Origin of the Racist Myth "Blacks are Less Intelligent"

The problem is that you look at each case in isolation and come up with a different ad hoc excuse. This is known in evolutionary biology as "just so story telling" and is a sign of a dubious theory. Looking at the consistent pattern of black academic under achievement in all times and places, the obvious, parsimonious, and scientific explanation, would be the single fact of genetic differences.

 

Genetic scientists have never found any genetic sequence related to intelligence differences based upon racial criteria. While genetic variations in "intelligence" within a family group have been identified that has not been found based upon "racial" criteria and these differences occur across the board in all "races" based upon clinical studies.

What we do know is that intelligence is multi-faceted and that our IQ tests are limited to testing for attributes related to success and failure in education and enterprise which is culturally important to our society. This is only a very small segment of human intelligence which has been identified by clinical psychologists (supported by previous posts and links that went undisputed).

Science does not draw conclusion based upon a complete lack of evidence such as the lack of evidence that genetics affects intelligence in the different "races" but instead science draws conclusions based upon emperical evidence. There is no emperical evidence that reflects that any "race" has more or less general human intelligence than any other race. What we do have a lot of evidence for is that cultural differences are highly influential on IQ test scores which only measure very limited criteria related to overall human intelligence based upon testing for potential success in education and enterprise.

 

LMAO..you went to public school, right?

Let me educate you to the facts;

Your first revisionist afrocentric claim;
http://teacher.scholastic.com/activi...tors/mccoy.htm

Here's the reality.

The oil cup, which automatically delivers a steady trickle of lubricant to machine parts while the machine is running, predates McCoy’s career; a description of one appears in the May 6, 1848 issue of Scientific American. The automatic “displacement lubricator” for steam engines was developed in 1860 by John Ramsbottom of England, and notably improved in 1862 by James Roscoe of the same country. The “hydrostatic” lubricator originated no later than 1871.

Variants of the phrase Real McCoy appear in Scottish literature dating back to at least 1856 — well before Elijah McCoy could have been involved.


Your next lie;
http://teacher.scholastic.com/activi...rs/latimer.htm


The reality;

English chemist/physicist Joseph Swan experimented with a carbon-filament incandescent light all the way back in 1860, and by 1878 had developed a better design which he patented in Britain. On the other side of the Atlantic, Thomas Edison developed a successful carbon-filament bulb, receiving a patent for it (#22389 in January 1880, before Lewis Latimer did any work in electric lighting. From 1880 onward, countless patents were issued for innovations in filament design and manufacture (Edison had over 50 of them). Neither of Latimer's two filament-related patents in 1881 and 1882 were among them, nor did they make the light bulb last longer, nor is there reason to believe they were adopted outside Hiram Maxim's company where Latimer worked at the time. (He was not hired by Edison's company until 1884, primarily as a draftsman and an expert witness in patent litigations).

Latimer also did not come up with the first screw socket for the light bulb or the first book on electric lighting.

Next lie debunked;

http://teacher.scholastic.com/activi...tors/woods.htm

The earliest patents for train telegraphs go back to at least 1873. Lucius Phelps was the first inventor in the field to attract widespread notice, and the telegrams he exchanged on the New York, New Haven & Hartford railroad in January 1885 were hailed in the Feb. 21, 1885 issue of Scientific American as "perhaps the first ever sent to and from a moving train." Phelps remained at the forefront in developing the technology and by the end of 1887 already held 14 US patents on his system. He joined a team led by Thomas Edison, who had been working on his "grasshopper telegraph" for trains, and together they constructed on the Lehigh Valley Railroad one of the only induction telegraph systems ever put to commercial use. Although this telegraph was a technical success, it fulfilled no public need, and the market for on-board train telegraphy never took off. There is no evidence that any commercial railway telegraph based on Granville Woods's patents was ever built.

Moving along;
http://teacher.scholastic.com/activi...ors/carver.htm
Absolutely laughable;This is the one most anti whites always point to.

