Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: The True Adonis on June 08, 2008, 06:05:45 PM
-
-
:)
hahhahah
-
self hartred, white guilt and love for the "foreigner" cock at their finest.
You fit right as the perfect poster boy for the useful idiot who will vote for obama because he got massively brainwashed by the leftist MSM since his birth.
-
If I recall correctly this is a guy who got his ass handed to him teaching in America. Then moved to the UK where he enjoyed a greater respect for his profession.
-
self hartred, white guilt and love for the "foreigner" cock at their finest.
Exactly. ;D
-
All I see is a red x
-
Exactly. ;D
America can reach greatness. It is the only alternative to the status quo as it were.
America is not Love it or Leave it. It is Love it or Change it.
-
America can reach greatness. It is the only alternative to the status quo as it were.
America is not Love it or Leave it. It is Love it or Change it.
THe future belongs to "the master race" ;D, the transhumans.
-
America can reach greatness. It is the only alternative to the status quo as it were.
America is not Love it or Leave it. It is Love it or Change it.
You should focus on perfecting yourself before you tell others what to do.
-
self hartred, white guilt and love for the "foreigner" cock at their finest.
You fit right as the perfect poster boy for the useful idiot who will vote for obama because he got massively brainwashed by the leftist MSM since his birth.
meltdown
-
America can reach greatness. It is the only alternative to the status quo as it were.
America is not Love it or Leave it. It is Love it or Change it.
Its 'Love it the way it is', and don't fuck it up.
-
may i suggest you leave america, you ape looking skinny queer?
-
may i suggest you leave america, you ape looking skinny queer?
What is it that he posted...I can only see red x?
-
What is it that he posted...I can only see red x?
Educate yourself and then re-evaluate your aforementioned statement.
Here is the Hard Link to what I posted.
-
And the other Link:
-
Educate yourself
you lost him there, he's American!
-
you lost him there, he's American!
Bast = an intellectual?
How can you be that, when you only got a B in Microeconomics? :o
-
Why don't you move to a different country then "Adonis"
-
Bast = an intellectual?
How can you be that, when you only got a B in Microeconomics? :o
what did i get in Macro?
-
what did i get in Macro?
A. But you claimed that "Micro, now that was though".
You gotta be an idiot to get a B in Microeconomics if you put any work into it, like going to class.
-
Why don't you move to a different country then "Adonis"
I`d rather fix what is broken.
-
I`d rather fix what is broken.
Your best bet: Breed a race of transhumans with ultra superior intelligence, and let your country enjoy teh juices.
-
A. But you claimed that "Micro, now that was though".
You gotta be an idiot to get a B in Microeconomics if you put any work into it, like going to class.
well, the exams had 'trick questions'. ;D
-
well, the exams had 'trick questions'. ;D
:P
;D
-
somethings that we can do help
1. Artifiicially raise to the price of gas to $10/gallon, also require a minimum of 50 gallons/mile on all new cars.
2. Institute a mandatory savings policy.
3. Build a national super fast rail system.
4. Fixed military spend to a smaller percentage of the national budget.
5. Require 2 year mandatory military service for every kid after finishing highschool.
6. legalize, regulate and tax drugs.
7. stricter gun policies.
8. Figure out a way to make college free, see point #4
9. Require the federal budget be balanced and 1% smaller than the previous year for the next 10-15 years.
10. Spending limits for campaigns
-
somethings that we can do help
1. Artifiicially raise to the price of gas to $10/gallon
For what reason?
It will likely be there in a few years.
-
somethings that we can do help
1. Artifiicially raise to the price of gas to $10/gallon, also require a minimum of 50 gallons/mile on all new cars.
2. Institute a mandatory savings policy.
3. Build a national super fast rail system.
4. Fixed military spend to a smaller percentage of the national budget.
5. Require 2 year mandatory military service for every kid after finishing highschool.
6. legalize, regulate and tax drugs.
7. stricter gun policies.
8. Figure out a way to make college free, see point #4
9. Require the federal budget be balanced and 1% smaller than the previous year for the next 10-15 years.
10. Spending limits for campaigns
yes number 8 is good
they need to do away with k-12 schools
they need to let the kids form packs with whom they make friends with in school, not seperate them from friends and work in harsh environments thus raping the potential of the childs want and urge to learn.
prompt the child/young adult to develop a trade skill to earn Points of Pay on a system of checks and balances, the child will freely work as he wishes to do so, this will help those who are ready for adult hood flourish on a system at a young age, the degenerate children will continue to degenerate but are supported by the community and packs of children there age, many children do not get enough LOVE from parents and lack FRIENDS the way the whole system is right now, this has to change . let the kid grow and PLAY not keep the child in a classroom 8 hours a day. let these children associate with others freely of similar ages.
-
somethings that we can do help
1. Artifiicially raise to the price of gas to $10/gallon, also require a minimum of 50 gallons/mile on all new cars.
2. Institute a mandatory savings policy.
3. Build a national super fast rail system.
4. Fixed military spend to a smaller percentage of the national budget.
5. Require 2 year mandatory military service for every kid after finishing highschool.
6. legalize, regulate and tax drugs.
7. stricter gun policies.
8. Figure out a way to make college free, see point #4
9. Require the federal budget be balanced and 1% smaller than the previous year for the next 10-15 years.
10. Spending limits for campaigns
Number 5 is flawed. The rest are highly agreeable.
The Government must NEVER have the right to control 2 years of your life and order by decree what an individual must do at X time all thus being involuntary. This is an affront to individual and civil liberty.
-
Everytime I see things like this it makes me physically ill. I, like many others, feel that there is nothing I can do to combat ANY of this.
What are you gonna do, write a fukcing congressman? Stage a protest? Make videos for YouTube to raise awareness?!?!?!! Useless.
-
Number 5 is flawed. The rest are highly agreeable.
The Government must NEVER have the right to control 2 years of your life and order by decree what an individual must do at X time all thus being involuntary. This is an affront to individual and civil liberty.
well there has to be an enforcer broskie if someone is selling there'self', the government deserves its product if one gives up that value and on the market
btw you need to post more you ripped weegar. two great minds like me an you will change the future if we use the collective power of overstanding the issues
-
I, like many others, feel that there is nothing I can do to combat ANY of this.
Don't worry. Johnny Falcon will come to the rescue.
-
Don't worry. Johnny Falcon will come to the rescue.
Fhonny Jalcon is here!
-
Fhonny Jalcon is here!
For some odd reason I feel at ease! :D
-
I am comforted that so many Americans themself can see that their society has become sick, corrupt and decadent.
The western democracy experiment has failed miserably. As people have lost Allah they have lost themself.
-
Number 5 is flawed. The rest are highly agreeable.
The Government must NEVER have the right to control 2 years of your life and order by decree what an individual must do at X time all thus being involuntary. This is an affront to individual and civil liberty.
spoken like the true pussy you are "no mommy, don't send me in the army with all these bad boys" ::)
-
Thats why patriotism is a stupid move. Every nations have their shitty part. Just travel around the world and acknowledge yourself as an free person who is not tied up in one country.
-
No new news there....Everyone in the world including americans know how DUMB americans are!!!! That is the culture that is promoted in america...lets dropout of school, lets sit around and get high all day, lets have keg parties an do ecstasy, lets laugh at dumb slap stick humor and antics, lets play video games until we are retarded, lets concern ourselves with fashion and vanity, lets melt over "famous" people etc etc etc...All the while the country crashes around everyone, all the while education disappears, all the while industries leave america, all the while hatred is promoted by the REAL HATERS, all the while joblessness surges, all the while...
Don't hate or ridicule the maker of this video because he is trying to make you and all aware of facts (such is the american way), but become conscious of the reality at work, because if it has not HIT YOU YET HOW BAD AMERICA IS NOW...GIVE IT A FEW MORE SECONDS. America is in shit up to its eyes and there is no getting out of it....
-
For what reason?
It will likely be there in a few years.
monetary reason is the quickest way to motivate people..by artifically raising the price you will see tremendous changes in a short time.
1. By next year you won't see any more SUVs or personal trucks.
2. Manufactures will starts the cycle of creating super efficient cars.
3. It will make buying a hybrid/electric cheaper in the long run. The joke now is the hybrid cost more than gas, so buying one is not cheaper.
4. People will consider walking/riding bicycles from short trips if possible.
5. More people will look to mass transit. Which will lead to better and more efficient mass transport systems.
6. Reduce our dependency on oil.
I could go on and on on the benefits
in Europe they average 40mpg, the US average 24mpg. Price of petro clearly is motivativing factor.
-
spoken like the true pussy you are "no mommy, don't send me in the army with all these bad boys" ::)
You both have valid points, but that is why in my original statement I tied it to free college education.
Either way, I am afraid that no on in politics is willing to take a risk and do what is best for the country. They are more concerned with issues that generate short term results but hurl our country towards long term disaster.
for the life of me I don't see why the federal governement should be allowed to borrow money. Balanace the fucking budget with what you have. Stop dippping into social security to pay for pork barrel spending.
-
Number 5 is flawed. The rest are highly agreeable.
The Government must NEVER have the right to control 2 years of your life and order by decree what an individual must do at X time all thus being involuntary. This is an affront to individual and civil liberty.
Robert Heinlein might disagree. :D
-
may i suggest you leave america, you ape looking skinny queer?
bump for the welfare recipient Adam Richard Abeles who preys on 16 year old girls at 28 years old living in mommas house.
throwing another lipstick party again jewboy?? :-*
-
Someone got an A in his Statistics101 course.
-
abeles latest prep pic he's "gearing up" for the mr get big 3 and should be a massive 148 at 5 11!!!
what a beast...
ALL DRUGS!!!
-
High school drop out here. Finished school at 14. GED, culinary school, yachting industry (www.felicitawest.com), been around the world completely seven times, fifteen years abroad, I'm back in NY. America is the greatest country in the world. If you can't succeed here??? Your a Dumb Dick and you know nothing about the world!
So being janitor has its perks...get to clean kitchens in the finest restaurants, get to clean toilets on yachts, get to travel the world with the wealthy as a gofer and even spent fifteen years in jail ABROAD for being caught transporting COKE...Now that's a life to brag about...Reconsider going back to school and getting a REAL DIPLOMA!!!
-
I disagree with just about all of TA's points.
-
I disagree with just about all of TA's points.
I don't . He is what kind of American than give me hope. He want to change America as he KNOW it is rotten to the core.
-
Rotten to the core yet you crawl over one another to get here.
-
I don't . He is what kind of American than give me hope. He want to change America as he KNOW it is rotten to the core.
for this reason alone Apenis should not be listened to.
I applaud his "i'm not moving, i'm changing America" attitude.
But...like his other "promises" he won't deliver on this one either.
-
I don't . He is what kind of American than give me hope. He want to change America as he KNOW it is rotten to the core.
If things are so rotten here, I invite you and your families to stay where you are as you will only bring down property values.
-
"sharma", you are rotten to the core, not america, hope this helps you loser.
-
If things are so rotten here, I invite you and your families to stay where you are as you will only bring down property values.
HAHA we put up the oil and we will topple the dreadful American economy. Your future is in Arab hands my friend.
-
HAHA we put up the oil and we will topple the dreadful American economy. Your future is in Arab hands my friend.
like you get a dime of it, you hand ass wiper.
-
like you get a dime of it, you hand ass wiper.
HAHA I love how the American understand so little of the middle east. you probably live in some trailer park in Arkansaw and think we are worse off.
Many Arab have very much more money than almost all Americans . America has very bad poverty. can't even afford our oil ;D
-
HAHA we put up the oil and we will topple the dreadful American economy. Your future is in Arab hands my friend.
We'll take it from you before that happens.
-
good video!
is America heading for a new depression? :-\
-
We'll take it from you before that happens.
Of course you will. Is this before or after you leave the tiny secure compound you hide in and run away to in your Vietnam part 2 disaster?
-
HAHA I love how the American understand so little of the middle east. you probably live in some trailer park in Arkansaw and think we are worse off.
Many Arab have very much more money than almost all Americans . America has very bad poverty. can't even afford our oil ;D
on the other hand. your oil will be gone in about 20 years and then you will have nothing going for you. all oil wealth no industry no nothing...
-
self hartred, white guilt and love for the "foreigner" cock at their finest.
You fit right as the perfect poster boy for the useful idiot who will vote for obama because he got massively brainwashed by the leftist MSM since his birth.
LOL, this was a cool video and of course you attack the messnger and make a political analogy, hmmmmm.
Ok let us see....Bush couldn't even get IN to The U of Texas Law school, while Obama went to Harvard Law and headed the law review. Bush felt the invasion of Iraq was the best idea for the USA and to kick ass, while Obama advised against it.
yeah, I will vote for Obama like the rest of "idiots" that feel we need a leader with some intellect
-
1. The overwhelming majority of violent crime is caused by black people, so stop blaming guns. ::) A non-violent person isn't going to go out and commit violent acts if they aren't already inclined to do so. Read it all:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47561/The-Color-Of-Crime
2. The fraudulent federal is the majority of the problem with the US economy. It's kind of hard to not be in debt when the very nature of the system REQUIRES debt to sustain itself. Great video on that:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279
3. Most of the problems in the USA he talks about are deliberately orchestrated by the powers that be.
-
1. The overwhelming majority of violent crime is caused by black people, so stop blaming guns. ::)
Dave Jacobs was black?!?!?! :o
-
1. The overwhelming majority of violent crime is caused by black people, so stop blaming guns. ::) A non-violent person isn't going to go out and commit violent acts if they aren't already inclined to do so. Read it all:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47561/The-Color-Of-Crime
wow! why dont you join the kkk already.
black are more inclined to crime because of the colour of their skin?
and this is comming from a jew? remember this guy?
