No, I'm saying that hundreds of thousands of years of evolution affect biogenetics. Some population-groups are, on average taller, some, on average, have more muscle mass, some, on average, have longer noses, or shovel-shaped incisors, or flat occiputs. Cranial capacity and IQ are also traits that vary from group to group.
No "social programs" are going to change that. Any more than a social program is going to make East Asian people have curlier hair.
Our civilization was created by people with 100-IQs. When you place people with 66-IQs into the system, they don't seem to fair too well. And why would they? This isn't their system. (They had no say in its creation or administration.)
It's like expecting penguins to thrive in an environment made for (and by) eagles.
>Cranial capacity and IQ are also traits that vary from group to group.
Having studied the subject (work project), this is a highly disputed statement. Neurology Neuroscience (neurobiology, even, it's all so new, there aren't clear definitions yet) of consciousness and intelligence is a field we know very little about. But hey, whatever floats your boat, I guess you've read a wikipedia article or two.
I'm a huge fan of human biodiversity and participated in the old Dodona Human Biodiversity board, as well as anthroscape. (If you want to go to a decent website running now, check out Dienekes Pontikos' human biodiversity website.) I've been reading books and papers on biometrics and paleogenetics for 20 years. I love the work of Coon, Lundman, Boas, etc. I was reading Cavalli-Sforza's work on the first global genomic project before you were probably out of diapers.
So . . . um. No, I'm not going off "an article or two from Wikipedia".
But I'm curious. You pique my interest.
You're not a big believer in Natural Selection, huh? You think that population groups evolving over hundreds of thousands of years in different environments didn't shape different traits?
Interesting. So when Darwin talks about wolves in one environment hunting antelopes being in an landscape that selected for longer legs, you don't buy that? Or wolves hunting sheep in another environment, selecting for squatter more robust builds, that's unpersuasive to you?
So Sub-Saharan Africans, who routinely cluster at the bottom of IQ lists . . .
This is a conspiracy, right?
Has nothing to do with evolving in a particular environment over 10,000 generations, with different evolutionary pressures selecting for different capacities?
"Whitey holding them down . . . even in countries where Whitey doesn't exist?"
I'd be interested in hearing your fascinating theory for biogenetic differences. Oh, wait! You said that these differences don't exist, and we're all equal and identical, right? A Norwegian and a Kenyan are indistiguishable, correct?
That your theory?
Sounds really . . . er . . . uh . . . um . . . scientif---- Okay, political. It sounds POLITICAL. But if you can flesh out your fascinating theory, you might entrance us all. Change minds. You have the floor, sir.
So, you are saying linguistic background affects IQ?
No, I'm saying that hundreds of thousands of years of evolution affect biogenetics. Some population-groups are, on average taller, some, on average, have more muscle mass, some, on average, have longer noses, or shovel-shaped incisors, or flat occiputs. Cranial capacity and IQ are also traits that vary from group to group.
No "social programs" are going to change that. Any more than a social program is going to make East Asian people have curlier hair.
Our civilization was created by people with 100-IQs. When you place people with 66-IQs into the system, they don't seem to fair too well. And why would they? This isn't their system. (They had no say in its creation or administration.)
It's like expecting penguins to thrive in an environment made for (and by) eagles.
>Cranial capacity and IQ are also traits that vary from group to group. Having studied the subject (work project), this is a highly disputed statement.
NeurologyNeuroscience (neurobiology, even, it's all so new, there aren't clear definitions yet) of consciousness and intelligence is a field we know very little about. But hey, whatever floats your boat, I guess you've read a wikipedia article or two.I'm a huge fan of human biodiversity and participated in the old Dodona Human Biodiversity board, as well as anthroscape. (If you want to go to a decent website running now, check out Dienekes Pontikos' human biodiversity website.) I've been reading books and papers on biometrics and paleogenetics for 20 years. I love the work of Coon, Lundman, Boas, etc. I was reading Cavalli-Sforza's work on the first global genomic project before you were probably out of diapers.
So . . . um. No, I'm not going off "an article or two from Wikipedia".
But I'm curious. You pique my interest.
You're not a big believer in Natural Selection, huh? You think that population groups evolving over hundreds of thousands of years in different environments didn't shape different traits?
Interesting. So when Darwin talks about wolves in one environment hunting antelopes being in an landscape that selected for longer legs, you don't buy that? Or wolves hunting sheep in another environment, selecting for squatter more robust builds, that's unpersuasive to you?
So Sub-Saharan Africans, who routinely cluster at the bottom of IQ lists . . . This is a conspiracy, right?
Has nothing to do with evolving in a particular environment over 10,000 generations, with different evolutionary pressures selecting for different capacities?
"Whitey holding them down . . . even in countries where Whitey doesn't exist?" I'd be interested in hearing your fascinating theory for biogenetic differences. Oh, wait! You said that these differences don't exist, and we're all equal and identical, right? A Norwegian and a Kenyan are indistiguishable, correct? That your theory?
Sounds really . . . er . . . uh . . . um . . . scientif---- Okay, political. It sounds POLITICAL. But if you can flesh out your fascinating theory, you might entrance us all. Change minds. You have the floor, sir.