If Blacks are less intelligent what should we do?

But, in the early 2000's South Africans only averaged 7 - 8 years of education.

http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/mean-years-of-schooling.aspx

The situation was obviously much worse for much of Africa during the 1980's.

 

Probably, these Black Caribbean and Indian or Pakistani immigrants were at least middle school graduates (9 years or more) when they immigrated to the UK as manual labourers in government-sponsored programmes. In the period 1979-1984, there were Indian (42.6%), Black Caribbean (26.0%) and Pakistani (16.9%) first generation immigrants. 414 of them were Black Africans seeking educational training (5.7%), who were the most educated group among these migrants. The highest percentages of first generation ethnic minority immigrants with “No qualification” are in the groups of Pakistani (69.4%), Bangladeshi (68.2%) and Black Caribbean (62.4%).

 

You decided to not respond the last time when it was pointed out the basis for the claim that black IQ was closing is based on cherry-picking data, extrapolating, and child IQ. The last adult IQ test I'm aware of is from 2006 and shows the same black-white IQ gap then as from 1916.

 

Why do you cherry-pick your sources?

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption study shows no difference in adult IQ of blacks raised during childhood by whites compared to the general black population.

 

I am curious.

Why do the Democrats seek an IQ test sufficient for whites but want some far easier test to be given to blacks who more than likely do not wish to be taking tests?

Based on school dropout rates, I see why blacks hate the IQ tests good enough for whites.

 

Tell me more about how hierarchies don't exist in nature based on differing traits.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you ever heard of the B.I.T.C.H. IQ test?

 

Blah blah blah.

Excerpt from my essay on the B-W IQ gap:

A study was conducted that compared IQ scores of 23 7 to 10-year-old black children raised by middle-class white families and the same number of black children but raised in black families (normal adoption) (Moore, 1986). The findings indicated that traditionally adopted black children raised by black parents had normal IQ scores (85), whereas those black children who were adopted by white families had IQs 1 standard deviation (100) above the black mean. Moore states that multivariate analysis indicates that the behaviors of black and white mothers were different in regards to how the black children were treated. She states that white adoptive mothers reduced stress by joking, laughing, and grinning. Whereas black adoptive mothers reduced stress in less positive ways including coughing, scowling and frowning. She also says that white adoptive mothers gave more positive reinforcement to their adoptive child’s problem solving whereas black adoptive mothers gave less (as I am arguing here, these traits are mostly genetic in origin, driven by IQ). She concludes that the ethnicity of the rearing environment exerts a significant influence on intellectual ability as well as standardized test scores. The sample sizes, however, are extremely small and to infer that the black-white IQ gap is environmental in origin because of a study with a small sample size is intellectually dishonest.

One study conducted in Germany in 1959 observed IQ scores of out-of-wedlock children fathered by US soldiers stationed in Germany during WWII and reared by white German mothers (Eyferth, 1961). Mean IQ scores for 83 white children and 97 mixed-race children were 97, 97.2 for the whites and 96.6 for the mixed-race children (Rushton and Jensen, 2005, pg. 261). However, these results are disputed. One, the children were extremely young, one-third of the children in the study were between the ages of 5 and 10 whereas the remaining two-thirds of the children were between the ages of 10 and 13. The malleability of intelligence is very well-known in regards to children. The heritability of IQ at age increases with age (a phenomenon known as ‘the Wilson Effect&#8217, which Arthur Jensen states that as a child ages, social environment can increase IQ (as heritability for children aged 5 is 22 percent and children aged 7 at 40 percent). Though, as the child ages, genes activate, and they fall to their genetic potential, with genetic effects accounting for a lion’s share of intelligence (80 to 90 percent) and environment having no effect. Second, 20 to 25 percent of the ‘black’ fathers were French North Africans (Caucasians). This shows why the mixed-race children had higher IQs in the sample: about a quarter of the sample was Caucasian (Rushton and Jensen, pg. 261). Finally, rigorous selection was done on both the white and black soldiers. With 3 percent of whites getting rejected compared to 30 percent of blacks, it is shown that high IQ blacks were selected for, therefore, skewing the sample.

