Be a Supporter!

Mentally retarded countries

  • 3,992 Views
  • 82 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Mentally retarded countries Mar. 2nd, 2013 @ 09:15 PM Reply

7 countries have an average IQ lower than what the USA considers mentally retarded:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/countries-with-the-highest-low est-average-iq/

1 Equatorial Guinea 59
2 Ethiopia 63
3 Sierra Leone 64
4 Democratic Republic of the Congo 65
5 Zimbabwe 66
5 Guinea 66
7 Nigeria 67

Sooooooooooo.... should the US be able to do military action there? If you kill people in those countries, chances are high that you just killed a mentally retarded person.

In fact, pretty much the whole of Africa is mentally deficient, or close to it according to their national average IQs
http://www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

So I say, it's wrong to kill them because according to the USA's own metric for who's too stupid to kill, most of them are :D
In fact, we should sell no weapons to those countries either.


BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 2nd, 2013 @ 09:48 PM Reply

IQ tests judge takers based off Western standards of what should be common knowledge. Of course societies which have not needed that knowledge fail at it. It's like calling a person a moron because they do not know English.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 2nd, 2013 @ 10:05 PM Reply

At 3/2/13 09:48 PM, Warforger wrote: IQ tests judge takers based off Western standards of what should be common knowledge. Of course societies which have not needed that knowledge fail at it. It's like calling a person a moron because they do not know English.

No, there are many IQ tests that are not language or knowledge based, they are simple unbiased pattern recognition puzzles.
The results of such tests correlate extremely heavily with anything you'd overall call "intelligence'.

In other words, if someone does very poorly ( like 80 ) at such a test, they'll be idiots in all other aspects of life; They'll struggle in school, won't be able to understand higher logic / math and most likely won't be able to have intellectual type jobs.
They also exhibit poor judgment, bordering on complete obliviousness, which is why the US doesn't execute mentally retarded people. They're basically so impaired that they don't even consider their judgment a reasoned choice.

Sadly, they can still vote :D
Can't kill em', but they can choose who's the President.


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 2nd, 2013 @ 10:32 PM Reply

I wonder what the effects of severe malnutrition and massive PTSD are on IQ levels...

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 2nd, 2013 @ 10:38 PM Reply

Perhaps having any sort of infrastructure at all is good for society. Eh, whatever, just bomb them.

poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 2nd, 2013 @ 10:58 PM Reply

At 3/2/13 10:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I wonder what the effects of severe malnutrition and massive PTSD are on IQ levels...

It has some effect, but not enough for a 30 point swing.
You can see that China, for instance, has one of the highest IQs in the world, yet their citizens are like half peasants.

Furthermore, the same IQ disparities are found for people when you correct for poverty / nutrition.
So if you take 200 random people who's parents are from Nigeria but who live in the USA, their IQ will be much lower than if you take 200 random 2nd generation South Koreans who live in the USA.

All the sociologists and PC people will constantly tout that IQ is largely / only a measure of how wealthy a nation is, but that's stupid since the USA is the wealthiest nation yet their IQ is not anywhere near the top. There is a far stronger correlation between race and IQ than between money and IQ. If what they suggest is true, then you'd expect everyone from a set class to have the same IQ, no matter their race, yet in every country you find that people of different races, even if they are adopted into middle-class or rich families, have consistent predictable IQ scores that are mostly the result of genetics.

This, of course, is an extremely unpopular fact.

But that's besides the point. The point is that no matter what the reason is, there's entire countries of mentally retarded people, basically.

We keep treating these nations like they're the same as us, but they're not. Why do we treat people with IQs under 70 a certain way in the USA but when it comes to international relations, we treat them like self-aware, capable diplomats?
They way you help a poor person with a 120 IQ and the way you help a poor person with a 70 IQ is vastly different.


BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 2nd, 2013 @ 11:06 PM Reply

*raised eyebrow*

hold the hell on. you're saying that people from some parts of africa are naturally stupid, and that some races of people are naturally more intelligent than others?

wow pox, I didn't think you had it in you.

gotta love the cold brutal facts of life.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 2nd, 2013 @ 11:13 PM Reply

If anyone cares:
"http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx"

This completely nails the coffin shut as far as any rebuttals go.
You'll find that most rebuttals for this massive amount of data center around cherry-picking studies. "Oh this one study showed this and that".
Yeah well these 1000 others say otherwise. Sad day for you.


BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 2nd, 2013 @ 11:30 PM Reply

At 3/2/13 11:13 PM, poxpower wrote: If anyone cares:
"http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx"

This completely nails the coffin shut as far as any rebuttals go.
You'll find that most rebuttals for this massive amount of data center around cherry-picking studies. "Oh this one study showed this and that".
Yeah well these 1000 others say otherwise. Sad day for you.

Your article is partially written by Rushton, a noted quackjob who has made it his life mission to prove the Bell Curve correct. This part:

"4. Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks."

