Let's Talk About Race

[JAR]

But let's get something straight. A person getting mad over large numbers of people from certain ethnic groups moving into their neighborhood is not necessarily a race issue. It can also be an issue of not wanting to be mugged when you're out on a walk.

 

[Bjorn]

The obvious point here is that the answer is in the question; it's only a measure of the intelligence of university applicants and as the sample being tested (university applicants) is so restricted, then it's problematic generalising the findings to support such a claim as one portion of the population being more intelligent than another.

The sample so restricted? There must be tens of thousand tests done every year.

To problematise this even further, university admission tests are generally used to indicate the presence of skills required for a particular course of study, so the test is not so much of some general cognitive capacity but of ability to be successful at university.

And is there any special reason why asians should score higher?

Is there a reason to belive that there is a connection between IQ and 'the ability to be a success at university'?

If IQ tests are dismissed as measuring something else than intelligence, and so with university admission tests, how does one measure intelligence?

Whether you think it can be measured or not, do you believe that all people are born equally intelligent?

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Let's Talk About Race

The high crime rate among African-Americans is true. That is due to environmental causes in their upbringing, not biological ones.

If someone says that high crime rates among areas dominated by African-Americans is a sign that they have a biological tendency to commit crimes then he/she must be reminded that during the days of the Roman Empire, white people such as the Germans and Celts were known for attacking and plundering their neighbors.

Australia was founded as a prison, the first settlers were all criminals. Yet it's initial high crime soon subsided down to normal levels. Many convicts, once they served their time, stayed and lived normal lives in their new country.

The cultural relics now are that people are proud to be able to trace a convict past, and dislike for authority, and a sense of egalitarianism. Sadly, the egalitarianism seems to be dying away now.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Fade:

Until the classical periods, I really don't see the higher forms of our intellect coming into play at all.

What do you mean by the "higher forms of our intellect"?

Even the most average (great wording, I know) person would be more than capable of hunting, trapping, building shelter, etc.

"Trapping" and "building shelter" came very, very late in human development. See Caveman. In any case, it doesn't matter if the "average" individual was able to survive and breed, as long as those who were better at hunting or trapping or building shelters had more viable offspring.

These things don't take much brain power, all they take is learning.

This sentence makes no sense. The ability to learn is more or less the definition of intelligence.

Once you understand it, you can teach it to everyone, so everyone can take advantage of it.

Those who were able to understand it can take advantage of it, yes.

Look at what the average human can do today as far as, say, math goes. I can perform nearly any tasks the ancient Greek or Arabian mathemeticians could, and can even show you for the most part how they arrived at them. Their intellect manifested in the sense of putting things together first, but it granted them not actual benefit, as once the one of them figured it out, it belonged to the entire human race.

What does the development of mathematics within the last 5-10 thousand years have to do with the development of intelligence and subspecies?

Intelligence is a funny thing. I don't think it's quite possible to give a definition that narrow. There is no question that the more capable people lived longer, but were those more capable people more intelligent by the standards we hold right now? I am firmly of the opinion that we did our evolving 150,000 years ago, and our evolution since then has been largely superficial changes to deal with weather.

150,000 years ago, humans did not have total control of external factors affecting evolution. It is arguable that humans today do control most of these factors. That doesn't mean evolution has stopped. It just means that the factors affecting it have been reduced substantially and are now mostly internal. However, this is a recent development. For 10's of thousands of years, the weather was just a small factor affecting the survivability of human offspring.

Because after you get to human level intelligence, you don't need to go further to survive on this earth.

On what do you base this arrogant assumption? Just 50 years ago the prospect of nuclear self-annihilation was a non-negligable possibily.

Here's a question that I have never heard an answer too:

How does Joe-Primitive Man know who is intelligent, and who is not? By what standards does he use?

Joe-Primitive Man's opinion is irrelevant. If anything, it is Jane-Primitive Man's opinion which is of some importance. As in whom she chooses to mate with.

The man who catches the most meat isn't necessarily the man who is most intelligent. What one lacks in intellect, one can make up for in physical strength, ability to work in a group, ability to give commands, ability to take commands, ability to learn, etc, etc. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a comparison of intellects would ever take place.

One may have superior strength and a good ability at giving commands, but if the commands are based on a faulty plan, the outcome will probably be likewise. Do you have evidence that those who were physically strong but mentally weak were better able to bring home the bacon? If this were so, why don't humans compare well with other animals regarding physical strength?

The thing is, we are more intelligent than we need to be.

Huh? Evidence?

All of these things can be done by a mediocre human intellect.

No they can't. A mediocre human can't produce "a better tool". A mediocre humand can't communicate as much detailed information as one who isn't mediocre. Etc.

Again, how being more intelligent than average be of any practical benefit?

Because it resulted in more viable offspring?

What -reason- would a European or Asian need to be more intelligent than an African?

I believe the term "argument from ignorance" applies.

Also, the pygmy's would fall under the category "exception" and not "rule" It would take too long to be too specific.

Are you saying that all African races are better physically than non-African races, except for the Pygmies?

Our intelligence likely came about as a means to use our hands. Once we were done evolving, we stopped.

Evolution doesn't stop.

I don't believe I have ever seen evidence supporting the idea that we aren't almost exact duplicates of humans living 150,000 years ago.

We aren't duplicates, but in general it is a close call. However, I see no reason that certain subspecies shouldn't specialize in a particular area.

Perhaps in time, we'll need to get smarter to keep up with the ideas that come forth out of our brains, but there are very few concepts we have NOW that the average person can't understand given enough time, much less simple things such as tools and traps and communication.

Again, it doesn't matter what the last 10,000 years of human evolution have resulted in, as it has no relevance. And again, it doesn't matter what the average member of a species is capable of. If that member is out-bred by others, the traits which made this possible will be preferentially propogated.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:

Of course it is, but you are making a common mistake about evolution. Evolution is NOT the "survival of the fittest". It is the survival of the barely tolerable. As long as you are smart enough, or strong enough, to have kids, evolution doesn't care.

Crapolla. If you are just "barely tolerable" and are just able to produce a few offspring, your characteristics will continue for a while. But if others are not just "barely tolerable" but somehow excell, they will have more offspring. The end result is obvious.

It is of course the case that the human race's evolution is strongly influenced by its intelligence over other species. But it is certainly not the case that evolution selected for those who had the intelligence (had they been born today) to become rocket scientists, as opposed to those who only had the intelligence to finish sixth grade.

Perhaps. What does this have to do with the evolution of the human species in the vast majority of its existence (i.e. before the last 5,000 years)?

In prehistory, both were far and away "more" intelligence than one could use, and the "extra" wasn't necessarily better for mating and surviving. There is no reason to believe rocket scientists were selected for.

On the contrary, the fact that we do have "rocket scientists", which other species don't, shows that intelligence was selected for in the human species.

 

[JAR]

Re: Re: Re: Let's Talk About Race

Australia was founded as a prison, the first settlers were all criminals. Yet it's initial high crime soon subsided down to normal levels. Many convicts, once they served their time, stayed and lived normal lives in their new country.

The cultural relics now are that people are proud to be able to trace a convict past, and dislike for authority, and a sense of egalitarianism. Sadly, the egalitarianism seems to be dying away now.

Exactly my point. Some peoples who were once horrible are not so horrible anymore. If you compare the modern Danish to the Vikings, one sees how this holds true.

I think we agree on this.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Talk About Race

Exactly my point. Some peoples who were once horrible are not so horrible anymore. If you compare the modern Danish to the Vikings, one sees how this holds true.

I think we agree on this.

You have something good to say about the modern Danes?

As for the 'horrible' criminals, the crimes that got people transported were often nothing worse than stealing a loaf of bread. Now if GWB wants to get tough on crime, he should learn from England in the 1800's. Their prisons were full too.

 

[JAR]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Talk About Race

You have something good to say about the modern Danes?

As for the 'horrible' criminals, the crimes that got people transported were often nothing worse than stealing a loaf of bread. Now if GWB wants to get tough on crime, he should learn from England in the 1800's. Their prisons were full too.

I knew an African-American in high school that had robbed a liquor store. He said that his friends pressured him into doing it. I think that makes him and his friends "horrible criminals." Youth gangs often have a rite of passage for members that they must be in jail once. I think these people can be termed "horrible criminals."

There was one incident near where I live where a white family got lost driving around and ended up in a cul-de-sac. Gang members appeared and one threw a trashcan at their car. The man driving the car tried to drive through them and they opened fire on his vehicle, killing his little daughter.

It was said that the gang members were hostile to these people because they had gone into their territory.

These are what I term, "horrible criminals."

Another time a group of white teenagers were walking around and a group of African-Americans driving by in a car at night mistook them for members of a rival gang and opened fire, killing several of them. They said in their trial that the drive-by was a mistake and was intended for other people. That's not too reassuring.

These horrible acts that these gang members do often have nothing to do with a lack of money.

When I read what you leftists write, I get the impression that you are ignorant due to the fact that you live in areas that are almost entirely inhabited by people who aren't African-American or Mexican-American.

 

[Skeptic]

But let's get something straight. A person getting mad over large numbers of people from certain ethnic groups moving into their neighborhood is not necessarily a race issue. It can also be an issue of not wanting to be mugged when you're out on a walk.

Precisely.

You know, just like disliking all those jews moving into the liberal professions is due to fear of their notorious clannish, scheming ways that cheat the honest gentiles, and has nothing to do with their religion. So it isn't antisemitism, god forbid.

Sure, some leftist bleeding-heart liberals might call me an antisemite, but that's just because they don't what those jews are REALLY like. I'll bet anything they never lived next to a synagogue, like I do.

 

[Fade]

What do you mean by the "higher forms of our intellect"?

Reading? Writing? Arithmetic?

None of these things has a lick to do with survival. Why then, can we do them?

"Trapping" and "building shelter" came very, very late in human development. See Caveman. In any case, it doesn't matter if the "average" individual was able to survive and breed, as long as those who were better at hunting or trapping or building shelters had more viable offspring.

Yes, and without the information to back it up, your intelligence won't do you any good. Then again, I ALREADY addressed this.

This sentence makes no sense. The ability to learn is more or less the definition of intelligence.

What a narrow definition of intelligence. Intelligence is far more then learning, it also has to do with adaptation, deduction, induction, and kinesthetics.

Those who were able to understand it can take advantage of it, yes.

You are working under the assumption that caveman wasn't every bit as intelligent as we are. You can't argue your way out of the simple fact that humans are much more intelligent then they absolutely need to be to survive.

What does the development of mathematics within the last 5-10 thousand years have to do with the development of intelligence and subspecies?

Right here I am going to stop responding to you, as you have obviously not been reading what I have been saying.

I am not referring to the development of intelligence.

I am not arguing about the role it took in our initial evolution.


Try responding to what I am saying without making assumptions on top of them. Or should I begin assuming that your arguments are nothing more than bigotry and racism?

But that wouldn't be answering you, now would it.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Talk About Race

I knew an African-American in high school that had robbed a liquor store. He said that his friends pressured him into doing it. I think that makes him and his friends "horrible criminals." Youth gangs often have a rite of passage for members that they must be in jail once. I think these people can be termed "horrible criminals."

There was one incident near where I live where a white family got lost driving around and ended up in a cul-de-sac. Gang members appeared and one threw a trashcan at their car. The man driving the car tried to drive through them and they opened fire on his vehicle, killing his little daughter.

It was said that the gang members were hostile to these people because they had gone into their territory.

These are what I term, "horrible criminals."

Another time a group of white teenagers were walking around and a group of African-Americans driving by in a car at night mistook them for members of a rival gang and opened fire, killing several of them. They said in their trial that the drive-by was a mistake and was intended for other people. That's not too reassuring.

These horrible acts that these gang members do often have nothing to do with a lack of money.

When I read what you leftists write, I get the impression that you are ignorant due to the fact that you live in areas that are almost entirely inhabited by people who aren't African-American or Mexican-American.

I was referring to just labelling those convicted of crimes as 'criminals', as though they aren't even human. I have not doubt that there are places in America I should not go to. (Although, a friend once told me his father, as a tourist, had walked through Harlem at night. Not a thing happened to him).

I don't doubt that there are 'bad' people out there who shoot other people. However, most crime does not fall into this category. Like I said, people were being jailed in England for stealing food. This is happening in America now, I read of a man jailed under the three strikes and your out legislation for stealing a piece of pizza.

The interesting question is, why is there a sub-culture that earns respect via violence, and what is to be done about it. In Australia, there was a gang of teenageres going around pack-raping girls. They are in jail for a long time now, but their families could not accept the fact that they were capable of such a thing, that the girls must have aquiesced. During the trial, they put a big show of bravado and showed no contrition. These are the things that worry me. And they weren't black, or latino.

There is something missing in a young mans life if he only sees acts like this as the means of obtaining recognition and respect. And that's what most young men want.

The second biggest terrorist act in the USA was committed by a white man, who saw himself as a patriot. The UNA bomber was white.

 

[JAR]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Talk About Race

a friend once told me his father, as a tourist, had walked through Harlem at night. Not a thing happened to him).

Yes, it is true that if you walk into a bad neighborhood, the majority of the time, you will walk out unharmed. But that won't always happen.

Both of my brothers have been mugged in bad neighborhoods. My older brother was mugged by a Mexican and my younger brother was mugged by a pair, one of whom was Mexican and the other an African-American. My older brother had a Asian-American friend on his cross-country team who was beat up at a bus-stop. He had his jaw broken.

 

[BillyTK]

The sample so restricted? There must be tens of thousand tests done every year.[/b]

Yup, but the sample exhibits specific properties wrt to age and (possibly) gender; it's therefore problematic in generalising the intelligence scores of a group of approx. 18 year old Asians who apply to university to the rest of the Asian population. What about all the Asians who are 18 and don't apply to university? Or all the Asians who aren't 18 and don't apply to university?

And is there any special reason why asians should score higher?

I have no opinion; I'm not commenting that the results of the test are incorrect, or even that Asians (as a specific group or in the general population) are any less intelligent than anyone else, but what I am contesting is making that claim based on evidence from a limited sample. All this evidence shows is that of the people who take University admission tests Asians score the most highly; you might infer that, all things being equal it is possible that Asian teens are more intelligent than other teens from other ethnicities and therefore Asians are more intelligent than any other ethnicity, but this requires a number of assumptions to be made to fill in the gaps left by the imcompleteness (is that a word?) of the evidence.

Is there a reason to belive that there is a connection between IQ and 'the ability to be a success at university'?

This is the problem of definition of intelligence. Is it a general cognitive capacity or is it a set of specific skills? Is it genetic, or is it environmental? Why is it important anyway?

If IQ tests are dismissed as measuring something else than intelligence, and so with university admission tests, how does one measure intelligence?

Whether you think it can be measured or not, do you believe that all people are born equally intelligent?

Let's deal with the biggy first; you can only measure intelligence if you believe that intelligence exists in some form that lends itself to testing. To some extent the problem is tautological; people score on intelligence tests therefore intelligence must exist; however one of the criticisms of intelligence testing is that intelligence is a statistical entity, a product of the measurement tool being used rather than of any capacity being measured.

For instance, everyone possess to a greater or lesser extent five senses--sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. So I develop a test to evaluate the efficacy of our senses which gives a cumlative score out of 10. You score 7 and I score 4. Does that tell us anything meaningful about our difference in sensory capabilities other than how well we scored on the test?

If intelligence does exist and is a general cognitive capacity, how do we account for, for instance, the results found by Arthur Jensen that this capacity is greater in one particular set of people; typically middle-class whites? Or the Flynn Effect, which indicates that IQ has been steadily rising across generations. If intelligence is actually a specific set of skills (to border on facetiousness, the skills required to get through university are not going to help you survive in the Australian Outback) then surely that's what we should examine?

So as to whether people are born equally intelligent, as an environmentalist (in that I believe that on the whole the nurture has far more explicit effects than nature) then I'd say yes. But wrt to the problem of definition of intelligence, then saying yes is no more meaningful that saying everyone is born with equal amounts of God's love.

 

[BillyTK]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Talk About Race

I knew an African-American in high school that had robbed a liquor store. He said that his friends pressured him into doing it. I think that makes him and his friends "horrible criminals." Youth gangs often have a rite of passage for members that they must be in jail once. I think these people can be termed "horrible criminals."

There was one incident near where I live where a white family got lost driving around and ended up in a cul-de-sac. Gang members appeared and one threw a trashcan at their car. The man driving the car tried to drive through them and they opened fire on his vehicle, killing his little daughter.

It was said that the gang members were hostile to these people because they had gone into their territory.

These are what I term, "horrible criminals."

Another time a group of white teenagers were walking around and a group of African-Americans driving by in a car at night mistook them for members of a rival gang and opened fire, killing several of them. They said in their trial that the drive-by was a mistake and was intended for other people. That's not too reassuring.

These horrible acts that these gang members do often have nothing to do with a lack of money.

When I read what you leftists write, I get the impression that you are ignorant due to the fact that you live in areas that are almost entirely inhabited by people who aren't African-American or Mexican-American.