Yet another study on black and white children observed 2 to 5-year-olds in a nursery setting (Tizard, 1972). The white and black children both had IQs at 102.6 and 106.3 respectively. She found no significant gap in the three groups tested (white, black and West Indian). However, she did note that the single significant difference was in that of non-white children.

All three of the above studies that get cited ad nauseum have something in common: they did not retest the children again at age 17 like was done in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. This is very critical. As it was alluded to earlier, as children mature, genetics exerts more of an effect than does socialization. Any IQ differences that are brought about by socialization will be mediated by genetics at adulthood, falling to the racial mean. It also noted how the age of adoption does not influence children’s IQ scores after age 7 (Jensen 1998b). This is due to, again, genetic effects being heightened as age increases.

What the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (Weinberg, Scarr, and Waldman, 1992) and the Eyferth study (1961) had observed was that the children born to a white mother and a black father had statistically significant differences in IQ in comparison to those birthed by a black mother and white father. This is attributed to prenatal environment. It was observed that mothers who had higher IQs and were more educated (which both correlate highly with each other), had children which, in turn, had higher IQ scores as well (Erikson, 2013). The results of the study suggest that mothers who are more educated have children who have higher intelligence. This should end this debate right there. Since, clearly, a white mother is more conducive to foster a higher IQ than is a black mother, this shows that racial differences in IQ are largely genetic in origin.

https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/22/the-black-white-iq-gap/

 

No but I passed it to my mail list.

So funny

 

So where is this going
What is the point

 

What do you mean 'what is the point'? The point is by culturally loading tests for blacks, that they score just as well on IQ tests as whites. Clearly, the tests with a higher g loading matter more than culturally loaded tests.

 

You have to accommodate blacks so they're feelings aren't hurt. Make school easier so black kids get A's. Now your workforce isn't as efficient anymore so you move all the electronics factories to China and make a new service industry of hamburger flippers and prison guards.

 

Are you drunk?

 

More Likely drinking Granny Clampett's XXX 100 proof corn liquor Spring tonic !

 

well it isn't true in the way that any white supremacist would want anyone to believe (there are, imo, people born more or less intelligent but as a result of stressors on their ancestors), but assume for a moment it is. If it is - why should we want to fight against nature? If they're right, and they're not, then there seems little point in fighting the natural way of things. It would be like saying that we need to give girls more phys ed because males are stronger and more athletic than females.

If you presume they're right, you quickly go down a pretty bad road. Fortunately, they aren't right.

 

You mean because there's evidence that blacks, Northeast Asians and northern Europeans have ever performed equally on cognitive ability and life achievement?

 

could you rephrase your post such that it isn't a non-sequitur?

 

You're dismissive of a position of which the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor.

 

Nope. Here's one case example to show my point - two to three thousand years ago Jews were backwards, uneducated, and generally considered unintelligent. But today they're probably the best educated and most intelligent group. If you think the key is race, then the onus is on you to explain why previously apparently less intelligent groups have become among the most intelligent.

And btw, this isn't a lone example. There's also the Scots, Irish, Germans, Japanese, Swedes, etc. As similar examples.

 

European Jews are highly intelligent, and have a specific IQ profile. Middle Eastern Jews - those closest to ancient Hebrews, have a lower IQ.

The explanation as for why European Jews have high IQ and are successful is due to centuries of discrimination in which the smarter Jews were more favored to have children than less intelligent and successful Jews.

If you believe European Jews do not have higher IQ due to their genes, then what cultural and/or environmental reasons do you have for explaining their success which does not cover Europeans and/or middle Eastern Jews?

What aspect of European Jewish culture is unique to European Jews exclusively and which explains their high IQ?