Is especially wondrous, as practically all of his brain measuring studies have been proven nonsense or so intensely biased it's not even funny. Rushton gets most of his money from conservative think tanks, as evidenced by the slam on Head Start out of no where in the article. Most noticeably he is the current president of the Pioneer Fund, which has given him over a million dollars. The Pioneer Fund is a racist eugenics organization. Rushton also uses the three racial classifications, and doesn't seem to address any racial classification scheme. Such a scheme puts Latinos and American Indians into the same group as the Chinese, because there is no where else for them to go. I have no clue where the Aboriginals of Australia go, but I suspect they get thrown into the Asian group as well.

poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 12:13 AM Reply

At 3/2/13 11:30 PM, Feoric wrote:
Your article is partially written by Rushton, a noted quackjob who has made it his life mission to prove the Bell Curve correct. This part:

Huh I've never seen evidence that he's a quack.

Is especially wondrous, as practically all of his brain measuring studies have been proven nonsense or so intensely biased it's not even funny.

Where?
??
There's no credible or good rebuttals for his arguments anywhere. The only people who criticize him are dumbass anthropologists, psychologists and sociologists, who know nothing about any of this and just want to avoid hurting people's feelings.

I watched the debate of him vs David Suzuki. Suzuki embarrassed himself on a massive scale, anyone with any shred of intellectual honesty can recognize he was smashed.

Rushton gets most of his money from conservative think tanks

Ad hominem much?

Again, this data is rock solid.
Note also that ALL the criticism against him is about how his data is unfair to blacks, when it constantly places whites behind Asians. No one ever complains about it or brings that up.

It's so impossibly clear that the opposition to him is entirely politically motivated.


BBS Signature
poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 12:21 AM Reply

At 3/2/13 11:30 PM, Feoric wrote: nonsense or so intensely biased

Also, I suggest you read your link, you'll find his rebuttal inconclusive at best.

Note also that this is probably the weakest point and it's not even meaningful anyway. The actual IQ data is very strong, no matter what the brain sizes are or what method you use to estimate it / scale it.
And that's the data we care about. There's many animals with larger brains than humans after all, and they're much dumber.


BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 01:10 AM Reply

At 3/3/13 12:13 AM, poxpower wrote: There's no credible or good rebuttals for his arguments anywhere.
The only people who criticize him are dumbass anthropologists, psychologists and sociologists, who know nothing about any of this and just want to avoid hurting people's feelings.

Well I suppose there is no way for you to lose your argument if you think any dissenting evidence is by PC libtards and/or by people who don't know what they're talking about by default. If you don't agree with the article I sent you, fine! Tell me why! Let's discuss it! But don't be so dishonest with your debate strategy here, because this is literally the exact rebuttal used by members on Stormfront.

I watched the debate of him vs David Suzuki. Suzuki embarrassed himself on a massive scale, anyone with any shred of intellectual honesty can recognize he was smashed.

Gee, that sucks for Suzuki, but I really don't care how he handled himself during a debate. Especially so considering I don't recall ever invoking him in my post, so I don't know why you're bringing him up.

Ad hominem much?

How is that an ad hominem? It's actual fact and completely uncontroversial. The Pioneer Fund began as an institution that openly admired Nazi eugenic policies. They even promoted Nazi films in the United States.

Here's a nice article that goes more in-depth:

"The Pioneer Fund describes itself as based "in the Darwinian-Galtonian evolutionary tradition and eugenics movement." For the last 70 years, the Pioneer Fund has funded controversial research about race and intelligence, essentially aimed at proving the racial superiority of white people. The groupâEUTMs original mandate was to promote the genes of those 'deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original 13 states prior to the adoption of the Constitution.'"

By the way, please focus on the actual content being discussed here and not the fact that there's a video from the infamous Rachel Maddow.

Again, this data is rock solid.
Note also that ALL the criticism against him is about how his data is unfair to blacks, when it constantly places whites behind Asians. No one ever complains about it or brings that up.

Because perhaps the criticism has absolutely nothing to do with race and rather his methodology? Stephen J. Gould published "The Mismeasure of Man" as both a direct refutation of The Bell Curve and a social history of the idea of "race." The Mismeasure of Man explains in great detail why The Bell Curve specifically is completely full of shit. And I don't mean in the sense of, "Those guys are mean racists and wrong because I'm a liberal sissy, waah!" More like, "The following several pages will explain why their methods were idiotic, and their reporting of their results was willfully deceptive, and/or sloppy as hell."

Here's what Gould has to say:

"My charge of disingenuousness receives its strongest affirmation in a sentence tucked away on the first page of Appendix 4, page 593: the authors state, "In the text, we do not refer to the usual measure of goodness of fit for multiple regressions, R2, but they are presented here for the cross-sectional analyses." Now, why would they exclude from the text, and relegate to an appendix that very few people will read, or even consult, a number that, by their own admission, is "the usual measure of goodness of fit"? I can only conclude that they did not choose to admit in the main text the extreme weakness of their vaunted relationships.

