It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Scientists claim black people less intelligent than whites in Channel 4 show

page: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clark Savage Jr.
reply to post by JPhish
 


As a counter point:To truly deny ignorance would be to state at the offset your reasoning is limited by the term 'average'. An arbitrary standard as clearly someone is determining the definition of 'average' and others might disagree with those parameters. What you are doing is a classic case of misinterpretation, in that you---or more fairly the research you allude to--are attributing what are environmentally dictated individual or long-line point of origin traits to biological racial differences. Failing to account for selective breeding and environmental factors are the very reason these matters are so confusing to most.

No it’s you that is confused. They didn’t find an average black or white man to run these tests. They tested hundreds of people and out of those hundreds of people they came up with the statistical averages. Based on those averages, black men beat white men nearly across the board.


Exactly as is the case regarding these 'iq' tests.

I didn’t say anything about IQ tests; I would never have the audacity to claim that I could test someone’s mental ability.

BUT I can test how high someone can jump, how fast they run, how fast they build muscle, how fast their muscles recover, anaerobic and aerobic respiratory abilities, and I can measure the amount of twitch fiber muscles they possess. Black people are physically superior, hop off the politically correct bandwagon.


It might be advisable for us all to consider human beings as individuals(first and foremost) with varying skin tones rather than to attempt to pigeon hole some(groups) as 'superior' to others with one breath and at the same time insisting how equal we all are with the next breath.

I never said that people, races, sexes or individuals are equal. Anyone who claims they are is a fool.


The true ignorance denying point here is that races proper may and should be basically 'equal' given we are all one species,
we’re not all the same "species" according to taxonomy; that’s where your problem lies. Races of people are different subspecies

There are different subspecies of dogs the same way there are different subspecies of humans. When addressing humans the evolutionists use the euphemism races instead of subspecies.



but we should all have enough plain common sense to realize individuals within or apart from any race can and are, in some ways and some cases, 'superior or inferior' to other INDIVIDUALS.
yup, and the race that is physically superior is the black race. The same way the “subspecies” of “dog” that is all around physically superior is the Wolf.


An 'average' person simply does not exist.When viewed in that light, this entire matter can be laid to rest.
No,

Number 1. There is no matter. The data is correct, black people are physically superior.

Number 2 your failure to understand the nature of the test subjects is not viewing something in another light, it is viewing it incorrectly.

when you take hundreds of case studies and create a statistical average, that statistical average is considered the “average” test subject. That’s what I’m referring to. Not an actual person.

Black people are physically superior. Let go of your egos and embrace the truth.

[edit on 10/17/2009 by JPhish]




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   
To be honest, and my other post was actually a joke or rather for humor. I think that black people have more SOUL than white people overall. I'm white, grew up in LA, and now live in Oakland among people who are more like myself. But to tell you the truth, black people are down to earth, for real, and no [SNIP] about anything. They don't play the same games. They don't put on the face, the mask, the charade, in the same way. They are in your face, for real, and not FAKE, pretending something they think they can put off on everyone stupider than them.

I have met dishonest black people and there are more of them in culture than white folks, but then again, it's a matter of how you perceive dishonesty, [look at the white house] and how relevant that is to socio-economic boundaries. Now, being white, I have noticed that black folks are harder put in society, of course, that goes without saying. But some and many, actually have managed to see beyond that sphere, and take great pride in who they are as a people, culture and as individuals. Watching the black people flourish in some ways, here in Oakland, makes me see how black culture could be, if they were actually given a chance to be themselves without white influence and politics to control them. It's no wonder the Black Panthers sprouted out of here, because the people are REAL here, and I have come to appreciate all sorts of aspects of black culture.

Unfortunately, we, the white folks, brought blacks here as slaves. But fortunately, because of that misfortune, and karmic history, the black culture has actually more to teach mainstream white culture than the reverse. I have never heard a white folk talk like Credo Mutwa, and for him, I have great respect. As well as many of my other black brothers and sisters out there. You are all glorious, as God's children.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by nwodeath]

[edit on 17-10-2009 by nwodeath]

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 22-10-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Black people are physically superior. Let go of your egos and embrace the truth.