 

I think you're overemphasizing the importance of mate selection. For centuries we've lived in societies where monogamous unions were the norm - the smart and dumb alike have children and, as you may have noticed, the dumb seem to have more children. Yet we get smarter. Why? Because intelligence is more learned than inherent. It'd be really weird if it was primarily inherent, since black IQs in the U.S. have risen about a quarter point annually, or five points a generation. That's a pretty quick rise that can't be explained by changes in the gene pool through mate selection.

 

rayznack has been correct Throughout.
Troiiani just Fabricating equality when ALL evidence points otherwise.

1. Raznack made a correct and Undisputed point on Jews, while Troiianii, Fabriacated some Nonsense about Jews being considered Unintelligent 2 or 3 thousand years ago.
Even before the diaspora/Roman conquest, Jews were considered highly intelligent/literate people.
2000 Years ago.

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/jesusjew.html

...The Jews of Jesus' era were world Innovators in comprehensive Universal education(30).
The majority, if not All, were taught to read and write.

The philosopher Seneca remarked that the Jews were the Only people who knew the reasons for their religious faith, something which the apostle Peter continued to commend (1 Peter 3.15). We often reflect on how Christianity was the initiator behind much of our modern education system, yet that motivation derives from its Jewish educational foundations....​

and as rayznack points out, it's Only European Jews who now have the highest IQ of any group.
Ashkenazim are app 110-115, while Sephardim and Mizrahim (Spanish and Arab Jews) are only at about 98.
In Israel they are All well nourished and go to the same schools.
Yet, indeed, Jewish strains alone Sharply prove the case of INHERENT IQ.

2. and more generally, IQ is, Of course, 75% HERITABLE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates

3. Everyone's IQ is going up.
Ooops, there goes Troiianii's cherry pick.
It's called the Flynn Effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
There's some evidence American Blacks did gain some ground early on, once things like basic nutrition were met.
But the Gap stopped closing a few decades ago, and remains.
Black IQ and academic scores are Not equalized by equal, or even higher, income.

4. It is said Black IQ is depressed because of slavery, oppression, discrimination, BUT HARK.
American Blacks (not really a Race but a recent Genetic admixture), have 85 IQs...
Midway between the 'White' 100 and sub-Saharan 70.
Precisely what Genetics/ancestry would predict.
By the theory of oppression, American Blacks would have lower IQs than their always-free main ancestors.
Instead intermarriage has raised their IQ.
Further intermarriage could raise it further, while blurring the races further.

That should cover it for now.
Suffice it to say, rayznack had everything correct, while Troiianii just used wishful PC thinking.
(numbered for easy but Non-evasive reply.)
+

 

I took one of those. I did pretty well on it.

 

Encourage them to break the shackles of their identity. If they aren't as smart that's the only reason.

 

I don’t think that’s true, at all. Rather, I believe it’s natural for most people to be most comfortable, and to think it desirable, to mate and have children with people of their own race. To call that racist makes no sense to me.

If I had the choice, I’d rather people did procreate with their own race. I love seeing all the racial differences: at the Democratic conventions, large city streets, night clubs with mixed crowds, etc. I think it’s beautiful to see all the people of different colors, different dress, facial characteristics, etc. I haven’t seen a single other place in the world with such a beautiful variety of people that comes close to what we have in America. If we can only keep it (the differences) from blowing up in our faces.

On the other hand, I don’t care for crowds of a single race: TV shots of the Republican convention bore me, same thing when I see video from many other countries. A middle eastern country, parts of Mexico, Sweden: almost all people of a single color, some all brown, some all white = boring. A New York City street, facinating.

I hope the world NEVER becomes all beige. Gad, that would be disgusting.

 

Because in the 80's when I was a kid you went to Fulton Co. Stadium to see Dale Murphy and the Braves and Chief Knockahoma danced on the dugout in Indian garb. And we sucked until the 90's. I was in high school when we got Smoltz and Glavine. I was in marching band when metro schools were in play-off parades downtown.