(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2007/08/08/hitler460.jpg)
he had the same opinion about your "race" as you have on blacks.
;)
-
You live in America ,you d!ck!
-
I`d rather fix what is broken.
Start with yourself friend ...After that ...If there's anything left ...Let it trickle down to that f@g BASTurd..
-
wow! why dont you join the kkk already.
black are more inclined to crime because of the colour of their skin?
No you ignorant fuck. My point is that skin colour is not arbitrary and is correlated with other genetic differences as well. Idiots like yourself who don't have the slightest idea of what psychometric testing entails and has never read a single study on it would obviously be forced to come back with an attack though. Thanks, because if you have no proof to offer me to the contrary it proves my point.
-
No you ignorant fuck. My point is that skin colour is not arbitrary and is correlated with other genetic differences as well. Idiots like yourself who don't have the slightest idea of what psychometric testing entails and has never read a single study on it would obviously be forced to come back with an attack though. Thanks, because if you have no proof to offer me to the contrary it proves my point.
ok nazi boy
whatever you say ::)
-
ok nazi boy
whatever you say ::)
Very weak comeback which usually means he's way over your head.
-
True Anus might want to read this article that was in yesterday's Washington Post Magazine...It's about Supergrads and how companies are courting them...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/03/AR2008060302837.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/03/AR2008060302837.html)
-
ok nazi boy
whatever you say ::)
MattC owned you like crazy in this discussion. You are basically attacking his character, because he posts rational arguments you can not argument against. The worst thing is that he is not even being racistic... (if you actually read up on the definition).
black are more inclined to crime because of the colour of their skin?
Hello??? Did you forget your brain in the ass of your mother again?? How fucking DUMB are you?
-
So now what? The economy will collapse, right? I mean, what's to save it from not collapsing? And of course its collapse will be a carefully contrived event, right? History tells us this is likely to be the case.
Then what? The economy collapses, millions of Americans whine and moan as their precious well-being goes from the American Dream to waking up to the reality of being 3rd World status. Then what? Oh yeah! Then we all look up to our new leader for advices!! Obama (or Bush, if this happens before he leaves), you have a plan??? You have a new currency for us? The Amero?!!? We must merge North America into one country (NAU) in order to establish a new economy? YAY!!!
No more constitution? Fuck it! I don't want to be scared any more. I want television, sports events, hormonized/antibioticized meats in my buns, I want to refurbish my patio, sit back and read gossip magazines, I want to read news stories about horrors that are not hitting me at home, just the way it used to be. I don't want to start a new consciousness movement and abandon the status quo. I don't want to co-create a new reality. I like it when a reality labyrinth is already put in place for me. I don't want to admit I've always been hypnotized. Just let me enjoy my beer, damn it!!!!
---
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always."
*Mahatma Gandhi*
-
Very weak comeback which usually means he's way over your head.
haha you ignorant dweeb. educate yourself please!
i dont feel like reading the whole stude because its dumb and has no strong points what so ever.
the author is obviously racist.
http://www.nc-f.org/colorofcrime/index.html
some of the other books on the organizations page. all racist obviously..
http://www.nc-f.org/store/index.html
what wiki has to say about the organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Century_Foundation
:-*
-
MattC owned you like crazy in this discussion. You are basically attacking his character, because he posts rational arguments you can not argument against. The worst thing is that he is not even being racistic... (if you actually read up on the definition).
Hello??? Did you forget your brain in the ass of your mother again?? How fucking DUMB are you?
another sheep i see.
-
haha you ignorant dweeb. educate yourself please!
i dont feel like reading the whole stude because its dumb and has no strong points what so ever.
the author is obviously racist.
http://www.nc-f.org/colorofcrime/index.html
some of the other books on the organizations page. all racist obviously..
http://www.nc-f.org/store/index.html
what wiki has to say about the organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Century_Foundation
:-*
Well at least you tried this time. Tried and failed.
-
another sheep i see.
Actually, you have no arguments, Debusseys arguments = backed by science. Thus, you calling Debussey a "sheep" has no value as an argument.
Try to refute MattCocks arguments. Just try.
-
Yes, America is shit.
-
Actually, you have no arguments, Debusseys arguments = backed by science. Thus, you calling Debussey a "sheep" has no value as an argument.
Try to refute MattCocks arguments. Just try.
What's Matt Cannings arguments?
He refered to a book that has made statistics of black people committing more crimes than whites?
Thats true. Black people do commit more crimes than whites. What they "forget" to mention is that this is a result of poverty and nothing else. Not genetical traits.
His thinking is exactly the same as the nazi's had. Nothing more nothing less. He's just to ignorant or stupid to realize this.
-
What's Matt Cannings arguments?
He refered to a book that has made statistics of black people committing more crimes than whites?
Thats true. Black people do commit more crimes than whites. What they "forget" to mention is that this is a result of poverty and nothing else. Not genetical traits.
His thinking is exactly the same as the nazi's had. Nothing more nothing less. He's just to ignorant or stupid to realize this.
hmmm...
I guess MATT doesn't buy into the whole "NATURE vs NURTURE" theory :-\
-
Thats true. Black people do commit more crimes than whites. What they "forget" to mention is that this is a result of poverty and nothing else. Not genetical traits.
If this were true, then all poor people would become criminals. Why doesen't that happen? Why are there tons of honest poor people who prefer to work for a living rather than resorting to criminality?
-
What's Matt Cannings arguments?
He refered to a book that has made statistics of black people committing more crimes than whites?
Thats true. Black people do commit more crimes than whites. What they "forget" to mention is that this is a result of poverty and nothing else. Not genetical traits.
His thinking is exactly the same as the nazi's had. Nothing more nothing less. He's just to ignorant or stupid to realize this.
Maxx, whoever you are, you don't come accross very well and you should probably just bow out of this thread. I'm sorry.
-
epic fail??
some dumb people on this site.
im glad we have adam on here sometimes to enlighten people. i agree with him alot on his political views alltough im not in to politics that much myself.
to anser your question. ofcourse there are decent honest poor people. however poor areas has wayyy more crimes than wealthy areas per capita. that's all the answer you need if you can't figure it out now then please jump off a bridge or something
i thought things like these where general knowlage?? ??? :-\
-
Thats true. Black people do commit more crimes than whites. What they "forget" to mention is that this is a result of poverty and nothing else. Not genetical traits.
If you have read MAttCocks arguments, he arguments for WHY the poverty is there in the first place... And he also argues for why blacks are more prone to violence from genetics: Low IQs + high testosterone leads to a predisposition for violence. (the same factor that leads to their poverty in the first place).
And: You have not adressed Debusseys arguments regarding blacks/"initial conditions" and the complexity that arises from those ;)
-
the agressor is on his way to collapse in itself.
-
What's Matt Cannings arguments?
He refered to a book that has made statistics of black people committing more crimes than whites?
Thats true. Black people do commit more crimes than whites. What they "forget" to mention is that this is a result of poverty and nothing else. Not genetical traits.
His thinking is exactly the same as the nazi's had. Nothing more nothing less. He's just to ignorant or stupid to realize this.
Oh ok - it's all based on poverty! Why didn't I think of that?
I guess that explains why Aboriginals in Canada who get free health care, free dental, free education, and virtually all of their expenses paid for still commit over 85% of the crime in Canada? Oh wait a minute - DOH! There goes your theory.
-
Adonis, move out of the USA and stop bitching about the place you live in, no one likes ppl who just bitch and do nothing, goto canada or europe. We don't have to speak another language we rule the world.
jt
-
Oh ok - it's all based on poverty! Why didn't I think of that?
I guess that explains why Aboriginals in Canada who get free health care, free dental, free education, and virtually all of their expenses paid for still commit over 85% of the crime in Canada? Oh wait a minute - DOH! There goes your theory.
The human genome is a racist thing ;D
-
the agressor is on his way to collapse in itself.
Fact. However, I don't think anyone cares very much.
-
we rule the world.
How? ???
Can't even handle a small shit ass country like Iraq, let alone the 'world'
-
Oh ok - it's all based on poverty! Why didn't I think of that?
I guess that explains why Aboriginals in Canada who get free health care, free dental, free education, and virtually all of their expenses paid for still commit over 85% of the crime in Canada? Oh wait a minute - DOH! There goes your theory.
oh brother?...
aboriginals are the poor group of people in Canada i'm guessing? i don't know canadas history exactly. anyway if this is the case (which it most likely is) than how am i wrong. They still live in poor areas and are probably discriminated because of race.
-
The guys saying America sucks, is shit whatever that have never lived here can be dismissed instantly.
Those Americans who bash it buy have yet to live elsewhere are the same. Go live elsewhere in the world and you will quickly realize how much better it is here. The only country that comes close is Australia
-
Hope this helps
-
oh brother?...
aboriginals are the poor group of people in Canada i'm guessing? i don't know canadas history exactly. anyway if this is the case (which it most likely is) than how am i wrong. They still live in poor areas and are probably discriminated because of race.
Discrimination plays a role no doubt.
Genetics = 80%
Environment = 20%
People always say minorities are just held down because they are "oppressed", but they are equally strong. Well, if they were equally strong, they wouldn't be oppressed in the first place.
-
Discrimination plays a role no doubt.
Genetics = 80%
Environment = 20%
People always say minorities are just held down because they are "oppressed", but they are equally strong. Well, if they were equally strong, they wouldn't be oppressed in the first place.
we'll let's say we agree to disagree then.
you belive genetics plays a role, i don't.
i do think you are racist.
argument ended.
-
Discrimination plays a role no doubt.
Genetics = 80%
Environment = 20%
People always say minorities are just held down because they are "oppressed", but they are equally strong. Well, if they were equally strong, they wouldn't be oppressed in the first place.
Matt, when are you going to learn that the crime factor has nothing to with genetics or skin color.
The one factor that contributes to crime is money. A person with very little money whether black or white are more prone to commit crimes. You don't see wealthy or affluent people stealing money because they have no need to
Crimes committed are based on people's personal welfare. Being poor has much more to do with crime than being a particular race or color.
As far as "oppressed" why don't you talk to the white people in South Africa because now that they are far out of power they are now subject to "Jim Crow" treatment. The fact of being oppressed is based on majority and minority. If there are more of one race than another then the majority will always win
-
Matt, when are you going to learn that the crime factor has nothing to with genetics or skin color.
How can you say that with certainty?
A lot of shit indicates otherwise.
-
I wanted to say something for this argument, but Vince just said it all. Good post.
-
bump for the racist douchebag
also known as Matt Canning.
-
How can you say that with certainty?
A lot of shit indicates otherwise.
You have to look at all countries and not just the US. Many ethnic countries around the world have low crime rates as well.
Its also a matter of living standard. The US doesn't provide health insurance or education tuition for everyone while many other countries do.
There are countries like Denmark that take almost 40% of your earnings out of your pay however all education in Denmark is free.
Here's my ideas for a better nation. I introduce the Goodrum Way
1. Abolish the welfare system or make the people collect it do some work. No-one deserves to get free money. If they don't want to work then they should starve to death in an alley.
2. Ratify affirmative action. It is now an outdated system that does more harm to folks like me who actually studied and worked hard in school and college. There should an even playing field for everyone and Darwin's theory will separate it
3. Abolish lethal injections as its not really punishing anyone. Instead I recommend the Islamic style punishment that will make people think twice about breaking the law and raping and molesting kids and etc. This includes public stonings and beheadings. I wouldn't even mind building a Roman-eque coliseum where criminals can be fed to the lions. It should also be televised as seeing a rapist getting ripped to shredded wheat is "Must See TV".
4. Legalize but regulate drugs including steroids to be issued by a doctor. By making drugs legal, drug dealers go out of business immediately.
-
What's Matt Cannings arguments?
He refered to a book that has made statistics of black people committing more crimes than whites?
Thats true. Black people do commit more crimes than whites. What they "forget" to mention is that this is a result of poverty and nothing else. Not genetical traits.
His thinking is exactly the same as the nazi's had. Nothing more nothing less. He's just to ignorant or stupid to realize this.
sh!t i don't know how to say this without sounding like a racist pr!ck, but, is it possible that there is a correlation between violent crime and testoterone levels? if so, then blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes because they have a naturally higher level of test than the other races, and dat's a fact jack!
-
haha you ignorant dweeb. educate yourself please!
i dont feel like reading the whole stude because its dumb and has no strong points what so ever.
the author is obviously racist.
http://www.nc-f.org/colorofcrime/index.html
some of the other books on the organizations page. all racist obviously..
http://www.nc-f.org/store/index.html
what wiki has to say about the organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Century_Foundation
:-*
You are a fucking moron.
As you endeavour to spew ad hominem about the author of "The Color Of Crime" (spelled "colour" in Canada) you - being the dimwit you are - have overlooked the fact that the book obtained all of its information from official sources; sources such as but not limited to:
- The FBI's uniform crime reports (UCRs)
- The National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) involving 149,000 people
- The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
- Supplemental Homicide Reports (SHRs)
- State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS)
- National Youth Gang Survey
- Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP)
- The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP)
By the way, have I already said you are a moron? Well you are, and a thick bastard to boot.
Also, the kissy smilies look stupid. Use this one instead:
:-X
-
Matt, when are you going to learn that the crime factor has nothing to with genetics or skin color.
The one factor that contributes to crime is money. A person with very little money whether black or white are more prone to commit crimes. You don't see wealthy or affluent people stealing money because they have no need to
Crimes committed are based on people's personal welfare. Being poor has much more to do with crime than being a particular race or color.
Vince, you are wrong.
If we take a look at transracial adoption studies, they reveal that if a black child is adopted into a middle class white home, the average race based differences remain.