But in overall sustainability what is physical superiority without intelligence. That's the point. So you can survive because of physical design... then what? Your race will go extinct because you can't start a fire. Because you can't adapt to society. Because you can't achieve sustainability.
Also take into account the bronze age, some blacks in the world still aren't there. Instead nomads who are physically stronger haven't developed skills to expand life expectancy or defend themselves.
Superiority is a measurement that is based on so many factors that the arguments on this thread really seem silly and like a circular scene from PeeWee Herman.

Species, sustainability, survival.
Blacks have a severe disadvantage in the event that they would be rounded up as a race, and that is their skin color. Eastern asian because of their eyes. Red heads... because they are so cute. ;-)



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Everytime i watch the olympics or an event like it, i allways see back people winning stuff and doing well. As well as white people. Black people do have something in them that makes them preform well in sports. When they compete in physical events they win or do relly well. Its there physical build that makes them do well.

Then you look at what white people have achived through the years. Look at what they have invented look at the empires they have built, the minds behind it. They seem to do well in that area. Its all in the history books.

I suppose you could say it levels its self out.

Tsom87



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TSOM87
They seem to do well in that area. Its all in the history books.

I suppose you could say it levels its self out.


I wouldn't trust your Rockefeller history books.

Please don't go around claiming whites made "great empires".
The latest "great empire" was ancient Egypt, and that was made by blacks.

Freemasons built America and guess what symbolism, architectural mathematics and technology they used and are still using? Egyptian.

Don't believe me?
theoccult.bz... has tons of Freemason books and manuals studied by Freemasons and they show this.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by buds84

Originally posted by TSOM87
They seem to do well in that area. Its all in the history books.

I suppose you could say it levels its self out.


I wouldn't trust your Rockefeller history books.

Please don't go around claiming whites made "great empires".
The latest "great empire" was ancient Egypt, and that was made by blacks.

Freemasons built America and guess what symbolism, architectural mathematics and technology they used and are still using? Egyptian.

Don't believe me?
theoccult.bz... has tons of Freemason books and manuals studied by Freemasons and they show this.


What you said it true. Egypt was a great Empire and they where black. The British Empire was bulit with people and armys from Great Britian. Just Like the Roman Empire sprung out of Italy. Also Alexander The Greats Empire. Now you have an American Empire. The people behind these Empires where white especially the British Empire and American. Theres been more White Empires than Black. What dose that tell you. There better at doing it. Which was my point. Just like everytime you watch the 200 meter sprint at the Olympics and black guys are allways better than the white guys.

Tsom87



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by buds84

Originally posted by TSOM87

Please don't go around claiming whites made "great empires".
The latest "great empire" was ancient Egypt, and that was made by blacks.

Freemasons built America and guess what symbolism, architectural mathematics and technology they used and are still using? Egyptian.

Don't believe me?
theoccult.bz... has tons of Freemason books and manuals studied by Freemasons and they show this.


About Egypt being built by blacks....Sorry, it was at its height with White Pharaohs.
Egypt

Bronton's Portraits

Egyptian Mummies with brown & red hair

Faces of the Pharaohs



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


well i'll be damned, someone that actually gets it.

I never thought i'd see the day.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone

About Egypt being built by blacks....Sorry, it was at its height with White Pharaohs.
Egypt

Bronton's Portraits

Egyptian Mummies with brown & red hair

Faces of the Pharaohs


Lol you just linked some of the worst evidence of white claiming to rule Egypt.
Disinfo at it's finest.

The first link shows a obviously white shaded sculpture of Queen Nefertiti who is obviously black and well know by anyone who knows anything on Egypt. wysinger.homestead.com...

The 2nd link you posted is of Winifred Brunton's portraits who is now a well known fake.
Her paintings rather hilarious because you can clearly see her painting whites with negro hair which is ridiculous .

