Human evolution, Females vs. Males

Post Reply New Topic

Lol how could someone be more or less smart just because they look different?

And I wish the author of this thread could back up his theory about the correlation between pigmentation and intelligence...

I hate to be a hardass here, but the only thing worse than a completely illogical hypothesis is a blatantly offensive completely illogical hypothesis.

Skin color genetics doesn't change our species as a whole, and "interbreeding" is still a possibility. So we are all the same species, and are not much different. Evolutionwise, there is no such thing as "more evolved" in the sense of going up a ladder because being "more evolved" may mean being less adapted to other environments. I'd be curious to know how you explain why white males are "more evolved" if you could define that for me because you're only making statements here.

Please also define what you mean by "intelligent". It might be true that men generally are more logical than females, but females are generally better at socializing and are smarter at that sort of thing than men are. Again, that is only a general case. Aspie women, for example, might tend to be as good at math as other males are. And there are famous female mathematicians.

If whites were genetically pre-disposed to be less criminal and more intelligent than black people, why are there poor white criminals? Shouldnt we all be rich as croeseus?

Who says dolphins are less smart than us? They spend all day swimming about, eating fish, playing and making more dolphins. Wheres the stupid in that? Sounds pretty intelligent to me. A life of infinite recreation, because you dont need to do anything else? Pinnacle of evolution methinks.

All human races and genders posses equal potential for intelligence.

With the exception of racists and misogynists.

Look, people: race is real and racial differences are real. This has been the common-sense view for almost all of human history, and you will find it is still the common-sense view in non-white nations. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this view. It is only in Western nations from the 20th century onwards that it’s become fashionable to deny the reality of race.

So, first things first. I know it is currently fashionable to claim that race doesn’t even exist as a biological reality. It seems like a few posters on this thread agree with this claim. This claim is FALSE. The science exists that can ascertain a person’s race from a sample of their DNA.

There is an article that covers such scientific techniques at http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... 0/dnaprint called “The Inconvenient Science of Racial Profiling”.

Briefly, it’s about a molecular biologist who helped police track down a serial killer by ascertaining his race from a sample of DNA he had left behind. Before they let him test the DNA sample, the police gave him DNA samples from 20 people whose race they knew. He got every one correct. He then tested the DNA of the serial killer and told police they needed to look for an African-American. Up until that point they had been looking for a white man. When the police finally found their man, it turned out the molecular biologist had been correct again.

Ok, so race is a biological reality. Geneticists can ascertain a person’s race from their DNA. Now if you reject the liberal myth of the non-existence of race, there is still another liberal myth you might want to cling to: “race is real but the races don’t differ in any meaningful way, e.g., in average intelligence”.

This view is illogical, and there is substantial evidence against it. But the liberal race-deniers don’t want to know. How can one open their eyes? Perhaps it’s not enough simply to point them towards the scientific evidence. I think one needs to get them to question not merely the content of their prejudices, but everything that surrounds those prejudices. E.g., where did those prejudices come from? Whose agenda do they serve? Why do people find such beliefs so attractive?

Point One – if those that believe in racial differences are wrong, why must their views be suppressed? And they are suppressed, constantly and ruthlessly. Case in point: the Nobel-prize-winning geneticist, James Watson, who briefly mentioned racial differences in an interview, had his speaking tour cancelled and was suspended from his job.

Point Two – You will find that people who ignore politically correct orthodoxy and try to understand the world as it really is come to pretty much the same conclusions on matters of race and gender. These are, for example:

Blacks have lower IQ’s on average than whites, and whites have lower IQ’s on average than Orientals. The race with the highest average IQ is the Ashkenazi Jews. Ashkenazi Jews usually have higher verbal IQ’s than visuo-spatial IQ’s, which helps explain why they often excel in professions such as law. Orientals usually have higher visuo-spatial IQ’s than verbal IQ’s, which helps explain why they often excel at mathematics.
The average IQ’s of Men and women are pretty similar, but there is a much larger variation with men, meaning there are far more male geniuses than female geniuses, as well as there being far more very low-IQ men than very low-IQ women.

Now, if the above details are false, what is the likelihood of so many free thinkers arriving at these same conclusions? Answer: far lower than the likelihood of masses of people arriving at the far simpler, more comforting and more dreary conclusion that “we are all basically the same”.

And if you accept racial IQ differences, but you still want to cling to your comforting liberal illusions, you can always claim these IQ differences have nothing to do with genetics. But understand this – no race-realist actually claims that traits such as intelligence are 100% genetic. But every race-denier must believe that intelligence is 100% environmental. Thus it is the race-deniers who are the extremists, not the race-realists.