There are even studies documenting that when a mixed race child - who has been mistakingly labeled as "black" (the fellow working airport security in the latest Harold & Kumar film) - is placed into adoption with white parents they will still develop the IQ that would be expected for mixed race children and not blacks; do you not see how explosive that is?
It has nothing to do with "labeling" or environment, it is largely [80%] genetic.
Environment plays a role in a person's development, but certainly not one worthwhile of assigning too much importance to.
-
You are a fucking moron.
As you endeavour to spew ad hominem about the author of "The Color Of Crime" (spelled "colour" in Canada) you - being the dimwit you are - have overlooked the fact that the book obtained all of its information from official sources; sources such as but not limited to:
- The FBI's uniform crime reports (UCRs)
- The National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) involving 149,000 people
- The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
- Supplemental Homicide Reports (SHRs)
- State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS)
- National Youth Gang Survey
- Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP)
- The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP)
By the way, have I already said you are a moron? Well you are, and a thick bastard to boot.
Also, the kissy smilies look stupid. Use this one instead:
:-X
what does that prove?
so tell me. what does each of those sources contain for information in the book? tell me one by one please.
you racist prick :)
-
Vince, you are wrong.
If we take a look at transracial adoption studies, they reveal that if a black child is adopted into a middle class white home, the average race based differences remain.
There are even studies documenting that when a mixed race child - who has been mistakingly labeled as "black" (the fellow working airport security in the latest Harold & Kumar film) - is placed into adoption with white parents they will still develop the IQ that would be expected for mixed race children and not blacks; do you not see how explosive that is?
It has nothing to do with "labeling" or environment, it is largely [80%] genetic.
Environment plays a role in a person's development, but certainly not one worthwhile of assigning too much importance to.
These people = not willing to confront the science MattCock. But who cares? The differences + the results they create = still there.
-
Matt C has a net worth of 2 rocks, a pine cone and a piece of driftwood and the only violent crime he commits is on his boyfriend's sphincter, so that throws the "black people commit crime because they're poor" argument out the window.
-
The guys saying America sucks, is shit whatever that have never lived here can be dismissed instantly.
Those Americans who bash it buy have yet to live elsewhere are the same. Go live elsewhere in the world and you will quickly realize how much better it is here. The only country that comes close is Australia
No offense to Australians on the board, but I wonder how they maintain the luxuries. It is the most expensive place I have ever set foot in, and I have literally traveled around the world.
Just lookin at supps, as many here are familar with price, a tub of protein is $100+, fatburners are $90, that Muscletech Gakic stuff is $150. Not that I bought them but just as a comparison. The same hair/nail appt that I pay about $50 for in the USA, Canada or Caribbean was $250 there. Internet fees are downright scary. Prices are often - literally - 3 to 8 times more expensive than the USA and Canada.
Australia is a beautiful nation, free healthcare, extremely clean, very low crime with friendly people. But no way are they above dozens of other nations standard of living wise. Also, they have same issues as US with heavy foreign debt and high taxation. They are very similar to most of Europe, USA, Canada, Japan, Singapore, Dubai, rich islands here etc. Great nations all of them, with some drawbacks.
-
what does that prove?
so tell me. what does each of those sources contain for information in the book? tell me one by one please.
you racist prick :)
How is it racist to acknowledge facts about crime which are proven and irrefutable? I'm not really following here. Is it "racist" because someone finds it offensive? Well I'm sorry to offend you. It's not that I want to believe the data is true, but it is there and the evidence is overwhelming.
Why not just accept the science and the facts? In order to change the system, wouldn't the best bet be to actually look at it in a realistic light?
-
How is it racist to acknowledge facts about crime which are proven and irrefutable? I'm not really following here. Is it "racist" because someone finds it offensive? Well I'm sorry to offend you. It's not that I want to believe the data is true, but it is there and the evidence is overwhelming.
Why not just accept the science and the facts? In order to change the system, wouldn't the best bet be to actually look at it in a realistic light?
Low average IQs (proven, and probably genetic in nature to a certain degree) + High testosterone levels -> Leads to: 1: Poverty (linked to low IQ, especially for a population), 2: A higher propensity to commit crime (linked to low IQ (offenders and blacks in general have it) + peraps high test levels).
If anybody really wants to debate you, they need to disprove the "african = lower avg IQ, most likely genetic in nature to a high degree", the "low IQ correlates with crime", the "Low IQ correlates with poverty" and so on. They will have one hell of a job.
If it really is racist to point out these obvious things found in science (which it is not), the whole term "racist" needs to be thrown out because it = inhibiting people from looking at what the hell is really happening.
Societies best bet: Eugenics: Prevent low IQ people from having kids, and screen every egg for genetical deficiencies before putting it in the woman. Eventually offer genetic engineering for potential parents, superior intelligence, genes for superior health and so on = offered. (Again, the people thinking that "this is wrong" = not seeing what NOT doing it will cause, and the upside of doing this. The "Let us put a stop to this" people = really just being irrational and not seeing the enormous potential cost of their belief.
-
Race and brainsize: Do Black have Larger Brains?
The majority of empirical studies on the matter of racial differences in brain size suggest that blacks from comparable environments will have larger brains than do others. Brain sizes vary considerably within any species, but this variation is not usually related to intelligence. Instead, it correlates loosely with body size: large people tend to have larger brains (Gould, 1981). As a result, women on average will have smaller brains than men (Peters, 1991). However, this does not indicate that the level of male intelligence is higher than female intelligence; Neanderthals had on average larger brains than anatomically modern humans (Tattersall, 1995; Gould, 1981) but most would agree that they were considerably less intelligent than Homo sapiens (Tattersal, 1995, 2004; Gould, 1981; Mithen 1998). In addition, female brains are structured in a way that would more than make up for any size differences.
Tobias (1970) compared 7 racial and national groups in a study on brain size, in which he reported that the brain size of American blacks was larger than any white group, (which included American, English and French whites) except those from the Swedish sub sample (who had the largest brains of any of the groups measured), and American blacks were also estimated to have some 200 million more neurons than American whites (See Tobias 1970; Weizmann et al. 1990). Gould (1981, 1996) discovered upon recalculating Morton’s skull data that the crania of blacks in his sample were on average larger than those of whites. Morton included in his sample of black skulls more females than he included in the white sample. For example, in his analysis of Hottentotts (black tribe from South Africa) all measured crania were of females; the Englishmen were all mature men. Also, Morton did some early measurements with seed instead of shot. When he discovered that this method gave inconsistent results, he re did the Caucasian values with shot, but not the blacks (See Gould, 1981, 1996). After correcting these errors it was shown that the black sample had larger crania (and presumably, larger brains) than did whites (ibid).
Interestingly, during the time periods in which the data for the above mentioned studies were collected anthropomorphic research has shown that blacks were on average physically smaller in stature than whites and received poorer nutrition (e.g. Alan, 2006). Indicating that in spite of relatively lower anthropomorphic measurements and poorer nutritional intake, blacks still demonstrated larger brain volume.
Empirical evidence shows that there is virtually no correlation between the intensity of different selective force gradients (e.g. latitude/temperature) and cranial morphology (Harvati and Weaver, 2006; Keita, 2004; Roseman and Weaver, 2004; Roseman, 2004; Gould, 1981, 1996; Brace, 2001). Indeed, positive geographic selective force correlations relating to craniometric variables are usually only (vaguely) observed when people from extreme cold (arctic) environments, such as Inuit types and Siberians, are included in analysis (Roseman, 2004; Harvati and Weaver, 2006). For example, Harvati and Weaver (2006) found a weak association between cranial centroid sizes and climatic variables, which approached, but did not reach, significance. This effect disappeared when an Inugsuk (a group from Greenland similar to Eskimos) sample was removed from the analysis (ibid). Roseman (2004) observed similar findings with a Siberian sample – once the Serbian sample was removed from the analysis, there was no indication that environmental temperature or latitude played ‘any’ role in cranial morphology. In sum, recent studies comparing craniometric and neutral genetic affinity matrices have concluded that, on average, human cranial variation fits a model of neutral expectation.
Keita (2004) in his principal components analysis on male crania from the northeast quadrant of Africa and selected European and other African series also found no consistent ‘size differences’ between regional groups, as all samples showed marked variation in size. There were however some distinguishing differences in relationship to cranial shape between European and African samples, particularly with respect to nasal aperture and changes in the maxilla (part of the upper jaw from which the teeth grow). The primary goal of this study was to assess the anatomical basis of patterns of craniofacial variation along an African–European continuum, with special interest on North Africa. There was Interest in whether there was a sharp boundary separating any of these groups from each other (see Keita, 2004). In terms of overall cranial size, tropical African groups were found in many instances to have larger crania than European groups. For example, on close inspection of the 2 dimensional PC scatter plots, designating cranial size/shape, the Zulu sample appeared to have the largest crania of any group in the analysis, followed by Norse (Norway) and then Teita (Kenya). African crania were also found to be broader (wider) than European crania on average. Surprisingly, one European sample, Berg (Hungarian), correlated more closely with African samples in this respect than with other European samples.
Tremendous overlap between all groups was observed in this study, for most variables (see Keita, 2004). Extensive research in human genetics on ‘presumably’ neutral loci has also shown that the overwhelming majority of human diversity is found among individuals within local populations. Previous studies of craniometric diversity are similar to these genetic apportionments, implying that interregionally differing selection pressures have played a limited role in producing contemporary human cranial diversity (Roseman and Weaver, 2004; Brace, 2001).
Other physical anthropological research has also shown that the crania of Sub-Saharan Africans are generally wider than European and North African samples, verbatim. For example sub-Saharan specimens show a generalized vertical facial flattening, with consequent widening of the entire structure (Bruner and Manzi, 2004). This pattern involves interorbital and orbital enlargement, widening and flattening of the nasal bones and aperture, maxillary development and upper rotation, and a general widening and lowering of the face. The face shortens vertically and this flattening leads to a relative lateral enlargement of the whole morphology and maxillary frontward rotation (see Bruner and Manzi, 2004). The pattern toward the other extreme shows the opposite processes, with a general vertical stretching related to a lateral narrowing, as seen in European and North African samples (ibid).
Roseman and Weaver (2007) found that the amount of phenotypic variation in human cranial morphology decreases at the population level the further one travels from Sub-Saharan Africa. African populations tend to exhibit more cranial variation than do other world populations (Hanihara et al, 2003; Hiernaux, 1975; Keita, 2004; Roseman and Weaver, 2007). Relethford (1994) and Relethford and Harpending (1994) found that the amount of morphological variation among major geographic groups is relatively low, and is compatible with those based on the genetic data, where Africa shows the most variation. Manica et al (2007) note a smooth loss of genetic diversity with increasing distance from Africa, and along with this, using a large data set of skull measurements and an analytical framework equivalent to that used for genetic data, also show that the loss in genetic diversity is mirrored by a loss in phenotypic variability.
Genetic studies of human brainsize have discovered two genes that when mutated can result in a severely reduced brain volume, or ‘Autosomal recessive primary microcephaly’. The gene microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size during development and has experienced positive selection in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens (Zhang, 2003; Evans et al, 2005). Within modern humans a group of closely related haplotypes, known as ‘haplogroup D’ arose from a single copy at this locus (Evans, 2006). Globally, D alleles are young and first appeared about 37,000 years ago; with high frequency haplotypes being rare in Asia, and particularly Africa. The highest frequencies are seen in Europe/Eurasia. The second microcephalin gene, ‘ASPM’ (abnormal spindle like Microcephaly associated), went an episode of positive selection that ended some time ago (between 6–7 million and 100,000 B.P.), with newer D variants showing positive selection arising about 5,800 years ago (Evans et al, 2005; Zhang, 2003), although some research calls into question whether these newer variants are being selected for (see Voight 2006; Yu et al, 2007).
Microcephaly genetic researchers believe that D alleles may have first arisen in an archaic homo species about 1.1 million years ago before introgression into modern Homo sapien sapiens about 37, 000 years ago; possibly as the result of interspecies breeding (Evans et al, 2006). In fact, microcephalin shows by far the most compelling evidence of admixture among the human loci examined thus far (Evans et al, 2006). Modern humans arose only 100,000 years ago in Africa (Horan et al, 2005), which would make D alleles more than 1million years “older” than modern humans, and certainly very primitive by any stretch.
Normal D variants of both ‘MCPH1’ and ‘ASPM’ genes have been shown to have mild affects on human brainsize with empirical evidence demonstrating the alleles to reduce brain volume, slightly (Woods et al, 2006). For example, each additional ASPM allele was associated with a non significant 10.9 cc decrease in brain volume. For MCPH1, each additional allele was associated with a non significant 19.5 cc decrease in brain volume (Woods et al, 2006).
While selective pressure in favor of smaller brain volume might seem counterintuitive, it should be noted that the fossil records suggest that brain size in humans – particularly in Europe - has decreased over the past 35,000 years, and on through the Neolithic period (Frayer, 1984; Ruff et al, 1997; Woods, et al, 2006). Interestingly, the selected variant of MCPH1 is thought to have arisen about 37,000 years ago (Evans et al, 2006) making it a candidate gene responsible for this general decline (Woods et al, 2006), while the ASPM variant is thought to have arisen only 5,800 years ago. These archaeological changes in brain size are paralleled by changes in body size (Ruff et al, 1997; Woods et al., 2006), and it is possible that decreases in brain size may have exerted selective pressure for corresponding decreases in body (Ruff et al, 1997; Frayer, 1984; see also, Woods et al., 2006).