Peanuts, which are native to the New World tropics, were mashed into paste by Aztecs hundreds of years ago. Evidence of modern peanut butter comes from US patent #306727 issued to Marcellus Gilmore Edson of Montreal, Quebec in 1884, for a process of milling roasted peanuts between heated surfaces until the peanuts reached "a fluid or semi-fluid state." As the product cooled, it set into what Edson described as "a consistency like that of butter, lard, or ointment." In 1890, George A. Bayle Jr., owner of a food business in St. Louis, manufactured peanut butter and sold it out of barrels. J.H. Kellogg, of cereal fame, secured US patent #580787 in 1897 for his "Process of Preparing Nutmeal," which produced a "pasty adhesive substance" that Kellogg called "nut-butter."

His other "inventions"? Pure afrocentrist nonsense

Research by Barry Mackintosh, who served as bureau historian for the National Park Service (which manages the G.W. Carver National Monument), demonstrated the following:

Most of Carver's peanut and sweet potato creations were either unoriginal, impractical, or of uncertain effectiveness. No product born in his laboratory was widely adopted.
The boom years for Southern peanut production came prior to, and not as a result of, Carver's promotion of the crop.
Carver's work to improve regional farming practices was not of pioneering scientific importance and had little demonstrable impact.
To see how Carver gained “a popular reputation far transcending the significance of his accomplishments,” read Mackintosh’s excellent article "George Washington Carver: The Making of a Myth."

Next lie;

http://teacher.scholastic.com/activi...ors/walker.htm


She allegedly invented a "HAIR GROWING LOTION"? LMFAO..right...sure.That's why there are no bald people on earth, right..LMAO...whatever.
Not even worth commenting on.

Next:
http://teacher.scholastic.com/activi...ors/morgan.htm

The invention of the gas mask predates Morgan's breathing device by several decades. Early versions were constructed by the Scottish chemist John Stenhouse in 1854 and the physicist John Tyndall in the 1870s, among many other inventors prior to World War I.

Moving right along...
http://teacher.scholastic.com/activi...ntors/bath.htm

Sorry...wrong again.
Use of lasers to treat cataracts in the eye began to develop in the mid 1970s. M.M. Krasnov of Russia reported the first such procedure in 1975. One of the earliest US patents for laser cataract removal (#3,982,541) was issued to Francis L’Esperance in 1976. In later years, a number of experimenters worked independently on laser devices for removing cataracts, including Daniel Eichenbaum, whose work became the basis of the Paradigm Photon™ device; and Jack Dodick, whose Dodick Laser PhotoLysis System eventually became the first laser unit to win FDA approval for cataract removal in the United States. Still, the majority of cataract surgeries continue to be performed using ultrasound devices, not lasers.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/activi...rs/johnson.htm

Ok, look..seriously...the "water gun" had already been "invented"..this negro made a bigger one...It COULD be said that he "improved" a design that already existed.
Look, we understand that negroes have so few accomplishments and they feel inadequate in civilized society so they try to steal credit from others for things they never did to enhance their low self esteem.



A side note.
ok..ok..ok..We get it...you just learned a new word "invidious"...keerist..you use it in EVERY post!..LMFAO...

 

OK, you are not learning.

Post.

Post.

Post.

Post.

 

http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/what-intelligence.html

As has been previously noted there are so many aspects of human intelligence that even clinical psychologists cannot provide a consensus definition of what human intelligence really is. What we do know is what our standardized IQ tests are very limited in what they test for and that they do not test for all of the attributes of human intelligence. When we look at what our standardized IQ tests are testing for, which as noted is about analytical ability because that relates to education and enterprise which we culturally value, they are fairly accurate. It is what they don't test for that remains an unknown. As many clinical psychologists note that if we design tests for these other attributes of human intelligence the test scores are far more accurate and they don't reflect any "racial" differences in intelligence.