Why would you link someone painting modern pictures of ancient Pharaohs?
You should link the real statues and artifacts of Egypt instead of someones drawings that had nothing to do with Egypt.

I actually been to Egypt and seen the art and sculptures and they are all African faces until you see the imitation Greek Egyptian art which were pretty sad attempts at copying off and there wasn't a lot.

It's rather easy to see Egypt is black by even using just the internet.
Thats all I have to say for now, dont want to go too far off subject. Here are some links.
www.raceandhistory.com...
www.mazedonium.org...
blackhistory.tribe.net...

Egypt - The word means "Black"
Kemit - Original name for Egypt. The word means "Land of the Black"

Theres pretty much non stop proof.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by buds84]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
"Are we the same species or not?"

Yes, but What seems to be true (from preliminary studies) is that the gene variants that were under strong selection (reached fixation) over the last 10k years are different in different clusters. That is, the way that modern people in each cluster differ, due to natural selection, from their own ancestors 10k years ago is not the same in each cluster -- we have been, at least at the genetic level, experiencing divergent evolution.

In fact, recent research suggests that 7% or more of all our genes are mutant versions that replaced earlier variants through natural selection over the last tens of thousands of years. There was little gene flow between continental clusters ("races") during that period, so there is circumstantial evidence for group differences beyond the already established ones (superficial appearance, disease resistance).

infoproc.blogspot.com...

"There are readily identifiable clusters of points, corresponding to traditional continental ethnic groups: Europeans, Africans, Asians, Native Americans, etc. (See, for example, Risch et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 76:268–275, 2005.)

This clustering is a natural consequence of geographical isolation, inheritance and natural selection operating over the last 50k years since humans left Africa...

Two groups that form distinct clusters are likely to exhibit different frequency distributions over various genes, leading to group differences.

This leads us to two very distinct possibilities in human genetic variation:

Hypothesis 1: (the PC mantra) The only group differences that exist between the clusters (races) are innocuous and superficial, for example related to skin color, hair color, body type, etc.

Hypothesis 2: (the dangerous one) Group differences exist which might affect important (let us say, deep rather than superficial) and measurable characteristics, such as cognitive abilities, personality, athletic prowess, etc.

Note H1 is under constant revision, as new genetically driven group differences (e.g., particularly in disease resistance) are being discovered. According to the mantra of H1 these must all (by definition) be superficial differences.

A standard argument against H2 is that the 50k years during which groups have been separated is not long enough for differential natural selection to cause any group differences in deep characteristics. I find this argument quite naive, given what we know about animal breeding and how evolution has affected the (ever expanding list of) "superficial" characteristics. Many genes are now suspected of having been subject to strong selection over timescales of order 5k years or less. For further discussion of H2 by Steve Pinker, see here.

The predominant view among social scientists is that H1 is obviously correct and H2 obviously false. However, this is mainly wishful thinking. Official statements by the American Sociological Association and the American Anthropological Association even endorse the view that race is not a valid biological concept, which is clearly incorrect.

As scientists, we don't know whether H1 or H2 is correct, but given the revolution in biotechnology, we will eventually. Let me reiterate, before someone labels me a racist: we don't know with high confidence whether H1 or H2 is correct.

Finally, it is important to note that group differences are statistical in nature and do not imply anything about particular individuals. Rather than rely on the scientifically unsupported claim that we are all equal, it would be better to emphasize that we all have inalienable human rights regardless of our abilities or genetic makeup."

infoproc.blogspot.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by buds84
 


Hey homies, mind if i U2U you? I want to collect pictures of the links you got, i have a topic that i wanna post in ATS concerning the ancient image of Egypt.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I still dont feel this is an accurate assumption, but these scientist have somebody listening to them somewhere, so.



[edit on 10/19/09 by Ophiuchus 13]

Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary image.


[edit on 22-10-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I find it truly mystifying when some group of scientists come out with these seemingly outlandish claims about human or race potential.