The supposed rate of selection for these particular variant MCPH1 and ASPM alleles might also indicate that the genes are relatively unexpressed in the human brain, outside of causing ‘Autosomal recessive primary microcephaly.’ In one study it was shown that genes with maximal expression in the human brain tend to show little or no evidence for positive selection (Nielsen et al, 2006). For example, the microcephaly genes in question have also been implicated in the development of breast cancer (Xu et al, 2004), and other non brain related conditions (Trimborn et al, 2004). Implying that the mild brain volume reductions observed with each additional variant of ASPM and MCPH1 may in fact be adaptively unimportant. It should be further noted that one microcephalin gene (CDK5RAP2) has shown evidence of positive selection in West African Yoruba (Voight, 2006; bond et al, 2005), however, this gene at the MCPH3 locus has been least involved in causing a microcephalin phenotype (Hassan et al, 2007), and is not believed to have arisen in an archaic homo species.
Cernovsky (1990) reports that American blacks were superior in brain weight when compared with American whites. It is also known that the largest portions of the human brain are devoted to sensory and motor functions, which would mean that people with especially acute senses or strong motor skills can be expected to have larger brains than do others (Allen, 2002). It has been shown in several studies that blacks in general possess superior motor skills when compared to whites (Super, 1976; Wilson 1978; DiNucci, 1975); some believe that this may be the result of environmental and cultural factors (Super, 1976). The overall implications are the same, however, and suggest that blacks have larger brains.
TESTOSTERONE, BRAIN SIZE and PENIS SIZE…?
Some of the more desperate claims for racial differences in brain size are accompanied by highly unusual arguments suggesting racial differences in penis size (i.e. that they are inversely correlated). Thorough investigation of the formal neuroscience, anthropology, paleontology, anatomy, physiology, and ‘sex psychology’ literature reveal that legitimate references to this - ridiculous (?) - notion are not only remote, but in fact, “nonexistent.” The development and size of one’s penis is controlled by testosterone levels during puberty; and it is testosterone (and body size) that determine penis size. Testosterone: “Primary male hormone, causes the reproductive organs to grow and develop; responsible for secondary sexual characteristics, and promotes erections and sexual behavior” (1).
With this in mind; employing elementary logic one may safely arrive at the conclusion that because men tend to have dramatically higher levels of testosterone than do women (about 10 times the level), and on average have larger brains (due mostly to body size); that testosterone not only increases body and penis size, but also brain size! In fact, the relationship between larger brain size and testosterone is of common knowledge, and is well documented in the literature (e.g. Solms and Turnbull, 2002; Hulshoff Pol et al, 2006).
Moreover, low testosterone has been associated with smaller penis and testes size in humans (McLachlan and Allan, 2005). Low testosterone is also been associated with failure to go through full normal puberty, poor muscle development, reduced muscle strength, low interest in sex (decreased libido), osteoporosis (thinning of bones common in whites and Asians), poor concentration, difficulty getting and keeping erections, low semen volume, longer time to recover from exercise, and easy fatigue, in men (McLachlan and Allan, 2005). At the other (relative) extreme, high testosterone has been associated with improved health and longevity, superior motor abilities, increased reproductive success (in men), increased mental focus, larger brain volume and “boldness” in men (Dabbs and Dabbs, 2000; Solms and Turnbull, 2002; Hulshoff Pol et al, 2006; Fink el al, 2005).
With respect to brain size again; it is known that sex hormones (e.g. testosterone, estrogen) induce sexually-dimorphic brain development and organization. Research with cross-sex hormone administration to transsexuals has provided a unique opportunity to study the effects of sex steroids on brain morphology in young adulthood. Hulshoff Pol et al (2006) used magnetic resonance brain images prior to, and during, cross-sex hormone treatment to study the influence of anti-androgen +estrogen treatment on brain morphology in eight young adult male-to-female transsexual subjects and of androgen treatment in six female to- male transsexuals. The team found that compared with controls, anti-androgen (i.e. male sex hormones/testosterone) + estrogen treatment decreased brain volumes of male-to-female subjects towards female proportions, while androgen treatment in female-to-male subjects increased total brain and hypothalamus volumes towards male proportions (Hulshoff Pol et al, 2006 ). These findings have also been replicated in animal studies (Nottenbohm, 1980; Bloch and Gorski, 1988).
-
How is it racist to acknowledge facts about crime which are proven and irrefutable? I'm not really following here. Is it "racist" because someone finds it offensive? Well I'm sorry to offend you. It's not that I want to believe the data is true, but it is there and the evidence is overwhelming.
Why not just accept the science and the facts? In order to change the system, wouldn't the best bet be to actually look at it in a realistic light?
im not trying to hide any facts. the majority of crimes in the us are being made by black people. but you are not acknowledging the right underlaying factors for this. and no not genetics. saying that is racist. that's exactly what hitler said about your people, jews!
here in sweden the majority of crimes are being made from foreigners mostly middle eastern people. are you saying middle eastern people has more test than whites to or what ::) ?
-
Brain size decreases after anti-androgen treatment observed in the above mentioned study where also very dramatic. Indeed, the magnitude of change signified a decrease in brain volume, which is at least ten times the average decrease observed a year in healthy adult individuals (Hulshoff Pol et al, 2006). The authors include that it was not surprising that the influences of sex hormones on the brain were not limited to the hypothalamus, but were also expressed as changes in total brain size. Estrogen and androgen receptor mRNA containing neurons are not limited to the hypothalamus, but are distributed throughout the adult human brain (Hulshoff Pol et al, 2006; Simerly et al, 1990).
Research has documented that American blacks possess androgen (e.g. Testosterone) levels that are as much as 10% higher than American whites (Ross and Henderson, 1994; Bernstein et al, 1986; Ross et al, 1995). This difference, as it is not excessive, should also offer blacks a number of genetic and health benefits. For example, testosterone level differences of this magnitude would suggest that blacks on average will have comparably larger brains than do whites. East Asians have been shown to possess much lower levels of androgens (Ross et al, 1995).
Notes:
1. Definition is from: University of Michigan comprehensive Cancer Center; Fertility & Cryopreservation Glossary.
References:
Alan S.A. (2006). African-American and White living standards in the 19th century American south; a biological comparison. CESifo Working Paper No. 1696
Allen B.P. (2006). If No “Races,” No Relevance to Brain Size, and No Consensus on Intelligence, Then No Scientific Meaning to Relationships Among These Notions: Reply to Rushton11. General Psychologist, Summer, 2003 Volume 38:2 Pages 31-32.
Bernstein L, Ross RK, Judd H, et al (1986). Serum testosterone levels in young black and white men. J Natl Cancer Inst 76:45—48, 1986
Bloch GJ & Gorski RA. (1988) Estrogen/progesterone treatment in adulthood affects the size of several components of the medial preoptic area in the male rat. Journal of Comparative Neurology 1988 275 613–622.
Bond J, Roberts E, Springell K, Lizarraga SB, Scott S, et al. (2005) A centrosomal mechanism involving CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ controls brain size. Nat Genet 37: 353–355.
Bruner E., Manzi G. (2004).Variability in facial size and shape among North and East African human populations. Ital. J. Zool., 71: 51-56 (2004)
Brace C.L, Nelson A.R., Seguchi N, Oe H., Sering L., Qifeng P., Yongyi L., and Tumen D (2001). Old World sources of the first New World human inhabitants: A comparative craniofacial view. PNAS August 14, 2001 u vol. 98 u no. 17 u 10017–10022
Cernovsky Z.Z. (1990). Race and Brain Weight: A note on Rushton’s conclusions. Psychological Reports 66:337-38
Dabbs,J.M, Dabbs M.G. (2000). Heroes, Rogues and Lovers: Testosterone and Behavior. McGraw-Hill Companies (July 25, 2000)
Douglas B. (2008). Race, Intelligence and IQ: Are People of African Decent More Intelligent? Africaresource: educational, arts and research materials.
DiNucci, James M. (1975). Motor Performance Age and Race Differences between Black and Caucasian Boys Six to Nine Years of Age. The ERIC database, an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education. 1975-02-00
Evan P., Mekel-Bobrov N., Vallender E., Hudson R., Lahn B., (2006). Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage. 18178–18183, PNAS November 28, 2006, vol. 103, no. 48
Erik Trinkaus (1984). Reply. Current anthropology. Vol. 25 . No. 3 June 1984
Fink B., Grammer K., Mitteroecker P., Gunz P., Schaefer K.,. Bookstein F.L. and Manning J.T. (2005). Second to fourth digit ratio and face shape Proc. R. Soc. B (2005) 272, 1995–2001
Frayer, D.W. (1984). In The Origins of Modern Humans: A world survey of the Fossil Evidence (eds Smith, F.H. & Spencer, f.) 211-250 (Liss, New York, 1984)
Gould, S. J. (1981). Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.
Gould, S. J. (1996). Mismeasure of Man (2nd edition). New York: Norton.
Hanihara T, Ishida H., and Dodo Y (2003). Characterization of Biological Diversity through Analysis of Discrete Cranial Traits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121:241–251 (2003)
Hassan M.J., Khurshid M, Azeem Z., John P, Ali G., Chishti M.S. and Ahmad W. Previously described sequence variant in CDK5RAP2 gene in a Pakistani family with autosomal recessive primary microcephaly. BMC Medical Genetics 2007, 8:58
Hiernaux J. (1975). The people of Africa. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Horan R.D., Bulte E., Shogren J.F. (2005). How trade saved humanity from biological exclusion: an economic theory of Neanderthal extinction. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization Volume 58, Issue 1, September 2005, Pages 1-29
Hulshoff Pol H.E., Cohen-Kettenis P.T., Peper J.S., Cahn W. (2006). Changing your sex changes your brain: influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure. European Journal of Endocrinology (2006) 155 S107–S114
Mithen, S., 1998 (Ed). Creativity in Human Evolution and Prehistory, London: Routledge
Murphy, N. B. (1968). Carotid cerebral angiography in Uganda: review of boo consecutive cases. East African M. 7.,1968,45,47-60.
Nielsen,R., Bustamante,C., Clark,A.G., Glanowski,S., Sackton,T.B., Hubisz,M.J., Fledel-Alon,A.,
Nottebohm F. (1980). Testosterone triggers growth of brain vocal control nuclei in adult female canaries. Brain Research 1980 189 429.
Tanenbaum,D.M., Civello,D., White,T.J., et al. (2005). A scan for positively selected genes in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. PLoS Biol. 3,
Relethford JH. 1994. Craniometric variation among modern human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 95:53–62.
Relethford JH, Harpending HC. 1994. Craniometric variation, genetic theory, and modern human origins. Am J Phys Anthropol 95:249–270.
Roseman C.C. (2004). Detecting interregionally diversifying natural selection on modern human cranial form by using matched molecular and morphometric data. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 August 31; 101(35): 12824–12829.
Roseman C.C., Weaver T.D. (2007) Molecules versus morphology? Not for the human cranium. Volume 29, Issue 12 , Pages 1185 – 1188
Roseman C.C., Weaver T.D. (2004). Multivariate apportionment of global human craniometric diversity. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Volume 18, Issue 5 , Pages 668 - 675
Ross, R.K., Coetzee, G. A., Reichardt, J., Skinner, E, and Henderson, B.E. (1995). Does the Racial-Ethnic Variation in Prostate Cancer Risk Have a Hormonal Basis? Cancer, Volume 75, Issue S7 (p 1778-1782)
Ross R.K., Henderson B.E. (1994). Do diet and androgens alter prostate cancer risk via a common etiologic pathway? / Natl Cancer lnst 1994; 86:252-4.
Ruff C.B., Trinkaus E., and Holliday T.W. (1997). Body mass and encephalization in Pleistocene Homo. Nature Vol. 387, 8 May 1997
Simerly RB, Chang C, Muramatsu M & Swanson LW. (1990). Distribution of androgen and estrogen receptor mRNA-containing cells in the rat brain: an in situ hybridization study. Journal of Comparative Neurology 1990 294 76–95.
Solms M. and, Turnbull O. (2002). The brain and the inner world. Other Press, New York
Keita S. (2004). Exploring Northeast African Metric Craniofacial Variation at the Individual Level: A Comparative Study Using Principal Components Analysis. American Journal of Human Biology 16:679–689 (2004)
Super, C. M. (1976). Environmental effects on motor development: The case of African infant precocity. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 18, 561–567.
Tattersall, I. and J.H. Schwartz (2000). Extinct Humans, New York: Westview Press.
Tattersall (1995) The Fossil Trail (Ev)
Tobias, T.V. (1970). Brain Size, Grey matter and Race – Fact or Fiction? American Journal of Physical Anthropology 32:3-26
Trimborn,M., Bell,S.M., Felix,C., Rashid,Y., Jafri,H., Griffiths,P.D., Neumann,L.M., Krebs,A., Reis,A., Sperling,K., et al. (2004). Mutations in Microcephalin cause aberrant regulation of chromosome condensation. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75, 261-266.
Voight BF, Kudaravalli S, Wen X, Pritchard JK (2006) A map of recent positive selection in the human genome. PLoS Biol 4(3): e72
Wilson A. (1978). Developmental Psychology of the Black Child. Africana Research Publications (December 1978).