Herrnstein and Murray's correlation coefficients are generally low enough by themselves to inspire lack of confidence. (Correlation coefficients measure the strength of linear relationships between variables; the positive values from 0.0 for no relationship to 1.0 for perfect linear relationship.) Although low figures are not atypical for large social-science surveys involving many variables, most of Herrnstein and Murray's correlations are very weak-often in the 0.2 to 0.4 range. Now, 0.4 may sound respectably strong, but-and this is the key point-R2 is the square of the correlation coefficient, and the square of a number between zero and one is less than the number itself, so a 0.4 correlation yields an R-squared of only .16. In Appendix 4, then, one discovers that the vast majority of the conventional measures of R2, excluded from the main body of the text, are less than 0.1.

These very low values of R2 expose the true weakness, in any meaningful vernacular sense, of nearly all the relationships that form the meat of The Bell Curve."

It's so impossibly clear that the opposition to him is entirely politically motivated.

What overtly political organization has funded Gould and/or Peters?

Also, I suggest you read your link, you'll find his rebuttal inconclusive at best.

I have read it, I don't link stuff I don't read. I haven't come to the same conclusion you have so perhaps you can share some insight as to why you think his response is inconclusive, and also refute what Gould had to say above.

Note also that this is probably the weakest point and it's not even meaningful anyway. The actual IQ data is very strong, no matter what the brain sizes are or what method you use to estimate it / scale it.
And that's the data we care about. There's many animals with larger brains than humans after all, and they're much dumber.

How is that even a good comparison, even as a facetious one? Mice have much smaller brains that humans as well, did you think Flowers for Algernon was a case study or something?

Famas
Famas
  • Member since: Nov. 26, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 01:36 AM Reply

At 3/3/13 01:10 AM, Feoric wrote:

:words words words words

I'd reiterate on what you said Feoric, though I feel like at this point it would just be fruitless parroting.

What I'd like to ask pox, since you've posted this in the political forum, is what objective you want this thread to achieve in relation to socioeconomic/political discussion aside from "X country is full of retards"?. Because the content and flimsy sentiment you expressed is just a hair away from posting a thread that consists entirely of "Nigerians are retarded".


"R.I.P. Gunther Hermann - 2002-2052

He wanted orange. The world gave him lemon-lime"

BBS Signature
poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 02:28 AM Reply

At 3/3/13 01:10 AM, Feoric wrote:
Well I suppose there is no way for you to lose your argument if you think any dissenting evidence is by PC libtards

Yeah, show me a bunch of asians consistently getting owned by black kids in IQ tests.
Show me an IQ distribution map that isn't correlated whatsoever with race.

All you did so far was
1. Put into the question the relation /methodology of brain size vs IQ, which is by far the weakest argument anyway and a completely separate matter from the IQs
2. Ignore all of Rushton's research / conclusions because he's funded by crazy people / he's an asshole.

How is that an ad hominem?

Ad hominem: Calling into question someone's character instead of addressing their arguments.
Even if Rushton was Hitler and made all his money by selling African baby bone powder, it wouldn't change any of his data.

Because perhaps the criticism has absolutely nothing to do with race and rather his methodology? Stephen J. Gould published "The Mismeasure of Man" as both a direct refutation of The Bell Curve and a social history of the idea of "race."

I didn't invoke "The Bell Curve" and I'm not reading that giant wall of text. What in there specifically refutes the IQ scores?


It's so impossibly clear that the opposition to him is entirely politically motivated.
What overtly political organization has funded Gould and/or Peters?

If you want to study this, you will not get funding ( except by crazy KKK rednecks ).
It's a complete career killer to mention this, study this or pursue this for any scientific.

It cannot be mentioned on tv either. No one could ever mention the raw data without instantly being called a racist by people who have never looked into this whatsoever.

I have read it, I don't link stuff I don't read. I haven't come to the same conclusion you have so perhaps you can share some insight as to why you think his response is inconclusive, and also refute what Gould had to say above.

I can't find in the entire wall of text that Gould wrote where he puts into question the validity of the IQ scores. What quote addresses this? He just pulls the same old trick of "well maybe factors other than genetics affect this" or the "there's different kinds of intelligence" bs.

Well why is it that IQ in adopted children is also correlated with race?
Why is it that IQ in mixed children, who's race people don't even know, is correlated the same way? You're going to say that a middle-class mixed kid who no one knows is half black is stupider because the system is against him?

It's always always the same thing you hear, just hand-waving explanations about how the system or poverty is keeping people down.

All this is is one guy's myopic critic of some data from one book.

It doesn't overturn the giant mass of data that has come forth since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Notice that your rebuttals are from the mid-90s when a ton of research has been done since, further reinforcing every prediction that Rushton had made.

At 3/3/13 01:36 AM, Famas wrote:
What I'd like to ask pox, since you've posted this in the political forum, is what objective you want this thread to achieve in relation to socioeconomic/political discussion aside from "X country is full of retards"?. Because the content and flimsy sentiment you expressed is just a hair away from posting a thread that consists entirely of "Nigerians are retarded".

See, boom, again, you absolutely do NOT care whether this is true or false, you're just standing here wondering why we should even bring it up.

This is exactly the point. You have no facts, no arguments. All you do is side with the popular opinion that it's bad to say anyone is inferior to white middle-class males.
You would never cause a stir or even question any data that showed that, say, black people are better at chemistry.