A serious problem, as was identified before, is drawing unwarranted conclusions based upon IQ tests which is a common act of the bigoted racist. We need to know what intelligence test are for before we can draw any conclusions. Were they ever intended to measure overall intelligence or were they developed for a completely different reason? This is easily answered and has been addressed repeatedly in this thread.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx

From the very first "IQ" test the goal of the test was to identify attributes of the individual that could be addressed by educational institutions which would improve the course development for the benefit of the student. These tests were exclusively related to the education of the individual that might be challenged based upon current curriculum for whatever reason. They focused on education and nothing more. They were never intended to be a measurement of overall human intelligence but instead were very focused with a specific and narrow goal related to education.

So the basic problem exists that racial stereotyping of intelligence based upon IQ test scores is an unwarranted conclusion because IQ tests have never been developed with the intent of measuring overall human intelligence. IQ tests have a very limited goal of assessing individuals related to education to help in revising the curriculum and course content to benefit the student.

BTW I'm unaware of any linkage between an individual's height, which is highly influenced by both genetics and nutrition, and general human intelligence. This appears to be a completely absurd proposition that has no foundation in science.

 

That's right the first IQ test was designed to measure scholastic potential. But then it was extended to measure general intelligence. Your source says IQ predicts academic ability. You need one saying it doesn't predict general intelligence.

The mainstream view is that IQ measure general intelligence. The other "multiple intelligences" theories are not supported by data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Lack_of_empirical_evidence

Height is linked to general intelligence in that they are both highly polygenic, and specific genes have not been found. You keep saying they never found the "genetic sequence" for intelligence differences. If you knew anything about genetics you would know that was not necessary to make a heritability estimate. Try reading this paper.

 

You accomplish that by documenting it.

BTW, there are two types of "peanuts." One is African.

Document your stuff.

 

How very strange the the link is to multiple intelligence theory as proposed by Gardner which also presents the fact, which is undisputed, that current IQ tests measure for ability related to scholastic achievement and not overall general intelligence.

Obviously if we know what IQ tests are testing for we don't need a disclaimer as to what they don't test for.

Of course the APA link I provided also addressed Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence and also pointed out that IQ tests have always been about the tests providing limited information for the purposes of improving education and nothing else. Yes, IQ tests have expanded in that which they test but always the goal has been related to education of the child and how our educational institutions can be improved.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx

So improvements have been made but a major gap still exists between IQ tests and actual measurements of general intelligent according to Kaufman and the APA. Is this being intentionally ignored for nefarious reasons?

So let us look at human height and see now much of it is related to genetics and how much is related to nutrition.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-much-of-human-height

If we assume the same influence related to human intelligence then between 20% and 40% of the score on an IQ test is related to culture and not genetic intelligence. Even at the lowest level it would more than account for a 15 point average difference between races where one is deprived of equality in education and enterprise therefore "stunting" the so-called intelligence of the individual related to this. Additionally we have established that motivation alone can account for a 20 point difference in IQ test scores. This more than explains the disparity in IQ test scores based upon the extreme cultural differences between African-Americans that have been subjected to oppression, discrimination, and denial of equal opportunity and others in the America society which have not suffered this huge disadvantage.

Polygenic also refers to traits within a family and not in a racial group as the polygenic differences occur in all "races" universally.

 

I disputed the claims those negroes invented the things they are given credit for by anti white, afro centric revisionists.
The info is all there and it's true.

I provided the names of the REAL inventors. Articles verifying the invention by periodicals of the time (Scientific American, for instance) and patent numbers are all in the original post.

Try to focus..
Re read the post if you're having difficulty comprehending.

YOU debunk it if you don't believe it.

 

Inventions represent a development over time where each builds upon previous knowledge. They are fundamentally unrelated to general human intelligence and far more related to accumulation of knowledge and application of that knowledge over time.

This thread addresses the misreprensentation of human intelligence based upon racial prejudice going back to earlier "studies" which have been proven to be factually inaccurate as well as a general misunderstanding of IQ tests which, while very accurate related to predicting how a person will succeed based upon education, have never attempted to measure the total "general intelligence" of the individual as general intelligence still remains unquantifiable according to the APA and other sources.

 

...but...YOU'RE the one who proudly posted all those lies about so called negro "inventors".
I provided the REAL inventors name, references to reviews by esteemed periodicals (Scientific American, for example) and dates and patent numbers.