It has been my experience that exceptional people can come from any race given the necessary environments and exposure. Decent genes help too.

Bombard a young mind with first and foremost love, then expose them to different languages, classical music, violin or piano training; encourage them to read, play chess, and or team sports. Give them guidance, a good diet, and a great education where they are taught to think and chose not regurgitate facts and dates.
Give them all the necessary information, don't shelter them, and I'm sorry it doesn't matter what race you are you can and will excel.

IQ tests test only certain kinds of intelligence. These tests only demonstrate one facet of thinking and completely ignore the spiritual and artistic side. As if its the goal of humanity to only focus on logic and reason (we all know Vulcans have short comings as well). A true test of intelligence would somehow factor in spirituality, awareness, intuition and survival instinct and common sense as well as logic reason and mathematics.

Sites like these want to believe that being faithful (no pun intended) to only the scientific method will lead to higher learning and knowledge and ultimately intelligence. Not so in my opinion.

Its pretty plain to see that the human mind is made up of two major hemispheres and many other smaller components that compliment and interact in a fairly mysterious balance in which varying degrees, and contributions from each hemisphere make up each person's unique perception and abilities. It seems quite simple. A classic case of yin and yang.

I've seen brilliant PHd's who are socially inept and can not carry on everyday conversations outside of their areas of specialty. These same people are like a fish out of water when it comes to the natural world, awareness, and sense of direction. They wouldn't last a second without their technological accoutrements. We call them pedants. All book learned no practical experience or skills.

Stick the guy who came up with these theories in the deep Outback with an Aborigine elder, see how smart he is after day three standing there half dead from dehydration in his Italian loafers, tweed jacket, and pipe.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Just to let those people who were involved in this thread know, the program is on Monday 26 th at 21:00.

Should be an interesting watch!



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
"LONDON (Reuters) - Many prehistoric Australian aboriginals could have outrun world 100 and 200 meters record holder Usain Bolt in modern conditions.
Some Tutsi men in Rwanda exceeded the current world high jump record of 2.45 meters during initiation ceremonies in which they had to jump at least their own height to progress to manhood."
www.reuters.com...



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItIsWhatItIs
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


I don't see the problem. If it's a scientifically proven fact that blacks are genetically less intelligent, then I think it's time for people to accept that.

But I think they need to include the fact that blacks are physically superior genetically. Or whatever other possible strengths they have. So they might not be too smart but what white man can go toe-to-toe with Michael Jordan.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by ItIsWhatItIs]


Remember the group of African American Pilots called the Tussgeegee Airmen? Science also "proved" that Blacks could not fly an air plane due to there genetic makeup. Well I guess we proved them wrong.

This is nothing more then rasicm made to look like science



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
My personal scientific assessment is that all races are generally equal in intelligence capability , being we are all Homo Sapiens!

Suggesting that "Africans have smaller brain mass than Europeans or Asians" is also suggesting that they are a different species of mammal, which I find terribly misguided.

Therefore, if you are a Homo Sapiens, you share the equal potential for intelligence as do ALL others of your species.

And last time I checked, Asians Africans and Europeans were all Homo Sapiens.

Are we the same species or not?


muzzleflash, I totally agree with you! Everyone has the potential for intelligence. I don't believe intelligence is a fixed thing, something you're born with that you can't change. Our brains all have the capacity for intelligence, we just have to utilize it.

Some people are more intelligent than others it's true, but that isn't because they were born of an "intelligently superior" race. It depends on the individual, how they grew up, what education they were exposed to etc.

---

It's funny cos I'm an Indigenous Australian, so according to these "scientists" I'm not as "intelligent" as white-coloured people are. But when I was in high school (public high school) there were white kids who couldn't spell or pronounce words correctly. Words that I knew how to spell and how to pronounce. It really all depends on the upbringing and the quality of education. I did go to a private school as a kid growing up, so that might have something to do with it. Private schools have better education (in my experience anyway).