You would never even think to defend white people then.

Admit it.
How is THAT not racist?

That's because that's what you WANT to believe. You want to believe that everyone is equal. You want to believe that if I give anyone the same chance in life, they have an equal opportunity to do well.
That idea is old and busted. It's the "american dream" idea.

Republicans use it to strip away help from the needy. "Oh if you were hard-working, you'd do well!".
And Democrats use it to equalize people who aren't equal. "Here's a grant that 20 people smarter than you should have had, but they're not black enough and have no tits".

Both have a false idea of what opportunities people are actually born with. In the last 20 years, we've discovered many many things about humans that are vastly genetically determined. You can either bury your head in the sand and pretend like reality is something else, continuing with bad policies, or admit the hard facts and put your help in the right places.


BBS Signature
Famas
Famas
  • Member since: Nov. 26, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 03:31 AM Reply

At 3/3/13 02:28 AM, poxpower wrote: This is exactly the point. You have no facts, no arguments.

Stop being so excitable. Take a breather, and reassess my question. It's a question, not a protest or a rebuttal.

I didn't post this thread, so no, I have no ultimate narrative express. But you are not a factoid spitting robot with no ultimate purpose to fulfill, and this being the politics forum I find it perfectly fair to ask: What is you narrative here in presenting this information? What is the path of discourse you wish for this thread to achieve outside of the sentiment that I quoted which is "We shouldn't bomb countries full of 'retarded people'"?


"R.I.P. Gunther Hermann - 2002-2052

He wanted orange. The world gave him lemon-lime"

BBS Signature
poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 04:41 AM Reply

At 3/3/13 03:31 AM, Famas wrote:
What is you narrative here in presenting this information?

Do you think we should act differently towards a country who's average citizen we consider too stupid to kill?


BBS Signature
Famas
Famas
  • Member since: Nov. 26, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 04:57 AM Reply

At 3/3/13 04:41 AM, poxpower wrote: Do you think we should act differently towards a country who's average citizen we consider too stupid to kill?

This explicitly implies that intellect directly correlates to inalienable rights. That is a problem.


"R.I.P. Gunther Hermann - 2002-2052

He wanted orange. The world gave him lemon-lime"

BBS Signature
poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 11:24 AM Reply

At 3/3/13 04:57 AM, Famas wrote:
At 3/3/13 04:41 AM, poxpower wrote: Do you think we should act differently towards a country who's average citizen we consider too stupid to kill?
This explicitly implies that intellect directly correlates to inalienable rights. That is a problem.

No.
If you are mentally deficient in the USA, you get special help and you can still vote, drive, own property and have children. Plus, you can't be executed.

By comparison, millions of Americans can't vote because they have committed a crime.

I think it's worth studying.
How can you better help a group with an overall IQ of 60-70 in the long-term? What can you expect of them? Which of their problems are caused by themselves and which are caused by the others? Is it wise to let them have a large military or to offer military aid to them? Are they in a position to exploit their own resources? Can they ever control their populations?

There are also things you cannot expect of them. Nigeria will never be a world leader in sciences. If the GDP of Nigeria ever was the same as Canada's but their population % was still the same, they would not equal Canada in % of scientific papers produced or in new technological breakthroughs.

What else could we never expect from them?

We don't know because no one's asking. They're watching the continent burn all the while blaming everyone except the residents of that continent.


BBS Signature
Famas
Famas
  • Member since: Nov. 26, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 01:24 PM Reply

At 3/3/13 11:24 AM, poxpower wrote: No

Yes.

If you are mentally deficient in the USA, you get special help

From who? What kind of help? Social security? People without mental disabilities also have access to that.

and you can still vote

Courts can rule somebody too incompetent to vote here.

drive, own property and have children.

This sounds like basic civil rights. Like, the most basic of basic.

Plus, you can't be executed.

Uh yes you can. Texas, Florida, Arizona and Alabama are no strangers to doing this.

You're listing off legal rights though, not inalienable rights.

By comparison, millions of Americans can't vote because they have committed a crime.

Committed felonies, specifically. And it's not always permanent, it depends on the circumstances.

I think it's worth studying.

In what capacity and to what end?

How can you better help a group with an overall IQ of 60-70 in the long-term? What can you expect of them? Which of their problems are caused by themselves and which are caused by the others? Is it wise to let them have a large military or to offer military aid to them? Are they in a position to exploit their own resources? Can they ever control their populations?

You're posing this question as if the military might of Nigeria is in a position to threaten the stability of the global community or something.

There are also things you cannot expect of them. Nigeria will never be a world leader in sciences. If the GDP of Nigeria ever was the same as Canada's but their population % was still the same, they would not equal Canada in % of scientific papers produced or in new technological breakthroughs.

"Nigerians can never be scientists"

Starting to see where there's a problem with the 'point' (and I use this term loosely) that you're presenting?

What else could we never expect from them?

Why is this somehow a concern? Are you attempting to draw a link between a cultures contribution to science/academics and whether or not they have the right to exist?

We don't know because no one's asking. They're watching the continent burn all the while blaming everyone except the residents of that continent.