Woods R., Freimer N., Young J., Fears S, Sicotte N., Service S., Valentino D., Toga A., Mazziotta J. (2006). Normal Variants of Microcephalin and ASPM Do Not Account for Brain Size Variability. Human Molecular Genetics, Volume 15, Number 12, 15 June 2006, pp. 2025-2029(5)
Xu X., Lee J., and Stern D.F. (2004). Microcephalin Is a DNA Damage Response Protein Involved in Regulation of CHK1 and BRCA1. THE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY Vol. 279, No. 33, Issue of August 13, pp. 34091–34094, 2004
Yu F, Hill R.S., Schaffner S.F., Sabeti P.C., Wang E.T. et al (2007).Comment on “Ongoing Adaptive Evolution of ASPM, a Brain Size Determinant in Homo sapiens”. Mignault A.A,1 Ferland RJ. Et al, 20 APRIL 2007 VOL 316 SCIENCE
Zhang J. (2003). Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size. Genetics 165: 2063–2070 (December 2003)
-
Low average IQs (proven, and probably genetic in nature to a certain degree) + High testosterone levels -> Leads to: 1: Poverty (linked to low IQ, especially for a population), 2: A higher propensity to commit crime (linked to low IQ (offenders and blacks in general have it) + peraps high test levels).
If anybody really wants to debate you, they need to disprove the "african = lower avg IQ, most likely genetic in nature to a high degree", the "low IQ correlates with crime", the "Low IQ correlates with poverty" and so on. They will have one hell of a job.
If it really is racist to point out these obvious things found in science (which it is not), the whole term "racist" needs to be thrown out because it = inhibiting people from looking at what the hell is really happening.
Societies best bet: Eugenics: Prevent low IQ people from having kids, and screen every egg for genetical deficiencies before putting it in the woman.
Yeah, it is a hell of a job to prove something that isn't true, LOL. Not that the PC crowd won't try though.
Do you think that the elite capitalists and oligarchs don't KNOW they are destroying culture by pushing equal rights? Of course they know this! They WANT to dumb down the strong in the society to the level of the weak - that's the point! Those who are mentally handicapped for example will never be brought up to the level of the strong, but by pushing the egalitarian fraud, it gives those who have such deficiencies more rights than those who are strong - the people who bring up a society to the level it is at.
The elite want no middle class - just a small group of elite overseeing a slave plantation. It's evil under the guise of something good (speciously named "equal rights" which is nothing more than BLATANT discrimination towards the strong in a society). The sad part is how many people buy this garbage hook, line, and sinker.
-
Yeah, it is a hell of a job to prove something that isn't true, LOL. Not that the PC crowd won't try though.
Do you think that the elite capitalists and oligarchs don't KNOW they are destroying culture by pushing equal rights? Of course they know this! They WANT to dumb down the strong in the society to the level of the weak - that's the point! Those who are mentally handicapped for example will never be brought up to the level of the strong, but by pushing the egalitarian fraud, it gives those who have such deficiencies more rights than those who are strong - the people who bring up a society to the level it is at.
The elite want no middle class - just a small group of elite overseeing a slave plantation. It's evil under the guise of something good (speciously named "equal rights" which is nothing more than BLATANT discrimination towards the strong in a society). That sad part is how many people buy this garbage hook, line, and sinker.
Sounds alot like one of Hitlers speaches
you scare me. seriously...
-
Same fucking 10 page argument yet again. It's like Groundhog Day on here sometimes..
(http://www.uppityrib.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Big_Bill_In_Groundhog.gif)
-
What I.Q. doesn’t tell you about race.
by Malcolm Gladwell
December 17, 2007 Text Size:
Small Text
Medium Text
Large Text Print E-Mail Feeds If what I.Q. tests measure is immutable and innate, what explains the Flynn effect—the steady rise in scores across generations?
Related Links
Audio: Malcolm Gladwell on race and I.Q.
Keywords
I.Q.s; Race; Flynn, James; “What Is Intelligence?” (Cambridge; $22); Flynn effect; Intelligence; Racism Correction appended.
One Saturday in November of 1984, James Flynn, a social scientist at the University of Otago, in New Zealand, received a large package in the mail. It was from a colleague in Utrecht, and it contained the results of I.Q. tests given to two generations of Dutch eighteen-year-olds. When Flynn looked through the data, he found something puzzling. The Dutch eighteen-year-olds from the nineteen-eighties scored better than those who took the same tests in the nineteen-fifties—and not just slightly better, much better.
Curious, Flynn sent out some letters. He collected intelligence-test results from Europe, from North America, from Asia, and from the developing world, until he had data for almost thirty countries. In every case, the story was pretty much the same. I.Q.s around the world appeared to be rising by 0.3 points per year, or three points per decade, for as far back as the tests had been administered. For some reason, human beings seemed to be getting smarter.
Flynn has been writing about the implications of his findings—now known as the Flynn effect—for almost twenty-five years. His books consist of a series of plainly stated statistical observations, in support of deceptively modest conclusions, and the evidence in support of his original observation is now so overwhelming that the Flynn effect has moved from theory to fact. What remains uncertain is how to make sense of the Flynn effect. If an American born in the nineteen-thirties has an I.Q. of 100, the Flynn effect says that his children will have I.Q.s of 108, and his grandchildren I.Q.s of close to 120—more than a standard deviation higher. If we work in the opposite direction, the typical teen-ager of today, with an I.Q. of 100, would have had grandparents with average I.Q.s of 82—seemingly below the threshold necessary to graduate from high school. And, if we go back even farther, the Flynn effect puts the average I.Q.s of the schoolchildren of 1900 at around 70, which is to suggest, bizarrely, that a century ago the United States was populated largely by people who today would be considered mentally retarded.
For almost as long as there have been I.Q. tests, there have been I.Q. fundamentalists. H. H. Goddard, in the early years of the past century, established the idea that intelligence could be measured along a single, linear scale. One of his particular contributions was to coin the word “moron.” “The people who are doing the drudgery are, as a rule, in their proper places,” he wrote. Goddard was followed by Lewis Terman, in the nineteen-twenties, who rounded up the California children with the highest I.Q.s, and confidently predicted that they would sit at the top of every profession. In 1969, the psychometrician Arthur Jensen argued that programs like Head Start, which tried to boost the academic performance of minority children, were doomed to failure, because I.Q. was so heavily genetic; and in 1994 Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, in “The Bell Curve,” notoriously proposed that Americans with the lowest I.Q.s be sequestered in a “high-tech” version of an Indian reservation, “while the rest of America tries to go about its business.” To the I.Q. fundamentalist, two things are beyond dispute: first, that I.Q. tests measure some hard and identifiable trait that predicts the quality of our thinking; and, second, that this trait is stable—that is, it is determined by our genes and largely impervious to environmental influences.
from the issuecartoon banke-mail thisThis is what James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA, meant when he told an English newspaper recently that he was “inherently gloomy” about the prospects for Africa. From the perspective of an I.Q. fundamentalist, the fact that Africans score lower than Europeans on I.Q. tests suggests an ineradicable cognitive disability. In the controversy that followed, Watson was defended by the journalist William Saletan, in a three-part series for the online magazine Slate. Drawing heavily on the work of J. Philippe Rushton—a psychologist who specializes in comparing the circumference of what he calls the Negroid brain with the length of the Negroid penis—Saletan took the fundamentalist position to its logical conclusion. To erase the difference between blacks and whites, Saletan wrote, would probably require vigorous interbreeding between the races, or some kind of corrective genetic engineering aimed at upgrading African stock. “Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern,” Saletan declared, claiming to have been “soaking [his] head in each side’s computations and arguments.” One argument that Saletan never soaked his head in, however, was Flynn’s, because what Flynn discovered in his mailbox upsets the certainties upon which I.Q. fundamentalism rests. If whatever the thing is that I.Q. tests measure can jump so much in a generation, it can’t be all that immutable and it doesn’t look all that innate.
The very fact that average I.Q.s shift over time ought to create a “crisis of confidence,” Flynn writes in “What Is Intelligence?” (Cambridge; $22), his latest attempt to puzzle through the implications of his discovery. “How could such huge gains be intelligence gains? Either the children of today were far brighter than their parents or, at least in some circumstances, I.Q. tests were not good measures of intelligence.”
The best way to understand why I.Q.s rise, Flynn argues, is to look at one of the most widely used I.Q. tests, the so-called WISC (for Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children). The WISC is composed of ten subtests, each of which measures a different aspect of I.Q. Flynn points out that scores in some of the categories—those measuring general knowledge, say, or vocabulary or the ability to do basic arithmetic—have risen only modestly over time. The big gains on the WISC are largely in the category known as “similarities,” where you get questions such as “In what way are ‘dogs’ and ‘rabbits’ alike?” Today, we tend to give what, for the purposes of I.Q. tests, is the right answer: dogs and rabbits are both mammals. A nineteenth-century American would have said that “you use dogs to hunt rabbits.”
“If the everyday world is your cognitive home, it is not natural to detach abstractions and logic and the hypothetical from their concrete referents,” Flynn writes. Our great-grandparents may have been perfectly intelligent. But they would have done poorly on I.Q. tests because they did not participate in the twentieth century’s great cognitive revolution, in which we learned to sort experience according to a new set of abstract categories. In Flynn’s phrase, we have now had to put on “scientific spectacles,” which enable us to make sense of the WISC questions about similarities. To say that Dutch I.Q. scores rose substantially between 1952 and 1982 was another way of saying that the Netherlands in 1982 was, in at least certain respects, much more cognitively demanding than the Netherlands in 1952. An I.Q., in other words, measures not so much how smart we are as how modern we are.
This is a critical distinction. When the children of Southern Italian immigrants were given I.Q. tests in the early part of the past century, for example, they recorded median scores in the high seventies and low eighties, a full standard deviation below their American and Western European counterparts. Southern Italians did as poorly on I.Q. tests as Hispanics and blacks did. As you can imagine, there was much concerned talk at the time about the genetic inferiority of Italian stock, of the inadvisability of letting so many second-class immigrants into the United States, and of the squalor that seemed endemic to Italian urban neighborhoods. Sound familiar? These days, when talk turns to the supposed genetic differences in the intelligence of certain races, Southern Italians have disappeared from the discussion. “Did their genes begin to mutate somewhere in the 1930s?” the psychologists Seymour Sarason and John Doris ask, in their account of the Italian experience. “Or is it possible that somewhere in the 1920s, if not earlier, the sociocultural history of Italo-Americans took a turn from the blacks and the Spanish Americans which permitted their assimilation into the general undifferentiated mass of Americans?”
The psychologist Michael Cole and some colleagues once gave members of the Kpelle tribe, in Liberia, a version of the WISC similarities test: they took a basket of food, tools, containers, and clothing and asked the tribesmen to sort them into appropriate categories. To the frustration of the researchers, the Kpelle chose functional pairings. They put a potato and a knife together because a knife is used to cut a potato. “A wise man could only do such-and-such,” they explained. Finally, the researchers asked, “How would a fool do it?” The tribesmen immediately re-sorted the items into the “right” categories. It can be argued that taxonomical categories are a developmental improvement—that is, that the Kpelle would be more likely to advance, technologically and scientifically, if they started to see the world that way. But to label them less intelligent than Westerners, on the basis of their performance on that test, is merely to state that they have different cognitive preferences and habits. And if I.Q. varies with habits of mind, which can be adopted or discarded in a generation, what, exactly, is all the fuss about?
When I was growing up, my family would sometimes play Twenty Questions on long car trips. My father was one of those people who insist that the standard categories of animal, vegetable, and mineral be supplemented with a fourth category: “abstract.” Abstract could mean something like “whatever it was that was going through my mind when we drove past the water tower fifty miles back.” That abstract category sounds absurdly difficult, but it wasn’t: it merely required that we ask a slightly different set of questions and grasp a slightly different set of conventions, and, after two or three rounds of practice, guessing the contents of someone’s mind fifty miles ago becomes as easy as guessing Winston Churchill. (There is one exception. That was the trip on which my old roommate Tom Connell chose, as an abstraction, “the Unknown Soldier”—which allowed him legitimately and gleefully to answer “I have no idea” to almost every question. There were four of us playing. We gave up after an hour.) Flynn would say that my father was teaching his three sons how to put on scientific spectacles, and that extra practice probably bumped up all of our I.Q.s a few notches. But let’s be clear about what this means. There’s a world of difference between an I.Q. advantage that’s genetic and one that depends on extended car time with Graham Gladwell.
Flynn is a cautious and careful writer. Unlike many others in the I.Q. debates, he resists grand philosophizing. He comes back again and again to the fact that I.Q. scores are generated by paper-and-pencil tests—and making sense of those scores, he tells us, is a messy and complicated business that requires something closer to the skills of an accountant than to those of a philosopher.
For instance, Flynn shows what happens when we recognize that I.Q. is not a freestanding number but a value attached to a specific time and a specific test. When an I.Q. test is created, he reminds us, it is calibrated or “normed” so that the test-takers in the fiftieth percentile—those exactly at the median—are assigned a score of 100. But since I.Q.s are always rising, the only way to keep that hundred-point benchmark is periodically to make the tests more difficult—to “renorm” them. The original WISC was normed in the late nineteen-forties. It was then renormed in the early nineteen-seventies, as the WISC-R; renormed a third time in the late eighties, as the WISC III; and renormed again a few years ago, as the WISC IV—with each version just a little harder than its predecessor. The notion that anyone “has” an I.Q. of a certain number, then, is meaningless unless you know which WISC he took, and when he took it, since there’s a substantial difference between getting a 130 on the WISC IV and getting a 130 on the much easier WISC.
This is not a trivial issue. I.Q. tests are used to diagnose people as mentally retarded, with a score of 70 generally taken to be the cutoff. You can imagine how the Flynn effect plays havoc with that system. In the nineteen-seventies and eighties, most states used the WISC-R to make their mental-retardation diagnoses. But since kids—even kids with disabilities—score a little higher every year, the number of children whose scores fell below 70 declined steadily through the end of the eighties. Then, in 1991, the WISC III was introduced, and suddenly the percentage of kids labelled retarded went up. The psychologists Tomoe Kanaya, Matthew Scullin, and Stephen Ceci estimated that, if every state had switched to the WISC III right away, the number of Americans labelled mentally retarded should have doubled.
