still have jamcian meals 2 times a week they love to talk about there histoy and how far they have come since the slave trade.
i belive white people let go of the past quite quickly and thus forgive and forget and get on with new things.

im white my family never told me about the past
they were allways geard up towards my future

just my 2 cent

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:11 PM
didn't there used to this EXACT argument about Ukarainians, and Irish?

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:29 PM
The "bred to be strong slaves" argument is a wash in my opinion. Many, many times throughout the past one group or another has been slaves. This includes different groups of whites and asians.

Why don't the Jews dominate sports? The Egyptians must have bred them to be strong to do all that pyramid building, right?

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Snap]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:31 PM
I identify a portion of my heritage as black, or African-American, and it's what I mainly claim. It seems off-putting and incendiary to make a statement like this scientist has made, since intelligence is so difficult to accurately measure and is so subjective. A prostitute on the streets regardless of color likely has more "street smarts" than a spoiled daddy's girl living in a posh Beverly Hills mansion. A pygmy bushman more than likely is more intelligent about bush survival than a white college kid from Syracuse. A traditional Paiute shaman probably knows a good deal more about the spiritual world than someone raised in a materialisic society.

I think there are many facets to intelligence, and it's not fair to judge the world off of "first-world" biased intelligence quotient tests and the western ideal of "intelligent", which, in my opinion, simply relates to one's abiltity to function extraordinarly well in a fast paced, seperate from nature environment while being able to secure a decent upbringing and access to social training centers (schools) that teach kids the standard of western intelligence early in life, along with parental pressure to succed. Attending college and university is regarded as the pinnacle of western success in education for the common westerner (and most Asians), applies elsewhere too since western values have spread worldwide. But is this intelligence being fostered, or just a bunch of memorization, repetition and glorified apprentice status for students? The education is more or less teachings of how to make a living and excel in the western/industrialized world. You must have money to access this level of training to have the status as a graduate of college or university, unless one has demonstrated extraordinary athletic or scholastic ability. Most African-Americans do not have the money to seek higher education as easily as whites. These are a people whose ancestors have struggled in this nation a long time, and are just now in the past half century gaining somewhat equal status to whites in the job market and society.

I think the "ghetto behavior" of some blacks perhaps deemed "unintelligent" is more of a by-product of generations of hoplessness and despair than true lack of learning capability. Their teachers have not challenged them, their parents are too busy trying to make ends meet to really devote time to them, and most embrace the "thug" and criminal culture glorified in Hip Hop culture to some degree...and as a black person I personally feel that this Hip Hop culture has been latched onto by young blacks as a sense of identity in many cases. They see these icons touting violence, gangbanging and deviant behavior. Most don't have a good male or female role model in their lives.

I think it would be interesting to study the histories of other displaced, enslaved people and their descendants of antiquity to get a more level perspective of the African-American situation in America, and the sub-culture we see. I'm only speaking of what I know about, and that is blacks in America. But I certainly do not think it's intelligent to label a group of people less intelligent without looking at their status in society past and present, and what theirs and their ancestors opportunites have been. Whites have always had the upper hand in the western world, and it is his measure that all are judged by. That said, I am quite sure that any band of aboriginal or tribal people's would find a westernized black or white person's skills at natural living sorely lacking. Being easy bait for a jaguar or a lion by not being jungle savvy would be a degree of a less intelligent person in some places, what would your Harvard degree do for you in the brush? I could tell you some stories about my people and their ignorant ways, but I could also relay tales of equally ignorant whites and hispanics. Once again, I sense racist undertones in an ATS post.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:36 PM
Some poster on the previous pages said that white people have bigger brain
than black and therefore they are more intelligent.
The intelligence is measured by the thickness of the human cerebral cortex.
Not the brain size. For example the whales must be more intelligent than humans. And they are not.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by Snap

Because last time I checked Jewish was not nationality perhaps, apart from that a good point that totally discounts that draconian hypothesis. It’s obviously a false belief anyway seeing as I doubt very much genetics would change so dramatically over one or two generations.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:39 PM
the argument about sports is true

basketball prodomiently blacks
running same
boxing mostly blacks

american football mixed bag really
and football same

rugby mostly whites with exceptions to new zeland

power lifting whites
swimming whites
discus whites
hammer throw whites

i belive enviroment change people to be how they needed to be
white people generaly colder places they gerw lager stronger

blacks lived in hot places they became smaller and more agile
thus good at running nowadays

i dont think there less inteligent tho thats just a trend i have spotted

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:42 PM
reply to post by Seasick

wait there you wrote a inteligent well thaught out post all by yourself surely not your black
and your spelling and grammer is better that mine and im white

just kidding but that sort of proves it lol

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:48 PM
This is at a minimum a very sensitive topic.