Read up on places like Liberia, which now has a an illiteracy rate of roughly 60% and over half of all women have been raped, and tell me with a straight face the exploitation of Africa hasn't been a rampant problem since the invention of sailing.

Do you know anything about the Cold War? About how both superpowers exploited the third world, especially African states as proxy battlefields by flooding them with cheap surplus armaments and used local geographical conflicts to their advantage in pitting groups against each other? About the US and Soviet funded Warlords who were puppets used as a means of controlling local resources? About how the Cold War era proxy wars were fueled by rampant use of child conscripts? If not, there's plenty of text out there detailing these things with plenty of archived previously classified intelligence.

So where are you attempting to go with this? You're far from being objective and even further from making a constructive point that has any real support beneath it.


"R.I.P. Gunther Hermann - 2002-2052

He wanted orange. The world gave him lemon-lime"

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 01:32 PM Reply

Of course its the third world in africa what do you expect?

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 02:35 PM Reply

At 3/2/13 09:15 PM, poxpower wrote: 1 Equatorial Guinea 59
2 Ethiopia 63
3 Sierra Leone 64
4 Democratic Republic of the Congo 65
5 Zimbabwe 66
5 Guinea 66
7 Nigeria 67

Sooooooooooo.... should the US be able to do military action there?

;;;
OK ...looking at this as if I was one of the Wallstreet banksters in control of the Government ...
I immediately have to see ...WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME ! ! !

I know #5 Zimbabwe hasn't got shit for oil ...BUT they've got huge platinum reserves, proven reserves & China's paid the Gov of Zimbabwe (ok the truth is the dictator mugabe & his cronies) a shitload of American dollars for rights to produce the platinum ... so as a wally-warlord in control of the most powerful military in the world ... killin' all the Zim's would have economic benefits ! While snubbing the chinese ~;p

Equatorial Guinea is a no brainer, bomb the shit out of them ...with proven Oil, gas & gold along with diamonds ...yep that would pay a handsome profit after payin' for the bombs !

Ethiopia they're pretty poor some small reserves of gold & petrolium, some platinum & copper ... might not be worththe trouble right away.

Sierra Leon no substantial gold production (less than 180 kilo's for last listed entire year)
another dump for later down the road.

The DRC is loaded with natural resources, & a very problematic rebel problem so blow it to hell & gone, lots of profit there.

Guinea has gold diamonds & huge reserves of premium grade iron ore ...its a taker ...I mean keeper ~;)

Nigeria , is also rich in minerals & as well with arabal land, with returnable/renewable water resources ...so it would be well worth blowing its population to hell ...

There you have it, lots of places to wage war, keep that American military machine (& all our weapons/munitions companies raking in those American tax payer dollars) well oiled while savin' the world through the barrel of a gun .....I MEAN DEMOCRACY ...yeah, that's it good ole american democracy !


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 03:30 PM Reply

All of those countries are in Africa as you just mentioned and I already know that. In fact, if you look up at the list of countries that have the highest IQs, you'll find that most of them are Asians. It's kind of sad, because doesn't that just confirm that stereotypes are true? When you think of a dumb race, you think of black people and when you think of a smart race, you think of Asians. I doubt most of those countries even care about us.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 03:39 PM Reply

At 3/3/13 02:28 AM, poxpower wrote: Yeah, show me a bunch of asians consistently getting owned by black kids in IQ tests.

Hmm, interesting. Suppose there is a black Confucian living in South Korea with Nigerian heritage who's taking the test. Do you think his IQ score would be the same if he took the test while living in Nigeria?

Show me an IQ distribution map that isn't correlated whatsoever with race.

Show me proof that race is a cause of intelligence.

All you did so far was
1. Put into the question the relation /methodology of brain size vs IQ, which is by far the weakest argument anyway and a completely separate matter from the IQs

This is literally what Rushton specializes in.

2. Ignore all of Rushton's research / conclusions because he's funded by crazy people / he's an asshole.

His views aren't supported by peer review either, so why do you expect me to have an open mind about this guy? He has no credibility within the scientific community, at all. So unless you can show me some work by the guy that isn't grounded in the same methodology seen in The Bell Curve or his trademark brain size : IQ studies, then I already know what I'm getting into, as it has been repeatedly debunked.

Ad hominem: Calling into question someone's character instead of addressing their arguments.

I wasn't calling into question his character, I was calling into question his neutrality on the subject, and considering who's funding him and the credibility of his past work, I have a tiny hunch that he isn't very neutral.

Even if Rushton was Hitler and made all his money by selling African baby bone powder, it wouldn't change any of his data.

If Rushton was Hitler and was selling African baby bone powder he'd probably have a large bias and that bias would affect methodology and the construction of the report, so I don't see what your point is.

I didn't invoke "The Bell Curve" and I'm not reading that giant wall of text. What in there specifically refutes the IQ scores?