That is an extraordinary number. The diagnosis of mental disability is one of the most stigmatizing of all educational and occupational classifications—and yet, apparently, the chances of being burdened with that label are in no small degree a function of the point, in the life cycle of the WISC, at which a child happens to sit for his evaluation. “As far as I can determine, no clinical or school psychologists using the WISC over the relevant 25 years noticed that its criterion of mental retardation became more lenient over time,” Flynn wrote, in a 2000 paper. “Yet no one drew the obvious moral about psychologists in the field: They simply were not making any systematic assessment of the I.Q. criterion for mental retardation.”
Flynn brings a similar precision to the question of whether Asians have a genetic advantage in I.Q., a possibility that has led to great excitement among I.Q. fundamentalists in recent years. Data showing that the Japanese had higher I.Q.s than people of European descent, for example, prompted the British psychometrician and eugenicist Richard Lynn to concoct an elaborate evolutionary explanation involving the Himalayas, really cold weather, premodern hunting practices, brain size, and specialized vowel sounds. The fact that the I.Q.s of Chinese-Americans also seemed to be elevated has led I.Q. fundamentalists to posit the existence of an international I.Q. pyramid, with Asians at the top, European whites next, and Hispanics and blacks at the bottom.
Here was a question tailor-made for James Flynn’s accounting skills. He looked first at Lynn’s data, and realized that the comparison was skewed. Lynn was comparing American I.Q. estimates based on a representative sample of schoolchildren with Japanese estimates based on an upper-income, heavily urban sample. Recalculated, the Japanese average came in not at 106.6 but at 99.2. Then Flynn turned his attention to the Chinese-American estimates. They turned out to be based on a 1975 study in San Francisco’s Chinatown using something called the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test. But the Lorge-Thorndike test was normed in the nineteen-fifties. For children in the nineteen-seventies, it would have been a piece of cake. When the Chinese-American scores were reassessed using up-to-date intelligence metrics, Flynn found, they came in at 97 verbal and 100 nonverbal. Chinese-Americans had slightly lower I.Q.s than white Americans.
The Asian-American success story had suddenly been turned on its head. The numbers now suggested, Flynn said, that they had succeeded not because of their higher I.Q.s. but despite their lower I.Q.s. Asians were overachievers. In a nifty piece of statistical analysis, Flynn then worked out just how great that overachievement was. Among whites, virtually everyone who joins the ranks of the managerial, professional, and technical occupations has an I.Q. of 97 or above. Among Chinese-Americans, that threshold is 90. A Chinese-American with an I.Q. of 90, it would appear, does as much with it as a white American with an I.Q. of 97.
There should be no great mystery about Asian achievement. It has to do with hard work and dedication to higher education, and belonging to a culture that stresses professional success. But Flynn makes one more observation. The children of that first successful wave of Asian-Americans really did have I.Q.s that were higher than everyone else’s—coming in somewhere around 103. Having worked their way into the upper reaches of the occupational scale, and taken note of how much the professions value abstract thinking, Asian-American parents have evidently made sure that their own children wore scientific spectacles. “Chinese Americans are an ethnic group for whom high achievement preceded high I.Q. rather than the reverse,” Flynn concludes, reminding us that in our discussions of the relationship between I.Q. and success we often confuse causes and effects. “It is not easy to view the history of their achievements without emotion,” he writes. That is exactly right. To ascribe Asian success to some abstract number is to trivialize it.
Two weeks ago, Flynn came to Manhattan to debate Charles Murray at a forum sponsored by the Manhattan Institute. Their subject was the black-white I.Q. gap in America. During the twenty-five years after the Second World War, that gap closed considerably. The I.Q.s of white Americans rose, as part of the general worldwide Flynn effect, but the I.Q.s of black Americans rose faster. Then, for about a period of twenty-five years, that trend stalled—and the question was why.
Murray showed a series of PowerPoint slides, each representing different statistical formulations of the I.Q. gap. He appeared to be pessimistic that the racial difference would narrow in the future. “By the nineteen-seventies, you had gotten most of the juice out of the environment that you were going to get,” he said. That gap, he seemed to think, reflected some inherent difference between the races. “Starting in the nineteen-seventies, to put it very crudely, you had a higher proportion of black kids being born to really dumb mothers,” he said. When the debate’s moderator, Jane Waldfogel, informed him that the most recent data showed that the race gap had begun to close again, Murray seemed unimpressed, as if the possibility that blacks could ever make further progress was inconceivable.
Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.
That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older. Black children are more likely to be raised in single-parent homes than are white children—and single-parent homes are less cognitively complex than two-parent homes. The average I.Q. of first-grade students in schools that blacks attend is 95, which means that “kids who want to be above average don’t have to aim as high.” There were possibly adverse differences between black teen-age culture and white teen-age culture, and an enormous number of young black men are in jail—which is hardly the kind of environment in which someone would learn to put on scientific spectacles.
Flynn then talked about what we’ve learned from studies of adoption and mixed-race children—and that evidence didn’t fit a genetic model, either. If I.Q. is innate, it shouldn’t make a difference whether it’s a mixed-race child’s mother or father who is black. But it does: children with a white mother and a black father have an eight-point I.Q. advantage over those with a black mother and a white father. And it shouldn’t make much of a difference where a mixed-race child is born. But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. “The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized,” Flynn said. “It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.” The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in.
-
Yeah, it is a hell of a job to prove something that isn't true, LOL. Not that the PC crowd won't try though.
Do you think that the elite capitalists and oligarchs don't KNOW they are destroying culture by pushing equal rights? Of course they know this! They WANT to dumb down the strong in the society to the level of the weak - that's the point! Those who are mentally handicapped for example will never be brought up to the level of the strong, but by pushing the egalitarian fraud, it gives those who have such deficiencies more rights than those who are strong - the people who bring up a society to the level it is at.
The elite want no middle class - just a small group of elite overseeing a slave plantation. It's evil under the guise of something good (speciously named "equal rights" which is nothing more than BLATANT discrimination towards the strong in a society). The sad part is how many people buy this garbage hook, line, and sinker.
This is where we differ in opinion.
Debussey thinks the IQ trends follows from natural causes, not the "manipulating elite".
The IQ differences do exist, and no society should let people with poor genetics replicate if they want to survive and thrive and handle the potential problems down the line. But Debussey thinks this comes from the simple fact that smart people replicate less than dumb people.
Let us face it, intelligent people = ALWAYS the minority. Even if we say "intelligent" = something as low as an IQ of 120, it = still less than 10% of a western society. If we set the cutoff at 115, it's still less than 16% of society!!! Only like 16% of black people in the US has an IQ over 100!
Until the human civilization becomes advanced enough to genetically engineer newborns to having very high IQs while avoiding other unwanted genetical crap, very little will improve. The ones that thinks its all "nurture" and not "nature" have in 99% of the cases not any knowledge about the research behind intelligence.
You can throw as much money as you want on a society composed of only 80IQ'ers. They won't do shit with it compared to a society composed of only 130+IQ'ers.
-
Sounds alot like one of Hitlers speaches
you scare me. seriously...
When the economy goes to shit, what will you say? Will you then concede my predictions were correct? The poor are getting poorer by the day and it is all intentional and they do things under the guise of good to accelerate this process. Don't steal from the poor - give them the illusion of choice and certain information and they will do it themselves.
-
All Brains Are the Same Color
By RICHARD E. NISBETT
Published: December 9, 2007
Ann Arbor, Mich.
Balint Zsako
JAMES WATSON, the 1962 Nobel laureate, recently asserted that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” and its citizens because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”
Dr. Watson’s remarks created a huge stir because they implied that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, and the controversy resulted in his resignation as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. But was he right? Is there a genetic difference between blacks and whites that condemns blacks in perpetuity to be less intelligent?
The first notable public airing of the scientific question came in a 1969 article in The Harvard Educational Review by Arthur Jensen, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Jensen maintained that a 15-point difference in I.Q. between blacks and whites was mostly due to a genetic difference between the races that could never be erased. But his argument gave a misleading account of the evidence. And others who later made the same argument — Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in “The Bell Curve,” in 1994, for example, and just recently, William Saletan in a series of articles on Slate — have made the same mistake.
In fact, the evidence heavily favors the view that race differences in I.Q. are environmental in origin, not genetic.
The hereditarians begin with the assertion that 60 percent to 80 percent of variation in I.Q. is genetically determined. However, most estimates of heritability have been based almost exclusively on studies of middle-class groups. For the poor, a group that includes a substantial proportion of minorities, heritability of I.Q. is very low, in the range of 10 percent to 20 percent, according to recent research by Eric Turkheimer at the University of Virginia. This means that for the poor, improvements in environment have great potential to bring about increases in I.Q.
In any case, the degree of heritability of a characteristic tells us nothing about how much the environment can affect it. Even when a trait is highly heritable (think of the height of corn plants), modifiability can also be great (think of the difference growing conditions can make).
Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q. differential is indirect. There is, for example, the evidence that brain size is correlated with intelligence, and that blacks have smaller brains than whites. But the brain size difference between men and women is substantially greater than that between blacks and whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests. Likewise, a group of people in a community in Ecuador have a genetic anomaly that produces extremely small head sizes — and hence brain sizes. Yet their intelligence is as high as that of their unaffected relatives.
Why rely on such misleading and indirect findings when we have much more direct evidence about the basis for the I.Q. gap? About 25 percent of the genes in the American black population are European, meaning that the genes of any individual can range from 100 percent African to mostly European. If European intelligence genes are superior, then blacks who have relatively more European genes ought to have higher I.Q.’s than those who have more African genes. But it turns out that skin color and “negroidness” of features — both measures of the degree of a black person’s European ancestry — are only weakly associated with I.Q. (even though we might well expect a moderately high association due to the social advantages of such features).
During World War II, both black and white American soldiers fathered children with German women. Thus some of these children had 100 percent European heritage and some had substantial African heritage. Tested in later childhood, the German children of the white fathers were found to have an average I.Q. of 97, and those of the black fathers had an average of 96.5, a trivial difference.
If European genes conferred an advantage, we would expect that the smartest blacks would have substantial European heritage. But when a group of investigators sought out the very brightest black children in the Chicago school system and asked them about the race of their parents and grandparents, these children were found to have no greater degree of European ancestry than blacks in the population at large.
Most tellingly, blood-typing tests have been used to assess the degree to which black individuals have European genes. The blood group assays show no association between degree of European heritage and I.Q. Similarly, the blood groups most closely associated with high intellectual performance among blacks are no more European in origin than other blood groups.
The closest thing to direct evidence that the hereditarians have is a study from the 1970s showing that black children who had been adopted by white parents had lower I.Q.’s than those of mixed-race children adopted by white parents. But, as the researchers acknowledged, the study had many flaws; for instance, the black children had been adopted at a substantially later age than the mixed-race children, and later age at adoption is associated with lower I.Q.
A superior adoption study — and one not discussed by the hereditarians — was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist Elsie Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by middle-class families, either black or white, and found no difference in I.Q. between the black and mixed-race children. Most telling is Dr. Moore’s finding that children adopted by white families had I.Q.’s 13 points higher than those of children adopted by black families. The environments that even middle-class black children grow up in are not as favorable for the development of I.Q. as those of middle-class whites.
Important recent psychological research helps to pinpoint just what factors shape differences in I.Q. scores. Joseph Fagan of Case Western Reserve University and Cynthia Holland of Cuyahoga Community College tested blacks and whites on their knowledge of, and their ability to learn and reason with, words and concepts. The whites had substantially more knowledge of the various words and concepts, but when participants were tested on their ability to learn new words, either from dictionary definitions or by learning their meaning in context, the blacks did just as well as the whites.
Whites showed better comprehension of sayings, better ability to recognize similarities and better facility with analogies — when solutions required knowledge of words and concepts that were more likely to be known to whites than to blacks. But when these kinds of reasoning were tested with words and concepts known equally well to blacks and whites, there were no differences. Within each race, prior knowledge predicted learning and reasoning, but between the races it was prior knowledge only that differed.
What do we know about the effects of environment?
That environment can markedly influence I.Q. is demonstrated by the so-called Flynn Effect. James Flynn, a philosopher and I.Q. researcher in New Zealand, has established that in the Western world as a whole, I.Q. increased markedly from 1947 to 2002. In the United States alone, it went up by 18 points. Our genes could not have changed enough over such a brief period to account for the shift; it must have been the result of powerful social factors. And if such factors could produce changes over time for the population as a whole, they could also produce big differences between subpopulations at any given time.
In fact, we know that the I.Q. difference between black and white 12-year-olds has dropped to 9.5 points from 15 points in the last 30 years — a period that was more favorable for blacks in many ways than the preceding era. Black progress on the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows equivalent gains. Reading and math improvement has been modest for whites but substantial for blacks.
Most important, we know that interventions at every age from infancy to college can reduce racial gaps in both I.Q. and academic achievement, sometimes by substantial amounts in surprisingly little time. This mutability is further evidence that the I.Q. difference has environmental, not genetic, causes. And it should encourage us, as a society, to see that all children receive ample opportunity to develop their minds.
-
When the economy goes to shit, what will you say? Will you then concede my predictions were correct? The poor are getting poorer by the day and it is all intentional and they do things under the guise of good to accelerate this process. Don't steal from the poor - give them the illusion of choice and certain information and they will do it themselves.
haha you are funny
The economy of the US has already taken a dive with the direction in politics that you have. See G. W. Bush...
-
When the economy goes to shit, what will you say? Will you then concede my predictions were correct? The poor are getting poorer by the day and it is all intentional and they do things under the guise of good to accelerate this process. Don't steal from the poor - give them the illusion of choice and certain information and they will do it themselves.