It's so easy to generalise and lump a group of people together because of the colour of their skin. What matters is the individual. Me? I've always been interested in science, maths, technology, astronomy - all those "geeky" things. I've always been good at maths and english, I actually really like maths and english. I was also really good at art and pretty good at sports too, so it's not like a person or a specific group of people can only be talented in a certain area and that's it. That's just limiting your potential!

I actually didn't finish school though to be honest, I decided to stop after starting year 11. I didn't stop because I wasn't smart enough, I stopped because I didn't feel right about. I felt there was too much pressure to finish school only to fit in with society and how you're "supposed" to live your life ie. the western way. Anyway, if there's something I want to learn, then I can just get a book from the library and study that if I want to, which I have. Not like I can't go back to school anyway if I really want to, which I kinda do. Lol I actually miss doing school and home work! How crazy is that?
...

So anyway, my point is it's got nothing to do with race (obviously) but more to do with the individual, what kind of education you had and your upbringing/culture.
I'm not going to let my skin colour get in the way of what I can become, it's all up to me (the individual).

My two cents
...



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


That's just the thing. it's not proven scientific fat. It's pseudoscience, which is something ATS'ers should be intimately familiar with by now.

Step one, an IQ test

Step two, decide you're going to test on basis of race.

Step three, select a tiny (though likely randomized) sample of people out of thenearly seven billion of us on the planet.

Step four, present them with the test.

Step five, publish the results and conclusions based on race..

Anyone with basic concepts of testing methods, scientific method, and human biology is laready noticing the gaping gut wounds in this experiment, but i'll point them out for those of you who can't see.

First, the huge, fatal wound; there is no such thing as "race".

I don't mean that in the hand-wringing, "I want to look open minded" way where people say "we're all part of the human race" or whatever... I mean that there are no groups that can be defined as "black" or as "white" or as "Aborigine". The reason why? Humans are very capable of breeding across ethnic boundaries, and have always been very enthusiastic about doing so.

So if you say that an aboriginal australian is less intelligent than an Asian... Well, how much English ancestry does that Aborigine have? If he's from Arnhem land, there's a fair chance he has some Chinese or Papuan ancestry in him as well. Now about your Asian test subject? Is he Japanese? Chinese? Indian? Chukchi? Does he have any variety of european in his ancestry? How about any Turkic ancestry? is he a melange of East-asian ancestries, or is he a mix of south asian ancestries, or does he meet in the middle? And the black guy you're testing him against. is he Malagasy? San? Bantu? Is he straight out of Africa, or is he the descendant of slaves? if he's American, how much native American ancestry might he have?

And don't even get me started on the muddled ancestries of "whites" - good golly, that could go on for hours!

Further, who counts and who doesn't? Are Dravidic indians "white" or "asian"? Where do Arabs fall? Do Turks count as their own group? Are Native Americans and Polynesians lumped as Asian, or are they on their own? Are the Arctic native americans in the same category as the rest of us?

"Race" is a scientifically worthless measurement, because there are no "pure strains"

Next, the IQ test. These tests are an inaccurate measurement of intelligence to begin with, and tend to focus on abstract puzzle solving. Further, they are less useful when testing adults, due to the fact the test is designed to measure the "native capabilities" of children.

Third, the conclusion itself is flawed. How many people, out of nearly seven billion humans, were tested? You would need a simply amazingly huge sample size of all corners of humanity to glean any meaningful statistical results. This is comparable to picking a store and testing its employees, then applying the results to the entire state.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
If you have lived for more than a decade or two on earth this should be obvious.

Asians are at the top

Whites in the middle

blacks on the bottom

Yup, sounds about right



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean-Luc
If you have lived for more than a decade or two on earth this should be obvious.

Asians are at the top

Whites in the middle

blacks on the bottom

Yup, sounds about right


Looks like somebody can't grasp the complexities at work when we talk about the concept and application of intelligence. As well as credible measures of testing intelligence and even then there are many questions regarding just reliable they are.

Your post makes you look plain dumb.



new topics




 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join