You didn't need to, Rushton made his career on defending it so it's part of his baggage, plus the article you linked is partly written by Jensen, one of the guys who wrote the book. As for the article, all you had to lazily do was Ctrl+F "IQ" and see that the entire article places a heavy emphasis on the topic. An excerpt:

"The book is also suspect in its use of statistics. As I mentioned, virtually all its data derive from one analysis-a plotting, by a technique called multiple regression, of social behaviors that agitate us, such as crime, unemployment, and births out of wedlock (known as dependent variables), against both IQ and parental sociometric status (known as independent variables). The authors first hold IQ constant and consider the relationship of social behaviors to parental socioeconomic status. They then hold socioeconomic status constant and consider the relationship of the same social behaviors to IQ. In general, they find a higher correlation with IQ than with socioeconomic status; for example, people with low IQ are more likely to drop out of high school than people whose parents have low socioeconimic status.

But such analyses must engage two issues-the form and the strength of the relationship-and Herrnstein and Murray discuss only the issue that seems to support their viewpoint, while virtually ignoring (and in one key passage almost willfully hiding) the other. Their numerous graphs present only the form of the relationships; that is, they draw the regression curves of their variables against IQ and parental socioeconomic status. But, in violation of all statistical norms that I've even learned, they plot only the regression curve and do not show the scatter of variation around the curve, so their graphs do not show anything about the strength of the relationships-that is, the amount of variation in social factors explained by IQ and socioeconomic status. Indeed, almost all their relationships are weak: very little of the variation in social factors is explained by either independent variable (though the form of this small amount of explanation does lie in their favored direction). In short, their own data indicate that IQ is not a major factor in determining variation in nearly all the social behaviors they study-and so their conclusions collapse, or at least become so greatly attenuated that their pessimism and conservative social agenda gain no significant support."

If you want to study this, you will not get funding ( except by crazy KKK rednecks ).

Wow! So all the dozens of people who rebutted Rushton and The Bell Curve are also getting funding by crazy KKK rednecks? And the studies mentioned in those books as evidence? They too were all funded by the same people?

Well why is it that IQ in adopted children is also correlated with race?

Here:

"The highest IQs of adopted children were recorded when the SES of both the birthparents and the adoptive parents were high, and researchers found a mean IQ score of nearly 120. The lowest scores occurred when both the birthparents and adoptive parents were of low SES, and the average IQ was 92 points.

Probably the most likely actual scenario is the low SES birthparent and the high SES adoptive parent: In this case, the mean IQ score was about 104 points. (A person with an IQ score of about 100 is generally considered of "average" intelligence, and incremental increases of 10 points are significantly important.)"

So being born to low IQ parents and being adopted by bright ones will pull you up to average.
Being born to smart parents and raised by smart parents will put you well above average.
Being born to low IQ parents and being raised by low IQ parents will put you below average.

So describe to me how race is the deciding factor here, and not environment.

It's always always the same thing you hear, just hand-waving explanations about how the system or poverty is keeping people down.

Not once did I say this or imply this. Also keep in mind that not once did I ever say genetics played no role at all in IQ.

Notice that your rebuttals are from the mid-90s when a ton of research has been done since, further reinforcing every prediction that Rushton had made.

Give me some examples then.

poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 06:50 PM Reply

At 3/3/13 01:24 PM, Famas wrote:
If you are mentally deficient in the USA, you get special help
From who? What kind of help? Social security? People without mental disabilities also have access to that.

http://www.aamr.org/
The lower your IQ, the more programs and organizations exist to help you.
Though to be fair, when your IQ is 60-70, chances are you can probably manage to live alone, but not finish high school or anything like that.

Courts can rule somebody too incompetent to vote here.

There's no IQ test when you vote.

You're listing off legal rights though, not inalienable rights.

I think you have some reflecting to do on the nature of the world my friend.
haha

In what capacity and to what end?

So we know if social programs to help minorities are bullshit and a waste of money. Same with international aid.
Plus, why would you even ask that? Knowledge is knowledge.

"Nigerians can never be scientists"

Do you know what an "average" is?

Why is this somehow a concern? Are you attempting to draw a link between a cultures contribution to science/academics and whether or not they have the right to exist?

What nonsense.

Read up on places like Liberia

I did. Nothing whatsoever convinces me that the state of their countries is solely ( or mainly ) the fault of anyone but themselves.
But that's not the point of this topic.

At 3/3/13 03:39 PM, Feoric wrote:
Hmm, interesting. Suppose there is a black Confucian living in South Korea with Nigerian heritage who's taking the test. Do you think his IQ score would be the same if he took the test while living in Nigeria?

Black people in other countries also have lower average IQs, and asian people outside of their origin countries also score higher.

Show me proof that race is a cause of intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_
Study

This kind of study has been done endless times always with the same results.

And always this is blamed on racism, which is bullshit as it does not explain
1- Why asians score higher than whites
2- Why children of mixed ethnicity who don't even know they had black parents ( and no one does really ) have lower IQs

This is literally what Rushton specializes in.

Well have fun reading his rebuttal to Gould.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Gould.pdf

So unless you can show me some work by the guy

He's not the one doing the studies, he just gathers the data.
Data that people admit have the same results that he claims. Where he explains those results by genetics, the others will always use the hand-waving "oh it's just culture/ racism" explanation, citing that it's impossible to control for racism.