As a world, we've had hundreds or thousands of years, for populations to develop around the globe with very little interaction. Yes, there were traders and explorers and traveled to different parts of the globe but realistically, there are a number of populations that developed with little interbreeding between them.

Now, I think that these populations adapted to their local environment. Some populations were challenged by different factors than others. It would seem to me that each of these populations would have strengths and weaknesses that increased their chances of survival in their own environment. These could be physical traits as well as mental traits.

So then we get to the issue of IQ tests. IQ tests only measure a small portion of what a human being capacities. For instance, the aborigines of Australia usually do rather poorly on a standardized IQ test but were known for their tracking skills. How could someone of low intelligence be able to track far better than someone who has a higher IQ. That is unless an IQ test only tests a subset of skills that we are all equipped with?

So, my whole take on this, is that IQ only measures a portion of our intelligence.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:54 PM
reply to post by batch

Although it is true that sports in the United States seem to have a higher amount of black representation at the highest levels, do you feel it would also be fair to assume that this is merely a by product of, shall we say, social standing?

For example, the only example in my life I can draw upon is that within the UK although no particular cultured persons have dominance the poorer segments of the population all more often than not produce by far the greater amount of athletes.

A simple and in my opinion undeniable effect of the lesser education opportunities, which inevitably increases social interaction associated with partaking in sports.

From what I see on the television it is certainly fair to say that in the United States there are (if equal sized numbered groups considered) often large differences in financial incomes throughout ethnic groups, leading to it being more likely sportsmen come from poorer backgrounds. In effect their increased success in sports is the result past inequality.

This inequality has not lead to genet superiority in sports, merely a higher percentage devoting themselves to sport rather than education.

Edit; I should also note that this is the issue in the United Kingdom, where sports are represented in the majority by people from poorer backgrounds. Not black, not white nor pink or brown, this is the case across europe which is heavily mixed.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by MrAnonUK]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:09 PM
reply to post by MrAnonUK

I'll gladly admit that Asians are (on average) more intelligent than whites.
And blacks are (on average) more athletic than whites.
But that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of white scientists or athletes who are known around the world.
What matters is what you do with what you have, and these averages really don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 03:09 PM
This shows that intelligence doesn't = performance, so what's it matter?
Sternberg (1986) believes that conventional intelligence tests tell us little about performance in everyday life and suggest a number of reasons why so-called intelligent people fail:

* lack of motivation
* lack of impulse control
* lack of perseverance
* fear of failure
* procrastination
* inability to delay gratification
* too little/too much self-confidence

The 3 main facets of intelligence are Creative, Practical, and Analytical. Some groups score lower or higher than others depending on the Intelligence Quotient being measured.

Analytical (componential) Facet (or Subtheory)

Analytical Intelligence similar to the standard psychometric definition of intelligence e.g. as measured by Academic problem solving: analogies and puzzles, and corresponds to his earlier componential intelligence. Sternberg considers this reflects how an individual relates to his internal world.

Sternberg believes that Analytical Intelligence (Academic problem-solving skills) is based on the joint operations of metacomponents and performance components and knowledge acquisition components of intelligence

Metacomponents: control, monitor and evaluate cognitive processing. These are the executive functions to order and organise performance and knowledge acquisition components. They are the higher-order processes that order and organise the performance components. Used to analyze problems and pick a strategy for solving them. They decide what to do and the performance components actually do it.

Performance Components: execute strategies assembled by the metacomponents. They are the basic operations involved in any cognitive act. They are the cognitive processes that enable us to encode stimuli, hold information in short-term memory, make calculations, perform mental calculations, mentally compare different stimuli, retrieve information from long-term memory.

Knowledge acquisition components: are the processes used in gaining and storing new knowledge - i.e. capacity for learning. The strategies you use to help memorize things exemplify the processes that fall into this category.

Sternberg feels that IDs in intelligence are related to IDs in the use of these cognitive processes. He feels that people with better reasoning ability generally spend more time understanding the problem but reach their solution faster than those who are less skilled at the task.
Creative (experiential) Facet (or Subtheory)

Creative Intelligence: this involves insights, synthesis and the ability to react to novel situations and stimuli. This he considers the Experiential aspect of intelligence and reflects how an individual connects the internal world to external reality.

Sternberg considers the Creative facet to consist of the ability which allows people to think creatively and that which allows people to adjust creatively and effectively to new situations.

Sternberg believes that more intelligent individuals will also move from consciously learning in a novel situation to automating the new learning so that they can attend to other tasks.

