Created Equal? Racial IQ

http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/

"I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true. If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society." The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals."

(Please read the article)

I waited a long time to post on this because I frankly wasn't comfortable, I didn't like having to make the decision whether to believe sound scientific evidence or my values. I searched and searched. I found even more evidence that I just didn't like one bit.

It made my stomach writhe when I learned that Black Nigerians have a slightly higher average IQ than Black Brits despite their massive education and wealth advantage. Black Americans follow the exact same IQ trend as other African countries too.

If you follow the equator around the globe you find the same trend of low IQ, South East Asians 85-90, Africans 80-85, Arabs 83, Latinos 85-90 (Full blooded American Indians even lower).

Yet after you make a slight geographic jump to the north you have: Asians(Oriental: China, Japan, Korea ect.) 104, Europeans 100(plus a couple points maybe), Russians(who've gone through a huge amount of internal strife themselves) 96, Americans 100.


Jews and Asians have a high occurrence of Goucher's and this is one way scientists try to explain why they score the highest on IQ tests(110 and 104 respectively). If you take a look at it objectively also, mass murder and persecution probably helped the Jews obtain a high IQ average - natural selection in progress.

Because of the massive difference between Black and Jewish IQ's there are probably more Jews with an IQ of over 140 than Blacks despite the fact that blacks have over 200x more people in their category than Jews.

I find some consolation in the fact that society fictionally created IQ. If we were living in a society based around hunting in the Serengeti than the standards of intelligence would probably be much different. But that doesn't help much - the society we have proved superior over that one. Plus, no matter how you look at the situation, present reality doesn't change.

People will claim that by evolution's standards there wasn't enough time for such a difference. But they must realize that this is a very small change by evolution's standards - magnified to catastrophic consequences by the power of modern society. It is not a question of the ability to do math, but a question of the ability to do math slightly faster.

From this comes only one possible conclusion, everything else(less an earth shattering revelation be found) just doesn't work. There is a genetic difference in racial IQ.

- Spero

PS: Sign the Geert Wilders' free speech petition - Here

Obamania

I'm going to post two articles in a row, both I believe to be quality. But don't worry, expect a post by another author tomorrow or the next day. That said:

I'm sure every six year old has grand aspirations of running Toys 'R Us, but would a six year old child really be capable of doing so? Well the average six year old would certainly have the necessary enthusiasm, creative capacity, charisma, and loads of idealistic notions of how to run a company as well; so what could go wrong if we were to simply hand them the keys?

This is the same logic that the Democratic Party and the American people are using to hand over the nomination to Obama. He's definitely charismatic, he's definitely a talented orator - but we have to stop and ask ourselves what he has done to prove himself.

Why does Obama deserve to be President? He has yet to do anything earth shattering(campaign organizational skills aside). He's an active participator in the Senate, and is very bright - but his record reveals nothing exceptional so far. Pinning the hopes of the most powerful nation in the world on the belief that he's more than what he has shown is at best extremely risky.

His supporters would point to his record in the Senate as an indicator of the man's greatness. In a short amount of time he has created a good(not fantastic) portfolio. Yet, the record of a member of the legislative branch may not serve as the best indicator of their executive branch prowess. The same way that your ability to cook steak may or may not mean that you know how to make a great cake - even though they are both food.

Obama says he'll bring change. But then he surrounds himself with a foreign policy group that is older than Stonehenge. Zbigniew Brzezinski his main guy, is over 79 years old and served in the Carter Administration. How, exciting! Changing to be like a man who had one of the most controversial and divisive foreign policies in recent history. Sounds like politics as usual, doesn't it?

He's a big idea man as opposed to Hillary's more targeted reforms. Vision is what we need right now in America, that I have no doubt - and he certainly has it.

Yet for a man aspiring to be the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military ever on earth, he has dangerously little familiarity with our army or military in general. His supporters are not exceptionally pro-military so that issue may not disturb them, but a person kids himself when he believes that the commander in Chief of a nation fighting two wars need not be more intimate with the military.

Bernie at http://plancksconstant.org/, pointed out this video of him possibly fictionalizing a story about the US military.



Captains actually do not actually command platoons. Even given the benefit of the doubt, it exposes a large hole in his abilities.

Americans need to set some more bars for Obama before we get swept away in the tide. He's inspiring and I want to believe him, but we shouldn't be so eager for change that we elect a false messiah.

- Spero