The economy won't go to shit. The economy will simply change, and intelligence will become the driving factor.
50 years into the future, when a new race of Transhumans (with superoir intelligences, superior health and superior personalities) becomes many enough, they will vastly outperform normal humans while leveraging technology to produce stuff (to make up for being few in numbers). They will eventually be in charge.
Here is the catch for the "anti elitists: If you take 100000 90IQ'ers and let them collaborate on a very difficult problem (where the solution will lead to great economic benefits) that one needs at least 150 in IQ to solve, those 100000 90IQers will highly likely NEVER solve it, no matter how long they try to do so. At the same time, ONE person with an IQ of 150 or more can solve the problem in a short time period.
In a future economy that will be more and more driven by the results of intelligence, very high intelligence will be an asset, and mass numbers of dumb people will be a burden.
Debussey welcomes the transhumans >:(
-
haha you are funny
The economy of the US has already taken a dive with the direction in politics that you have. See G. W. Bush...
Matt C is blind to Science and blind to facts.
-
Matt C is blind to Science and blind to facts.
Really? That's odd considering that it was you who originally introduced me to these concepts:
I am sure you won`t be able to comprehend it with the limited brain your pedigree is famous for.
Is this a racial remark? If so, please provide evidence to confirm that the distinction in intelligence level lies in genetics and not in sociological factors. If you are a critical thinker as you seem to imply you are, this should be something you demand.
Its a genetic mark, hardly racial in nature. More along the lines of Trisomy 21.
Also TA, I would love for you to play devil's advocate and debate me on these issues. I'd give anything for you to. ;D
-
The economy won't go to shit. The economy will simply change, and intelligence will become the driving factor.
50 years into the future, when a new race of Transhumans (with superoir intelligences, superior health and superior personalities) becomes many enough, they will vastly outperform normal humans while leveraging technology to produce stuff (to make up for being few in numbers). They will eventually be in charge.
Here is the catch for the "anti elitists: If you take 100000 90IQ'ers and let them collaborate on a very difficult problem (where the solution will lead to great economic benefits) that one needs at least 150 in IQ to solve, those 100000 90IQers will highly likely NEVER solve it, no matter how long they try to do so. At the same time, ONE person with an IQ of 150 or more can solve the problem in a short time period.
In a future economy that will be more and more driven by the results of intelligence, very high intelligence will be an asset, and mass numbers of dumb people will be a burden.
Debussey welcomes the transhumans >:(
You are one dumb motherfu*ker. ::)
-
Matt C is blind to Science and blind to facts.
yes.
sheeps fall lightly for propaganda and simpletons :-\
-
Really? That's odd considering that it was you who originally introduced me to these concepts:
Also TA, I would love for you to play devil's advocate and debate me on these issues. I'd give anything for you to. ;D
Matt c ,How do you explain high crime in Argentina ,where 95% of the population is white ?
PS :No blacks in Argentina
-
You are one dumb motherfu*ker. ::)
Please write rational arguments for saying so :) (Ps: Debussey = retarded, IQ53)
- Transhumanism = coming, whether you like it or not. Did you even know what the term meant when you wrote your intelligent reply? ::)
- The 10000 90IQ vs 1 150IQ person example (with no use of computers, only brainpower) has merit. Let 10000 90IQ people collaborate on solving a very very difficult IQ - Power test with nothing to rely on besides their brainpower. Let's see how far they get.
- Most production processes being taken over by technology has merit. The number of people needed to put future technological breakthroughs (driven by high intelligence) to the market will diminish as they can leverage technology in the production process.
Please find suitable rational arguments that refutes what Debussey wrote.
:)
-
What's Matt Cannings arguments?
He refered to a book that has made statistics of black people committing more crimes than whites?
Thats true. Black people do commit more crimes than whites. What they "forget" to mention is that this is a result of poverty and nothing else. Not genetical traits.
His thinking is exactly the same as the nazi's had. Nothing more nothing less. He's just to ignorant or stupid to realize this.
MAXX, Blacks are in poverty because their entire race on average has a much lower IQ. And even lower-middle income blacks are still more prone to violence, hell its a challange to make out what most of them say!
EVEN Dirt poor trailer park whites simply dont have the same number of of participants in deadly gangs, drive by's, muggings, and armed robberies.
-
MAXX, Blacks are in poverty because their entire race on average has a much lower IQ. And even lower-middle income blacks are still more prone to violence, hell its a challange to make out what most of them say!
EVEN Dirt poor trailer park whites simply dont have the same number of of participants in deadly gangs, drive by's, muggings, and armed robberies.
All Brains Are the Same Color
By RICHARD E. NISBETT
Published: December 9, 2007
Ann Arbor, Mich.
Balint Zsako
JAMES WATSON, the 1962 Nobel laureate, recently asserted that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” and its citizens because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”
Dr. Watson’s remarks created a huge stir because they implied that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, and the controversy resulted in his resignation as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. But was he right? Is there a genetic difference between blacks and whites that condemns blacks in perpetuity to be less intelligent?
The first notable public airing of the scientific question came in a 1969 article in The Harvard Educational Review by Arthur Jensen, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Jensen maintained that a 15-point difference in I.Q. between blacks and whites was mostly due to a genetic difference between the races that could never be erased. But his argument gave a misleading account of the evidence. And others who later made the same argument — Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in “The Bell Curve,” in 1994, for example, and just recently, William Saletan in a series of articles on Slate — have made the same mistake.
In fact, the evidence heavily favors the view that race differences in I.Q. are environmental in origin, not genetic.
The hereditarians begin with the assertion that 60 percent to 80 percent of variation in I.Q. is genetically determined. However, most estimates of heritability have been based almost exclusively on studies of middle-class groups. For the poor, a group that includes a substantial proportion of minorities, heritability of I.Q. is very low, in the range of 10 percent to 20 percent, according to recent research by Eric Turkheimer at the University of Virginia. This means that for the poor, improvements in environment have great potential to bring about increases in I.Q.
In any case, the degree of heritability of a characteristic tells us nothing about how much the environment can affect it. Even when a trait is highly heritable (think of the height of corn plants), modifiability can also be great (think of the difference growing conditions can make).
Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q. differential is indirect. There is, for example, the evidence that brain size is correlated with intelligence, and that blacks have smaller brains than whites. But the brain size difference between men and women is substantially greater than that between blacks and whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests. Likewise, a group of people in a community in Ecuador have a genetic anomaly that produces extremely small head sizes — and hence brain sizes. Yet their intelligence is as high as that of their unaffected relatives.
Why rely on such misleading and indirect findings when we have much more direct evidence about the basis for the I.Q. gap? About 25 percent of the genes in the American black population are European, meaning that the genes of any individual can range from 100 percent African to mostly European. If European intelligence genes are superior, then blacks who have relatively more European genes ought to have higher I.Q.’s than those who have more African genes. But it turns out that skin color and “negroidness” of features — both measures of the degree of a black person’s European ancestry — are only weakly associated with I.Q. (even though we might well expect a moderately high association due to the social advantages of such features).
During World War II, both black and white American soldiers fathered children with German women. Thus some of these children had 100 percent European heritage and some had substantial African heritage. Tested in later childhood, the German children of the white fathers were found to have an average I.Q. of 97, and those of the black fathers had an average of 96.5, a trivial difference.
If European genes conferred an advantage, we would expect that the smartest blacks would have substantial European heritage. But when a group of investigators sought out the very brightest black children in the Chicago school system and asked them about the race of their parents and grandparents, these children were found to have no greater degree of European ancestry than blacks in the population at large.
Most tellingly, blood-typing tests have been used to assess the degree to which black individuals have European genes. The blood group assays show no association between degree of European heritage and I.Q. Similarly, the blood groups most closely associated with high intellectual performance among blacks are no more European in origin than other blood groups.
The closest thing to direct evidence that the hereditarians have is a study from the 1970s showing that black children who had been adopted by white parents had lower I.Q.’s than those of mixed-race children adopted by white parents. But, as the researchers acknowledged, the study had many flaws; for instance, the black children had been adopted at a substantially later age than the mixed-race children, and later age at adoption is associated with lower I.Q.
A superior adoption study — and one not discussed by the hereditarians — was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist Elsie Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by middle-class families, either black or white, and found no difference in I.Q. between the black and mixed-race children. Most telling is Dr. Moore’s finding that children adopted by white families had I.Q.’s 13 points higher than those of children adopted by black families. The environments that even middle-class black children grow up in are not as favorable for the development of I.Q. as those of middle-class whites.
Important recent psychological research helps to pinpoint just what factors shape differences in I.Q. scores. Joseph Fagan of Case Western Reserve University and Cynthia Holland of Cuyahoga Community College tested blacks and whites on their knowledge of, and their ability to learn and reason with, words and concepts. The whites had substantially more knowledge of the various words and concepts, but when participants were tested on their ability to learn new words, either from dictionary definitions or by learning their meaning in context, the blacks did just as well as the whites.
Whites showed better comprehension of sayings, better ability to recognize similarities and better facility with analogies — when solutions required knowledge of words and concepts that were more likely to be known to whites than to blacks. But when these kinds of reasoning were tested with words and concepts known equally well to blacks and whites, there were no differences. Within each race, prior knowledge predicted learning and reasoning, but between the races it was prior knowledge only that differed.
What do we know about the effects of environment?
That environment can markedly influence I.Q. is demonstrated by the so-called Flynn Effect. James Flynn, a philosopher and I.Q. researcher in New Zealand, has established that in the Western world as a whole, I.Q. increased markedly from 1947 to 2002. In the United States alone, it went up by 18 points. Our genes could not have changed enough over such a brief period to account for the shift; it must have been the result of powerful social factors. And if such factors could produce changes over time for the population as a whole, they could also produce big differences between subpopulations at any given time.
In fact, we know that the I.Q. difference between black and white 12-year-olds has dropped to 9.5 points from 15 points in the last 30 years — a period that was more favorable for blacks in many ways than the preceding era. Black progress on the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows equivalent gains. Reading and math improvement has been modest for whites but substantial for blacks.
Most important, we know that interventions at every age from infancy to college can reduce racial gaps in both I.Q. and academic achievement, sometimes by substantial amounts in surprisingly little time. This mutability is further evidence that the I.Q. difference has environmental, not genetic, causes. And it should encourage us, as a society, to see that all children receive ample opportunity to develop their minds.
-
Please write rational arguments for saying so :) (Ps: Debussey = retarded, IQ53)
- Transhumanism = coming, whether you like it or not. Did you even know what the term meant before writing your intelligent reply? ::)
- The 10000 90IQ vs 1 150IQ person example (with no use of computers, only brainpower) has merit.
- Most production processes being taken over by technology has merit.
Please find suitable rational arguments that refutes what Debussey wrote.
:)
I would have to go through and read the entire thread. However, I really don't believe "superhumans" are going to save the economy in the future.
-
Matt c ,How do you explain high crime in Argentina ,where 95% of the population is white ?
PS :No blacks in Argentina
Or the High Crime in Iraq. hahha
-
man those guys must have alot of test :D
-
blacks who want to integrate and work become rich and respected. They are a minority.
blacks who want to benefit from welfare and basically everything the white man created while at the same time being victimized live in poverty and are ENJOYING it.
They are the majority.
It's all about quantity vs quality, and our western societies, wether it's in europe or in north america, are producing more and more losers with no values who in return are destroying themsleves and everything the finest minds built or are trying to build.
The west just don't produce enough smart and coureagous people, most people are now materialistic self centered cowards who only care about TV and themsleves, who don't recongize themselves as being part of a community, a nation, or a civilization.
That's the big difference between the west and the islamic world or the asian world; they still sport strong values and adapted their strong societies to capitalism while keeping the best of their pilosophical and pragmatic ways of life.
They are strong entities which never opened their doors wide to others civilizations, and consider the white multuculturalism like a weakness that will lead us to our own doom, and they are absolutely right about it.
Basically we 're killing ourselves and they re waiting cautiously for us to disapear into oblivion to take over our legacy.
-
I would have to go through and read the entire thread. However, I really don't believe "superhumans" are going to save the economy in the future.
Debussey never wrote anything about "saving the economy" you dumb fuck. Debussey wrote "driving the economy" (and that applies to any country in the world).
Face it, big technological breakthroughs are one of the main factors that leads to long term economic growth (and it becomes more and more important). These breakthroughs comes from people or groups of people with very high intelligence in the vast majority of cases. (Sub 100IQ people rarely brings any great progress for example) In a world economy that is driven more and more by the "fruits of intelligence", the asset of intelligence becomes increasingly valuable as a factor for economical growth.
Increase human intelligence to "superhuman" levels in a great number of people = the society will earn more, (and have less expenses from people labeled as fuck ups)
Factor in that most production processes becomes more and more automatized, and that robotics will take over more and more of the "crap" jobs that floats around = less jobs for low IQ people, and less humans needed to bring technological breakthroughs into production.
Very simple really. Most researchers agree on the fact that these "superhumans" will come. Most researchers also believe that the technology for a vast increasement in the automatization of most production process will arrive. -> Plus 2 and 2 together :D
Later addition to this post: Any country that has a high number of very very intelligent and productive people (as a result of genetic engineering) will on average outperform countries with a small number of very highly intelligent people. It is clear knowledge that low intelligence = correlates with problems like crime, little education and so on. It is therefore reasonable to at least speculate that a country with a high number of very very intelligent people also have less social problems (like crime), less expenses in health care (high intelligence = better health, and genetic engineering would probably screen for disease genes as well), less expenses in welfare, simply: More economic output per citizen.
-> So yes, the society with a very high amount of "genetically superior people" will most likely be or become an economical powerhouse, EVEN IF starting from a crappy starting point (like where the US = today).