Two-Facet Subtheory (Novelty & Automatization)

Basic assumption: That there are two broad classes of abilities associated with intelligence: novelty skills and automatization skills. A task measures intelligence if it requires the ability to deal with novel demands or the ability to automatize information processing (two ends of a continuum).

Novel tasks or situations are good measures of intellectual ability because they assess an individual's ability to apply existing knowledge to new problems.
Practical (contextual) Facet (or Subtheory)

Practical Intelligence: this involves the ability to grasp, understand and deal with everyday tasks. This is the Contextual aspect of intelligence and reflects how the individual relates to the external world about him or her.

Sternberg states that Intelligence is: "Purposive adaptation to, shaping of, and selection of real-world environments relevant to one's life" (Sternberg, 1984, p.271)

Purposive means that intelligence is directed towards goals, however vague or subconscious they may be. This means that intelligence is indicated by one's attempts to adapt to one's environment.

Practical Intelligence can be said to be intelligence that operates in the real world. People with this type of intelligence can adapt to, or shape their environment. It might also be called “Street-smarts”. In measuring this facet, not only mental skills but attitudes and emotional factors that can influence intelligence are measured.

So this practical intelligence is a combination of:

(a) adaptation to the environment in order to have goals met

(b) changing the environment in order to have goals met

(c) or, if (a) and (b) don't work moving to a new environment in which goals can be met

Sternberg believes that individuals considered intelligent in one culture may be looked on as unintelligent in another.

An important asset of this theory is to avoid defining intelligence in terms of intelligence tests rather than performance in the everyday world (which is, after all, what intelligence tests try to predict!).

Measuring practical intelligence:

* Sternberg Multidimensional Abilities Test measures all 3 intelligences, on separate scales
* Sternberg and Wagner’s test of Practical Managerial Intelligence measures:
* ability to write effective memos
* ability to motivate people
* knowledge of when to delegate
* ability to “read” people

Not to mention no one can even agree on what intelligence means, although it may seem apparent to you and I, it isn't just that easy.
Classic definitions of intelligence

* "The ability to carry out abstract thinking."
(Terman, 1921)
* "The capacity for knowledge, and knowledge possessed."
(Henmon, 1921)
* "The capacity to learn or to profit by experience."
(Dearborn, 1921)
* "The capacity to acquire capacity."
(Woodrow, 1921)
* "Intelligence is what is measured by intelligence tests."
(Boring, 1923)
* "A global concept that involves an individual's ability to act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively with the environment."
(Wechsler, 1958)
* "Intelligence is a general factor that runs through all types of performance."
* "A person possesses intelligence insofar as he had learned, or can learn, to adjust himself to his environment."
(Colvin, cited in Sternberg, 1982, p.30)
* "Intelligence is adaption to the environment."
* "Intelligence is that faculty of mind by which order is perceived in a situation previously considered disordered."
(R.W. Young, cited in Kurzweil, 1999)
* "Intelligent activity consists of grasping the essentials in a given situation and responding appropriately to them."
* "Intelligence is the ability to use optimally limited resources - including time - to achieve goals."
(Kurzweil, 1999)
* "Intelligence is what you do when you don't know what to do."
* "Intelligence is a hypothetical idea which we have defined as being reflected by certain types of behaviour."

I think it has more to do with environment than anything else, we see evidence of this all around us.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Why do we have to lump everybody into races that bear little to no genetic differences? Why not take people by who they are and what person they make themselves out to be. Do we choose how we are born, where we are born, to what circumstances we found ourselves in interms of culture, race and religion?

I am my own man, everybody here is in their own individualism. Why not accept that fact? Is it so hard? Or is ones life so depressive and lacking in anything that they have to group themselves to celebrate something?


It doesn't make any sense to me that people consider themselves inteligent and still looking from this perspective.
To me that's a sign of lack of intelligence!Period.
We all the same...

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:36 PM
Of course races have differences -- appearance, talents, etc. BUT, nitwits are plentiful in all races and that's why we have empolyment tests (for academics and emotional responses). I don't care if the person if white, yellow, black, or purple. If they can't hack the job because they are underskilled, they don't get the job. If they are bright but emotionally unstable, they don't get the job. Who needs to pull the weight of another employee and who wants to work with a nut?

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:48 PM
How is it supposed for South Africans to develop themselves in a area that is flooded by poverty, tribal wars, diseases...
If women didn’t have the rights that they have today in our society, we would be saying that they would be dumber than men.
Simply saying that Africans’ are more stupid than the white men using science is not enough, what Dr Watson is doing is just masquerading and ideology with science.
Genes certainly don’t explain the differences between groups.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:05 PM
Well James Watson is 16% "Black", I wonder if that says something about his intelligence.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in