Who's disputing these twin / adoption studies??? All they do is attack him on the grounds that his conclusions are too hasty and that we shouldn't even try to gather more data because it's too racist-sounding.

garblarrgle

Again, no clue what that giant wall of text even means.
All I'm seeing is a sad attempt to explain away mass amounts of data by saying they did a couple graphs in the book wrong.

They don't call into question the results or show that they are false or opposite, they just have the same hand-waving explanation that "oh well there's obviously a correlation but maybe not causation".

Yeah dream on.


Wow! So all the dozens of people who rebutted Rushton and The Bell Curve are also getting funding by crazy KKK rednecks? And the studies mentioned in those books as evidence? They too were all funded by the same people?

Wtf.
There's obvious political gain to be made by being against Rushton. His findings and viewpoints are hugely unpopular.
Books like Guns, Germs and Steel sell TONS of copies because they reiterate this idea that everyone is really just equal and whatever your lot in life is is due to luck or the oppression of others.

Using the same data as Rushton, they posit the opposite hypothesis, that environemental factors account for ALL of the variance, while at the same time saying that Rushton can't control for racism or whatever shit.

So THEY get to say that racism / culture is definitely the cause, but he can't say that it's genetics, even though his side is hugely more logical, likely and supported by evidence.

So being born to low IQ parents and being adopted by bright ones will pull you up to average.

Again Rushton never denies that environmental factors play a large role.

So describe to me how race is the deciding factor here, and not environment.

Race is not always the deciding factor, it's just a huge factor.
Given the same upbringing by the same parents, race will be the biggest factor. But given different situations, race will play less of a role than education, money, nutrition etc.

All things being equal, you can predict who will score what on the tests no matter what and at every young ages ( which blows the whole racism / culture bullshit out of the water ).

Give me some examples then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligenc e_%28book%29

That book's got dozens of studies.
Probably. Not that I read it. Haha.

All you'll ever find as rebuttals are people going for minutia, like "OH LOOK AT THIS COUNTRY, THEY CAN'T HAVE DATA FOR THAT ONE!!".

The data's become even clearer in the last 15 years, but again it's EXTREMELY politically unpopular. Just look at people's reaction here.

I love it.


BBS Signature
Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 07:09 PM Reply

At 3/2/13 11:06 PM, Korriken wrote: wow pox, I didn't think you had it in you.

Why are you so surprised that all of someone's opinions don't fit into a neat stereotype?

Famas
Famas
  • Member since: Nov. 26, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 07:18 PM Reply

At 3/3/13 06:50 PM, poxpower wrote:
http://www.aamr.org/
The lower your IQ, the more programs and organizations exist to help you.

There are institutes and social programs for people that fall into a wide range of categories, I'm not entirely sure why you're focusing in on peoples with mental disabilities and linking the AAMR website as if it provides empirical support for your main argument.

"The older you are, the more programs and organizations exist to help you" Source: http://www.aarp.org/ , http://hospicenet.org/ , http://seniorcare-corp.com/

There's no IQ test when you vote.

That's not what I said. I said that courts can rule somebody too incompetent to vote. So yes, indeed, there are plenty of instances where somebody who lives with a mental handicap can have their voting rights taken away.

I think you have some reflecting to do on the nature of the world my friend.
haha

Why is that, exactly? This stems from you avoiding the fact that the question you posed to me directly correlated somebody's intelligence with their inalienable right to exist, which is about a sentence and a half away from promoting eugenics.

So we know if social programs to help minorities are bullshit and a waste of money. Same with international aid.

Again, are you directly correlating someone's intelligence to whether or not they deserve a certain quality of life?

And what 'minorities' are you talking about? Nigerians in Nigeria aren't a minority. Are you talking about within the United States? Are you saying "Black people are mentally retarded and therefore should not be entitled to social welfare programs"? Are you proposing that welfare/medicare recipients be made to take IQ tests before receiving Federal aid?

Plus, why would you even ask that? Knowledge is knowledge.

Great reasoning. Some knowledge is not worth any sort of time investment. There is no inherent need, nor is it a noble pursuit, to find out if ant venom makes for a suitable sexual lubricant. You can't defend your non existent point by saying "I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS, MAN". You need to have a clear or otherwise productive objective.

Do you know what an "average" is?

Do you know how to conduct a conversation without being patronizing to somebody who is being rather patient with you?

Why is this somehow a concern? Are you attempting to draw a link between a cultures contribution to science/academics and whether or not they have the right to exist?
What nonsense.

How is that question nonsense? You're deflecting questions, not answering them.

I did. Nothing whatsoever convinces me that the state of their countries is solely ( or mainly ) the fault of anyone but themselves.

You very clearly did not read much into Liberia if you did not understand the extent the United States exploited the country and what conditions it was left in after its use as a US ally was depleted. I also like how you completely ignore the crucial point about the Cold War that I brought up, as it puts a real anchor on your point that can barely swim on its own as is.

But that's not the point of this topic.

What is, pray tell?