The plural of anecdote is not data? Btw, I live in an area with a large Afro-Caribbean/Asian/Irish population, as well as a representation by just about any ethnicity you care to mention. Btw(2), leftists aren't only non-African-American or Mexican-Americans.

 

[hammegk]

This is the problem of definition of intelligence. Is it a general cognitive capacity or is it a set of specific skills? Is it genetic, or is it environmental? Why is it important anyway?

It is the ability to LEARN.

Let's deal with the biggy first; you can only measure intelligence if you believe that intelligence exists in some form that lends itself to testing. To some extent the problem is tautological; people score on intelligence tests therefore intelligence must exist; however one of the criticisms of intelligence testing is that intelligence is a statistical entity, a product of the measurement tool being used rather than of any capacity being measured.

So you fully believe the ability to learn has no value. BS.

For instance, everyone possess to a greater or lesser extent five senses--sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. So I develop a test to evaluate the efficacy of our senses which gives a cumlative score out of 10. You score 7 and I score 4. Does that tell us anything meaningful about our difference in sensory capabilities other than how well we scored on the test?

Truly irrelevant, unless the tests were designed to tie sense responses to real world situations with consequences.

If intelligence does exist and is a general cognitive capacity, how do we account for, for instance, the results found by Arthur Jensen that this capacity is greater in one particular set of people; typically middle-class whites?

You are correct that the consequences of historical testing were designed to predict for success in 1st world civilizations. The tests still measure in essence the ability to learn.

Or the Flynn Effect, which indicates that IQ has been steadily rising across generations.

Unknown. Since you like to speculate, how about the more widespread dissemination of information (learning) via increased media & communication available to all?

If intelligence is actually a specific set of skills (to border on facetiousness, the skills required to get through university are not going to help you survive in the Australian Outback) then surely that's what we should examine?

I fully believe that more intelligent bushmen -- as proven by testing geared towards bushman culture & life -- will be at an advantage. Do you agree?

So as to whether people are born equally intelligent, as an environmentalist (in that I believe that on the whole the nurture has far more explicit effects than nature) then I'd say yes.

Too bad your "belief" has no backing by the multitude of psychometricians, sociologists, and psychiatrists who have searched unsucessfully to demonstrate that -- as dictated by political correctness -- for the last 50 years.

For example, have you heard of Head-Start?

 

[BillyTK]

It is the ability to LEARN.

Is that your definition, or one supported by evidence? If the latter, references please, preferably online ones. One exactly is learning anyway? Isn't this an example of swapping one amorphous concept for another?

So you fully believe the ability to learn has no value. BS.

BS indeed, as that is a strawman.

Truly irrelevant, unless the tests were designed to tie sense responses to real world situations with consequences.

Of course they would be, how else would you test them? By attitudinal surveys?

You are correct that the consequences of historical testing were designed to predict for success in 1st world civilizations. The tests still measure in essence the ability to learn.

I wouldn't characterise Jensen's work as "historical"--the latest reference I can find for him is for 2000. Is that "historical"? The essence of the test is to test what aspect of learning? And how is this generalisable?

Unknown. Since you like to speculate, how about the more widespread dissemination of information (learning) via increased media & communication available to all?

Quite possibly, and quite possibly a number of other factors as well, which, you would surely agree, dumps on the idea that intelligence is a fixed and determined capacity?

I fully believe that more intelligent bushmen -- as proven by testing geared towards bushman culture & life -- will be at an advantage. Do you agree?

Oh, I'd agree, I just wouldn't see the point; I don't imagine many US universities adopting this "Bushman" test of yours. What would it tell us, other than of specific qualities required to be a successful bushman?

Too bad your "belief" has no backing by the multitude of psychometricians, sociologists, and psychiatrists who have searched unsucessfully to demonstrate that -- as dictated by political correctness -- for the last 50 years.

For example, have you heard of Head-Start?

Have you heard of the Bell-Shaped Curve? Of course, there is such a great consensus on intelligence testing.

Btw, great example of selective quotation there though; almost makes it look like I am suggesting that intelligence is mostly environmental, when I'm clearly saying no such thing. Here's the full paragraph for the purposes of accuracy:

So as to whether people are born equally intelligent, as an environmentalist (in that I believe that on the whole the nurture has far more explicit effects than nature) then I'd say yes. But wrt to the problem of definition of intelligence, then saying yes is no more meaningful that saying everyone is born with equal amounts of God's love.