-
blacks who want to integrate and work become rich and respected. They are a minority.
blacks who want to benefit from welfare and basically everything the white man created while at the same time being victimized live in poverty and are ENJOYING it.
They are the majority.
It's all about quantity vs quality, and our western societies, wether it's in europe or in north america, are producing more and more losers with no values who in return are destroying themsleves and everything the finest minds built or are trying to build.
The west just don't produce enough smart and coureagous people, most people are now materialistic self centered cowards who only care about TV and themsleves, who don't recongize themselves as being part of a community, a nation, or a civilization.
That's the big difference between the west and the islamic world or the asian world; they still sport strong values and adapted their strong societies to capitalism while keeping the best of their pilosophical and pragmatic ways of life.
They are strong entities which never opened their doors wide to others civilizations, and consider the white multuculturalism like a weakness that will lead us to our own doom, and they are absolutely right about it.
Basically we 're killing ourselves and they re waiting cautiously for us to disapear into oblivion to take over our legacy.
Welfare in America is not a free for all.
You HAVE to have a JOB to receive welfare.
What is welfare?
Welfare really has two meanings. In one sense, it refers to all government programs providing benefits to impoverished Americans. The major programs are Medicaid, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and HUD housing programs. When the public and politicians speak of welfare, they are generally referring to what was Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) and is now Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). This cash assistance program is primarily provided to single parents. The TANF program has always been a relatively small part of the overall welfare scheme. (Click to see chart) To qualify for these programs, individuals must apply and meet income and resource limitations. The HUD and Food Stamp programs are federally funded; the others involve both federal and state funds.
TANF sets forward the following work requirements necessary for benefits:
1.Recipients (with few exceptions) must work as soon as they are job ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance.
2.Single parents are required to participate in work activities for at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families must participate in work activities 35 or 55 hours a week, depending upon circumstances.
3.Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of benefits to the family.
4.States, in FY 2004, have to ensure that 50 percent of all families and 90 percent of two-parent families are participating in work activities. If a state reduces its caseload, without restricting eligibility, it can receive a caseload reduction credit. This credit reduces the minimum participation rates the state must achieve.
-
Highlights of TANF
Work Requirements:
Recipients (with few exceptions) must work as soon as they are job ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance.
Single parents are required to participate in work activities for at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families must participate in work activities 35 or 55 hours a week, depending upon circumstances.
Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of benefits to the family.
States cannot penalize single parents with a child under six for failing to meet work requirements if they cannot find adequate child care.
States, in FY 2004, have to ensure that 50 percent of all families and 90 percent of two-parent families are participating in work activities. If a state reduces its caseload, without restricting eligibility, it can receive a caseload reduction credit. This credit reduces the minimum participation rates the state must achieve.
Work Activities – Activities that count toward a state’s participation rates (some restrictions may apply):
unsubsidized or subsidized employment
on-the-job training
work experience
community service
job search – not to exceed 6 total weeks and no more than 4 consecutive weeks
vocational training – not to exceed 12 months
job skills training related to work
satisfactory secondary school attendance
providing child care services to individuals who are participating in community service.
Five-Year Time Limit:
Families with an adult who has received federally funded assistance for a total of five years (or less at state option) are not eligible for cash aid under the TANF program.
States may extend assistance beyond 60 months to not more than 20 percent of their caseload. They may also elect to provide assistance to families beyond 60 months using state-only funds or Social Services Block Grants.
State Maintenance of Effort Requirement (MOE):
The TANF block grant has an annual cost-sharing requirement for States, referred to as maintenance of effort or MOE.
Every fiscal year each state must spend a certain minimum amount of its own money to help eligible families in ways consistent with the TANF program.
Penalties
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may reduce a state's block grant if it fails to do any of the following:
satisfy work requirements
comply with the five-year limit on assistance
meet the state’s Contingency fund MOE requirement
reduce recipient grants for refusing to participate in work activities without good cause
maintain assistance when a single custodial parent with a child under six can not obtain child care
submit required data reports
comply with paternity establishment and child support enforcement requirements
participate in the Income and Eligibility Verification System
repay a federal loan on time
establish and maintain work verification procedures
use funds appropriately
replace federal penalty reductions with additional state funds.
Personal Employability Plans:
States must make an initial assessment of a recipient’s skills.
States may develop personal responsibility plans for each recipient to identify the education, training, and job placement services needed to move into the workforce.
Teen Parent Live-at-Home and Stay-in-School Requirement:
Unmarried minor parents must participate in educational and training activities and live with a responsible adult or in an adult-supervised setting in order to receive assistance.
States are responsible for assisting in locating adult-supervised settings for teens who can not live at home.
State Plans:
HHS reviews state plans for completeness only.
States must allow for a 45-day comment period on the state plan by local governments and private organizations and consult with them.
The state plan must have objective criteria for eligibility and benefits that are fair and equitable.
The plan must explain appeal rights.
In order to remain eligible, i.e., continue to qualify to receive funding under TANF, States will need to submit TANF renewal plans during the applicable 27-month period described in section 402 of the Social Security Act. Only eligible States may receive a TANF block grant.
Job Subsidies:
The law allows States to create jobs by taking money that is now used for welfare checks and using it to create community service jobs, provide income subsidies, or provide hiring incentives for potential employers.
Waivers:
States that received approval for welfare reform waivers before January 1, 1997, have the option to operate their cash assistance program under some or all of these waivers until the waivers expire.
-
Why did TA ignore the posts of his that I brought up which showed him agreeing with the concepts that I do and furthermore (ironically), being the one who introduced me to them?
-
Why did TA ignore the posts of his that I brought up which showed him agreeing with the concepts that I do and furthermore (ironically), being the one who introduced me to them?
I don`t agree with you at all.
-
haha ameriraqa ;D
-
Why did TA ignore the posts of his that I brought up which showed him agreeing with the concepts that I do and furthermore (ironically), being the one who introduced me to them?
Matt c ,How do you explain high crime in Argentina ,where 95% of the population is white ?
PS :No blacks in Argentina
-
Matt c ,How do you explain high crime in Argentina ,where 95% of the population is white ?
PS :No blacks in Argentina
Yeah, exactly.
Like my nation. USA fairly high murder rates as the stat kings will know. Our murder rates are about 10% of the USA per capita, 10 times more likely to be wacked in the USA. Even if you take out all ethnic crime in the USA, that still leaves White Americans far more likely to kill than my nationals. Don't even start on the stats of school shootings, serial killings and pedophila. Not even in the same ballpark, and 2 our of those 3 do not exist here except on TV where we see it. ::)
I easily say that is simply due to our lack of poverty, equality, lack of abhorrent history, weapons banned, very harsh justice, free good quality mental health care for the nutters. This equates to a extremely low crime rate in general, nothing to do with our race as that defies every statistic of the US. Opposite issue other places, which causes a switch of stats. Also, of all people here I am least likely to a violent commit crime by far. All 220+ nations share one similar stat - men commit most violent acts.
Crime is crime, and blows. Very simple. Could care less who kills my mom, just don't want her killed
-
Matt c ,How do you explain high crime in Argentina ,where 95% of the population is white ?
PS :No blacks in Argentina
The question is how different races in the same socioeconomic groups compare in regards to crime (and/or if one or more races has genetic propensities (like lower intelligence) that increases the chances of them getting to teh poverty stage in the first place, like a lot of scientific data suggests for blacks), not the crime in a single country without any racial comparence data.
-
Debussey never wrote anything about "saving the economy" you dumb fuck. Debussey wrote "driving the economy" (and that applies to any country in the world).
Face it, big technological breakthroughs are one of the main factors that leads to long term economic growth (and it becomes more and more important). These breakthroughs comes from people or groups of people with very high intelligence in the vast majority of cases. (Sub 100IQ people rarely brings any great progress for example) In a world economy that is driven more and more by the "fruits of intelligence", the asset of intelligence becomes increasingly valuable as a factor for economical growth.
Increase human intelligence to "superhuman" levels in a great number of people = the society will earn more, (and have less expenses from people labeled as fuck ups)
Factor in that most production processes becomes more and more automatized, and that robotics will take over more and more of the "crap" jobs that floats around = less jobs for low IQ people, and less humans needed to bring technological breakthroughs into production.
Very simple really. Most researchers agree on the fact that these "superhumans" will come. Most researchers also believe that the technology for a vast increasement in the automatization of most production process will arrive. -> Plus 2 and 2 together :D
Later addition to this post: Any country that has a high number of very very intelligent and productive people (as a result of genetic engineering) will on average outperform countries with a small number of very highly intelligent people. It is clear knowledge that low intelligence = correlates with problems like crime, little education and so on. It is therefore reasonable to at least speculate that a country with a high number of very very intelligent people also have less social problems (like crime), less expenses in health care (high intelligence = better health, and genetic engineering would probably screen for disease genes as well), less expenses in welfare, simply: More economic output per citizen.
-> So yes, the society with a very high amount of "genetically superior people" will most likely be or become an economical powerhouse, EVEN IF starting from a crappy starting point (like where the US = today).
Do you really believe this post?
Let me fill you in something, genius. The last two decades have been nothing but "big technological breakthroughs." Take a look at the current state of the world. It's more fucked up than ever. Sounds like you have been watching too much of the "sci-fi channel.
-
I don`t agree with you at all.
I will be back on later, but you yourself stated it was genetic in the post of yours that I quoted. Here, allow me to refresh your memory:
Its a genetic mark, hardly racial in nature. More along the lines of Trisomy 21.
-
Vince, you are wrong.
If we take a look at transracial adoption studies, they reveal that if a black child is adopted into a middle class white home, the average race based differences remain.
There are even studies documenting that when a mixed race child - who has been mistakingly labeled as "black" (the fellow working airport security in the latest Harold & Kumar film) - is placed into adoption with white parents they will still develop the IQ that would be expected for mixed race children and not blacks; do you not see how explosive that is?
It has nothing to do with "labeling" or environment, it is largely [80%] genetic.
Environment plays a role in a person's development, but certainly not one worthwhile of assigning too much importance to.
Matt, poverty is almost always the reason people commit crimes. Its because they want money. Whether they are black or white, if a white person has no money and is in poverty, his chances of committing a crime are on par with a black person in poverty.
Crime happens because either people want something or need something.
As far as intelligence is concerned, when everyone is born, they are ignorant to the world and are essentially a blank slate. Life defines who they are and the individuals defines how smart he or she will be.
The argument that whites are smarter than blacks is nonsense. That would mean that you're smarter than me and no disrespect but you have not quite reached my intelligence level.
I base my findings on the fact that while you do have extensive book knowledge and math skills, you lack a great deal of street knowledge and common sense.
If you wish for me to explain this to you further, just PM me all shall be enlightened.
I consider most people black and white inferior to me anyway.
-
I will be back on later, but you yourself stated it was genetic in the post of yours that I quoted. Here, allow me to refresh your memory:
Trisomy 21 is a genetic disease. Your moronity knows no bounds.
-
Do you really believe this post?
Let me fill you in something, genius. The last two decades have been nothing but "big technological breakthroughs." Take a look at the current state of the world. It's more fucked up than ever. Sounds like you have been watching too much of the "sci-fi channel.
You are not even adressing Debusseys arguments.
The last two decades of technological development has not enabled humans to upgrade themselves, thus, your statement is not relevant for Debusseys writings. The ability for technology to "upgrade" humans will first become available in 20 - 50 years, henche, Debusseys posts on the subject refering to "50 years into the future". ::)
You clearly do not have the brainpower, nor the insight/knowledge to continue this discussion. Come back when you have aquainted yourself with the concepts needed to have this discussion.
Seriously, why the hell did you mention the "technological breakthroughs of the last two decades" when the context of this discussion = clearly 50 years in the future? ::)
-
As far as intelligence is concerned, when everyone is born, they are ignorant to the world and are essentially a blank slate. Life defines who they are and the individuals defines how smart he or she will be.
The argument that whites are smarter than blacks is nonsense. That would mean that you're smarter than me and no disrespect but you have not quite reached my intelligence level.
Vince, that all newborns are "a blank slate" and that every person have the same ability to become intelligent is just flat out wrong. Genetics decides a persons intelligence to a LARGE degree, and tons of scientist and scientific findings regarding intelligence agrees on this.
Second, the black/white IQ gap is real, and a lot of research indicates that this gap is at least partially genetic in nature. People can discuss the validity of these findings, but flat out refusing them without any scientific references = dumb. Further, claiming that intelligence = not partially genetic in nature and that "each person is a blank slate" is a retarded unscientific moronic fantasy that should be tossed out.
-
You are not even adressing Debusseys arguments.
The last two decades of technological development has not enabled humans to upgrade themselves, thus, your statement is not relevant for Debusseys writings. The ability for technology to "upgrade" humans will first become available in 20 - 50 years, henche, Debusseys posts on the subject refering to "50 years into the future". ::)
You clearly do not have the brainpower, nor the insight/knowledge to continue this discussion. Come back when you have aquainted yourself with the concepts needed to have this discussion.
Seriously, why the hell did you mention the "technological breakthroughs of the last two decades" when the context of this discussion = clearly 50 years in the future? ::)
Go back and re-read my post. You sure are lacking in the reading comprehension department. ;)
I would have to go through and read the entire thread.
Anyway, the world will not be in any better shape 50 years from now. I'm sure it will be much worse.
-
Go back and re-read my post. You sure are lacking in the reading comprehension department. ;)
Anyway, the world will not be in any better shape 50 years from now. I'm sure it will be much worse.
Will write you a response tomorrow you little turd buglar. In the meantime, don't blow your load.
-
Your moronity knows no bounds.
LOL