Now that those afro centric, revisionist lies have been exposed, suddenly you decide it doesn't matter who REALLY invented those various devices...
Trying to have it both ways?

A simple "Sorry, I was wrong" would do. You wouldn't look so evasive and disingenuous.

 

That's it. They just lie and change the subject when called on it. They have about 10 different lies they just repeat in a circle.

At least usually.

Shiva has just been repeating "IQ tests don't measure general intelligence" over and over and over again, despite being showing clear sources to the contrary.

And if it's not that they just make stuff up.

What a waste of time.

 

Invent what you want to, if it does not work well and somebody else makes one that does, who is going to get the credit? That is the reason the oiler described got to be known as "The Real McCoy."

 

It tests the ability to take tests.

 

So why do we have tests? You're "DoD certified physicaly Pfffft!". But all the test showed was that you passed the test. A fitness test doesn't correlate with or measure fitness right?

Do you even believe your own crap?

 

You have the names and dates....the negro did NOT invent the device as was claimed by shiva and the lying website she referenced.
It's as simple as that. Make all the excuses, justifications and backpedal all you like. McCoy had nothing to do with inventing the oiler no matter how much you wish it were so.

EDIT...since it's obvious you didn't bother to read what I posted, here it is again...the negro had nothing to do with inventing the oiler and the phrase "the real McCoy" has nothing to do with him..

The oil cup, which automatically delivers a steady trickle of lubricant to machine parts while the machine is running, predates McCoy’s career; a description of one appears in the May 6, 1848 issue of Scientific American. The automatic “displacement lubricator” for steam engines was developed in 1860 by John Ramsbottom of England, and notably improved in 1862 by James Roscoe of the same country. The “hydrostatic” lubricator originated no later than 1871.

Variants of the phrase Real McCoy appear in Scottish literature dating back to at least 1856 — well before Elijah McCoy could have been involved.

 

The "Racist Myth" part of the OP should be modified to say Scientific Truth.

 

I posted accurate information but everyone must realize that there are numerous steps in the invention process where many people contribute to the ultimate development in incrimental steps each worthy of "patent" status. As noted this process is related to knowledge and not necessarily intelligence. For example McCoy invented a method for capturing oil but he was not alone in doing this nor was he the first or last. Many others also created similiar inventions before and after McCoy. As was noted McCoy's was considered the best of those available at the time by many which lead to the creation of the expression, "Give me the real McCoy" that is used as a common expression today. There was nothing factually inaccurate.

As I've noted the development of inventions is knowledge based and not intelligence based and this thread is about general human intelligence.

 

No, it's factually inaccurate. Read what is written above.

Not only is everything you write factually inaccurate, after being shown the correct information, you continue to repeat the factual inaccuracy.

You stated that Negros invented those things. That means they did it first. They didn't. You are factually inaccurate.

 

I can't run, and before I had about $50000 worth of surgery, I couldn't get my elbow under a weapon in a prone positions, which was the only position in which I could qualify with a rifle in an infantry unit, and I don't hear well out of one ear. That is physically and objectively testable. So, since, as a bare minimum, even the mess sergeant has to be able to shoot back or run a way, the Army concluded that I had a life-threatening condition and had to take my blue card and go home before someone REALLY got hurt.

I do not even think that my GT score reflects my actual level of mentation, since I am slightly discalculic, but I have better verbal skills in two languages than about 80% of the population. (GT 133, low area [FA] 114.)

I am, of course, better equipped by my life experiences, to take all sorts of tests and to function across most cultural boundariers. You can't really say that about you typical math whiz, can you?

 

Did the prior patents for oilers work as well as the McCoy oiler? If not, he ghets credit for inventing one that worked.

 

Thanks for the autobiography. It's very interesting.

I'll take it you concede that it's possible to make tests.

What silly objection will we have next?

 

You mean you don't know?

Isn't saying things you don't know to be true a form of lying?

 

I am saying that tests test the ability to take tests, but that is about it.

 

All tests "just test the ability to take tests"? This is patently absurd. Shall we do away with driving tests?