 

[Tmy]

Who defines the persons race in these statistics? The individual? If a person is of mixed race are they disqualified? How can you make a statement that whites are smarter than blacks if the pool is made up of individuals that are genetically mixed.

Isnt that like saying a mixed breed shepard-lab will have the same traits and tempermant as a pure bred shepard.

 

[hammegk]

Is that your definition, or one supported by evidence? If the latter, references please, preferably online ones. One exactly is learning anyway? Isn't this an example of swapping one amorphous concept for another?

Duh. Try google -- Binet, IQ, maybe you can think of something else even.

BS indeed, as that is a strawman.

Glad to hear you think ability to learn at least "might be" important.

Of course they would be, how else would you test them? By attitudinal surveys?

Your silly example; who would care? I don't.

I wouldn't characterise Jensen's work as "historical"--the latest reference I can find for him is for 2000. Is that "historical"? The essence of the test is to test what aspect of learning? And how is this generalisable?

Any luck with google?

Quite possibly, and quite possibly a number of other factors as well, which, you would surely agree, dumps on the idea that intelligence is a fixed and determined capacity?

That's what Head-Start has spent $$$$ and many years attempting to disprove. Still the same; everyones' IQ has a genetically fixed upper maximum.

Oh, I'd agree, I just wouldn't see the point; I don't imagine many US universities adopting this "Bushman" test of yours. What would it tell us, other than of specific qualities required to be a successful bushman?

Are you truly so dense?

Have you heard of the Bell-Shaped Curve? Of course, there is such a great consensus on intelligence testing.

Perhaps you mean The Bell Curve? Not to mention books & articles of debate written to follow PC dictates. Yes, I have, and have actually bothered to read at least some of them.

Btw, great example of selective quotation there though; almost makes it look like I am suggesting that intelligence is mostly environmental, when I'm clearly saying no such thing. Here's the full paragraph for the purposes of accuracy:

Unfortunately, IQ is a "gift from god" transmitted via your ancestry. I was trying to do you a favor.

Anyway, enough for me at the moment. Maybe bpesta will have the patience to further assist in your education. I don't.

 

[BillyTK]

Duh. Try google -- Binet, IQ, maybe you can think of something else even.

Evasion noted.

Glad to hear you think ability to learn at least "might be" important.

Another strawman? Or claim of supernatural powers?

Your silly example; who would care? I don't.

That you questioned it would indicate otherwise. But I will take your advice accordingly.

Any luck with google?

Evasion noted.

That's what Head-Start has spent $$$$ and many years attempting to disprove. Still the same; everyones' IQ has a genetically fixed upper maximum.

Which increases with each generation. Hmmm...

Are you truly so dense?

Evasion noted.

Perhaps you mean The Bell Curve? Not to mention books & articles of debate written to follow PC dictates. Yes, I have, and have actually bothered to read at least some of them.

I do mean the Bell Curve. Apologies and thanks for the correction. PC dictates? Would that be an aspect of your pc'lib conspiracy? I guess they could have organised a covert mission to replace Herrnstein & Murray's research with scurrilous results, but for the life in me I carnt think why they would.

Unfortunately, IQ is a "gift from god" transmitted via your ancestry. I was trying to do you a favor.

Thank you. You've certainly been doing well so far.

Anyway, enough for me at the moment. Maybe bpesta will have the patience to further assist in your education. I don't.

Thank you for your contribution so far, I've certainly found your responses most enlightening. Perhaps you might consider putting me on "Ignore..." as well?

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Talk About Race

When I read what you leftists write, I get the impression that you are ignorant due to the fact that you live in areas that are almost entirely inhabited by people who aren't African-American or Mexican-American.

Gee, and when I read what some rightist wroites in makes me think that they just ignore all the crimes that 'white' people commit, and they use only anecdotes to base thier claims.
try these on:
White football players rape developementally disabled girl with baseball bat.
Whiteboys harrass and rape white girls in small towns.
White boy made good rips off investors by lying about which stocks he would buy and advises his clients to buy stocks in the tank.

So if money isn't a factor in crime , why does crime go down when the economy is good?


__________________________________________

To the topic at hand:

Our ancestors did eventualy develop the ability to learn and transmit information.
I agree with some of hammegk, the bushman test would pick out the smarter bushman.


Peace
dancing david