"R.I.P. Gunther Hermann - 2002-2052

He wanted orange. The world gave him lemon-lime"

BBS Signature
JRob
JRob
  • Member since: Nov. 10, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 07:37 PM Reply

At 3/2/13 10:05 PM, poxpower wrote: Sadly, they can still vote :D
Can't kill em', but they can choose who's the President.

Every single presidential election in a nutshell.

And on the topic of the post - do any of the countries listed above even pose a threat to us anyways? Why would we even need military action there?


6:31 PM - 平沢 唯: apparently theres an autism club on NG
6:31 PM - PandAlma: autsim club ? Seriously ?
6:31 PM - PandAlma: That may explain a lot

BBS Signature
poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 10:00 PM Reply

At 3/3/13 07:18 PM, Famas wrote:
There are institutes and social programs for people that fall into a wide range of categories, I'm not entirely sure why you're focusing in on peoples with mental disabilities and linking the AAMR website as if it provides empirical support for your main argument.

It's because you asked what help there was available for mentally deficient people, as if there was somehow none.
I'm not sure what you think my main argument is :O

The point is that we treat people with low IQs a certain way with certain expectations in this country. We don't wonder why someone with a 60 point IQ can't be an engineer but for some reasons it's racist / cultural when an entire country can't be expected to produce a high yield of high tech people.

What chances would a country like that have in a competing hightech industry? By the very nature of their IQs, they are relegated to manual tasks and tasks requiring almost no education.

Why is that a fact in the USA but racist when applied overseas? We'd never ask that people with a <70 point IQ just pick themselves up by their bootstraps and just work harder to get a law degree. We all understand it ain't happening.

So.

Apply this to a country where the average is 70. Don't you think it's a mistake to try to turn them into us, as we do? They will invariably have a different kind of society with different needs / interests / problems.

To not study this is to not know what to expect of them. You'd be wasting your time and money trying to match their level of college education to Japan's. It's not going to happen. It's not realist to try. If you knew this, you wouldn't attempt or expect such a thing and people wouldn't make stupid-ass TEDtalks about "problems" like this as they're not problems, they're simply exactly what you'd expect.

Is it a "problem" in America if someone with a mental deficiency can't finish college? Do we lower standards for them? No, we just go "well that sucks for him, he should find some other occupation".

That's not what I said. I said that courts can rule somebody too incompetent to vote.

Yeah but no one checks what your IQ is at the booth so you're not penalized for being deficient unless you are extremely severely so. People with 50 point IQs can still live on their own and vote. Those are people who struggle to finish PRIMARY school.

This stems from you avoiding the fact that the question you posed to me directly correlated somebody's intelligence with their inalienable right to exist, which is about a sentence and a half away from promoting eugenics.

No that's all you conjuring this up.
The worst part is that you acted like you were just interested in where I was going with this when you clearly had already decided I was some kind of hardcore racist eugenist before your first reply.

There's no inalienable rights btw. That's a construct that is only enforced by legal institutions, just the same as any law.

And what 'minorities' are you talking about?

In the countries where they are minorities, they are often given special organizations / programs to help them. These programs are based on the assumption that we should expect them to always perform exactly as well as everyone else and as long as they under perform, it's everyone else's fault and not their own.

If the expected IQ scores of black kids was 90, and it actually turns out it was 90, then there would be no need for spending any money to help them academically as they would be scoring exactly as predicted.

You understand now? If you falsely assume that everyone's IQ score ( and by extention academic achievements ) should be the same, you will waste time and money trying to bring up some groups while depriving others.

For instance, if an asian is expected to get 106 and only get 95, he's doing worse than a black who gets 80 when 90 was expected, yet it'll seem that the asian kid is doing fine whereas the black kid is in trouble, because he's 15 points behind.

This creates a false problem and ignores a real one.

That's just one example of how to apply this kind of knowledge.

Great reasoning. Some knowledge is not worth any sort of time investment.

You only know that in hindsight. Welcome to science. No one predicted things like the television or behavioral economics. They just happened because some people were curious.


BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 11:10 PM Reply

At 3/3/13 07:09 PM, Entice wrote:
At 3/2/13 11:06 PM, Korriken wrote: wow pox, I didn't think you had it in you.
Why are you so surprised that all of someone's opinions don't fit into a neat stereotype?

This actually fits the stereotype that is only further perpetrated by the racial break down of college student at top universities.

orangebomb
orangebomb
  • Member since: Mar. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Gamer
Response to Mentally retarded countries Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 11:26 PM Reply

Let's see here, severe cases of malnutrition, constant fighting over just about everything that is considered valuable, the lack of control by governments, {or even in some cases, no government at all} and virtually no education system worth its salt, it's no wonder why countries would be retarded, especially when they can't get their priorities straight.

Here's a big difference between the mentally deficient people in America and in Africa. In America, they have an opportunity to make something out of their lives, and are able to get an education even with their disability, as well as getting support through charitable means or through the government. Africa on the other hand, has none of these things available to them for a myriad of reasons, and to even compare their low IQ to mental retardation in America is simply ludicrous.

That's what happens when much of a continent is a place where they can't adapt to modern society on a grand scale, and end up turning to shit because of corrupt governments or the abundance of stupid people.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature