After discussing this topic over several threads I have come to the conclusion that nothing productive has been accomplished, and no information has been shared. The caliber of discussion is very low and the topics are being muddied by intellectual dishonesty and straw-man arguments. Instead of asking questions that would have illuminated the topic, commentators became butt-hurt and begin using the typical anti-intellectual deflections so common among black people.

To reiterate my position: I think the majority of problems affecting blacks are caused by the below average heritable IQ of the population. This will not be solved by practical improvements in environment and thus the only solution will be selective reproduction.

Unlike my previous threads, this topic will be strictly intellectual and I will not respond to people who do not have a level of understanding needed to discuss this issue. Most nairalanders do not know how to have an intellectual discussion so i'm going to break down my position into 4 sequential premises that should be argued separately:

1. Possibility. Do you believe that variations in human IQ and behavior are impossible? If so, why?

2. Evidence. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that IQ/behavior can vary between races, but disagree with the evidence as to whether or not bad genes have actually manifested in black people: Why? You cannot argue this premise unless you have accepted premise 1.

3. What is the solution? If you have accepted the fact that the black race suffers from below average IQ/negative behaviors, but don't think Eugenics would actually solve this problem: Why?

4. If you have accepted the fact that black people suffer from below average IQ and that Eugenics will solve the problem, but disagree with the ethnics of eugenics: Why?

-these positions must be argued sequentially. If you want to argue with me on a position that means you have implicitly agreed with everything above it.

I do have two questions of my own that I would ask before I leave the board for a while. I'll answer your own questions when I come back. As I said earlier, I'll probably want to go with a different line of argument from anything I said in the first eugenics thread, since I wasn't really able to convince you of anything in that thread.

1. I recall a while ago you had a "final nail in the coffin" thread to try and prove that black people were inherently more aggressive because of a supposed connection between melanin and adrenaline. Now while I did not see anything you had posted at the time in that thread that really suggested that what you were claiming was correct, one thing I came across later (after the thread was already dead), which, while it was not about melanin or adrenaline, does seem generally related to your overall idea: I came across some information on research into ethnic differences in variants of the so-called "warrior gene" (https://scientiasalon./2014/07/31/the-extreme-warrior-gene-a-reality-check/), MAOA. Since engaging in any amateurish speculation about the significance of the MAOA gene itself (neither of us are biologists, if I recall) or its relationship to ethnicity would be pointless, I won't comment on it directly right now. One thing that occurred to me after looking at your recent posts is this: what if there are certain things you cannot change through eugenics? What if, after the huge eugenic program is carried out, you still have some behaviors or traits in the resulting higher IQ population that just do not go away, despite the increase in IQ? Some sort of permanent or persistent behavior that cannot be removed just by crude methods like selective breeding alone?

NB: I am not saying I admit that the majority of the significant problems that exist now (aggression, corruption, thuggery, etc.) among some black populations worldwide are actually solely or even mostly due to genetics or IQ, rather than environment/culture/history/poverty/etc. I am saying that if these problems among a population were in fact due to genetics and IQ, and you managed to modify the target population's genes and IQ over time through a eugenics program, but simply were not able to eliminate the prevalence of some undesirable gene or set of behaviors through your methods, what would you do then? If it all turns out to be a waste of time (and lives)?


2. Pleep, you are probably aware that there is an idea that has been brought up repeatedly in the IQ debate, originating from statistics, called regression to the mean, which is emphasized especially by some of those who promote these same IQ claims you have repeated on the forum. The idea basically implies that there is no practical way to substantially raise the IQ of large populations through "positive" eugenics (selective breeding of smart people) alone, since, according to this idea high IQ parents will usually have children who are less intelligent than their (high IQ) parents while low IQ parents will have children who are more intelligent than their (low IQ) parents, essentially leading to a population with an average IQ that was little different from whatever average the population started with. Now if one removes the low IQ parents as a factor (through whatever means - I get the impression from your posts that you actually want to sterilize low IQ people, which I consider extremely unethical, as you probably already know) then one will only have average IQ and high IQ people, but the implication of the regression to the mean idea, if it is actually completely true (and not just uncertain theory), is that the gain in average IQ of the population will never be substantial at all unless one removes an enormous amount - perhaps the entirety - of the below average to low IQ population so that the value of the average IQ of the population is boosted significantly. If that were done - and only if that were done - over time (and we don't know how long a period of time, but it could take several generations, and not by any means be an overnight improvement), the mean to which the children of two high IQ parents (or one high IQ + one average IQ) would eventually regress may actually be significantly higher than it originally would have been. According to this theory, 1) if you hitch two ~130 IQ people together, and they have a child and this child's IQ regresses towards the mean (setting the mean = 100), yielding an IQ of ~115 by the time he or she is mature, and 2) at the same time this is happening, two ~70 IQ people hook up, have a child, and this child's IQ regresses toward the mean, yielding an IQ of ~85 by maturity, and 3) all the average IQ people in the population are hooking up and mostly giving birth to average IQ children, with some bright ones and some not-so-bright ones here and there, as expected, then:

You've done nothing to improve the average IQ of the population. It's pretty much guaranteed to be the same.

Basically, if this view of things (the regression to the mean) is completely accurate, then unless you are willing to literally stop people who do not meet your IQ cutoff mark from reproducing - and prevent the existence of the descendants of not just a few of them, but basically a huge portion of those on the left of the bell curve for the target population - then whatever eugenic program you carry out will likely have little effect. And if you were to do this, and carry out that extremely immoral sterilization program, you would not even get the results you seek until some generations down the line as the genetic history of the population won't have automatically changed the minute you sterilize the millions of people you plan on eliminating from the gene pool.

Feel free to take your time to respond in detail if you need to since I won't be back on the forum for several days.

PhysicsQED:
I do have two questions of my own that I would ask before I leave the board for a while. I'll answer your own questions when I come back. As I said earlier, I'll probably want to go with a different line of argument from anything I said in the first eugenics thread, since I wasn't really able to convince you of anything in that thread.

1. I recall a while ago you had a "final nail in the coffin" thread to try and prove that black people were inherently more aggressive because of a supposed connection between melanin and adrenaline. Now while I did not see anything you had posted at the time in that thread that really suggested that what you were claiming was correct, one thing I came across later (after the thread was already dead), which, while it was not about melanin or adrenaline, does seem generally related to your overall idea: I came across some information on research into ethnic differences in variants of the so-called "warrior gene" (https://scientiasalon./2014/07/31/the-extreme-warrior-gene-a-reality-check/), MAOA. Since engaging in any amateurish speculation about the significance of the MAOA gene itself (neither of us are biologists, if I recall) or its relationship to ethnicity would be pointless, I won't comment on it directly right now. One thing that occurred to me after looking at your recent posts is this: what if there are certain things you cannot change through eugenics? What if, after the huge eugenic program is carried out, you still have some behaviors or traits in the resulting higher IQ population that just do not go away, despite the increase in IQ? Some sort of permanent or persistent behavior that cannot be removed just by crude methods like selective breeding alone?

NB: I am not saying I admit that the majority of the significant problems that exist now (aggression, corruption, thuggery, etc.) among some black populations worldwide are actually solely or even mostly due to genetics or IQ, rather than environment/culture/history/poverty/etc. I am saying that if these problems among a population were in fact due to genetics and IQ, and you managed to modify the target population's genes and IQ over time through a eugenics program, but simply were not able to eliminate the prevalence of some undesirable gene or set of behaviors through your methods, what would you do then? If it all turns out to be a waste of time (and lives)?

First off, excellent points. It is so refreshing to interact with someone who actually has a brain on this forum. I'm going to answer this first part today and maybe get into the other points tm.

I'm almost certain that even if eugenics was successful and the average IQ of black people was raised there would still be significant behavioral differences between the black race and other races. The good news is that I believe that almost all of these things will be positive in that context (within a race of say 115 average IQ), even if they are detrimental in the present context (a race of 75 average IQ). In addition, most of the differences which are negative are simply side effects of low IQ.

In my heart I believe that black people are the best race on planet earth, objectively. This is why I have a unique sense of pride that is unaffected by any negative information which rationality forces me to accept. I have always likened black people to a genius with ADD or an unpolished diamond, remove the layer of dirt and the brilliance of the black race will shine through. There are certain non IQ related differences between blacks and non-blacks that are self evident, most notably of which is higher libido in both males and females. There is no intellectually honest person who will say that black libido is comparable to a population like Japan for example, where around 40% of young single people are not interested in sex or romance. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/06/22/national/social-issues/nearly-40-of-single-japanese-not-interested-in-romance-survey/ I don't believe this dichotomy is caused environment, culture or wealth (evidenced by a non-extant AIDS rate even in the poorest north Asian countries like Mongolia or N. Korea). No matter how high the IQ or prosperity of black people becomes, the libido will remain.

On a slightly related note, i'm sure you have noticed the almost pathological attraction many non-black women have for black men. I believe the attraction that these women have to men of African decent is fundamentally different than any other attraction from women to men. Unlike, for example, the Asian attraction to white men which is based largely on status, the attraction women have black men is more akin to a primal sexual instinct, very visual.

There is no other race where something like this occurs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNX9ky_5klk

Which takes me to another significant difference between blacks and non-blacks which is slightly related; black peoples understanding of race/ethnicity seems to be fundamentally different than other groups. Blacks see person first, appearance second, and the two don't seem to be as intertwined as in other groups. This might seem to contradict with the rampant tribalism and ethnic warfare that plagues Africa but perform this thought experiment to illustrate my point; Imagine a scenario, where religion, occultism and history are gone. Place an African child in a white European village and place a white child in a black African village. Within a few years i'm sure the white child would be doing quite fine among the Africans, once people grow accustomed to his unusual appearance his difference will be accepted and perhaps even appreciated. The black child in Europe, on the other hand, would not fare nearly as well and perhaps even worse if he was placed in Asia instead of Europe.

Native/Meso Americans also seemed (historically) to display a commensurate lack of aversion to the physically distinct outsider. This could be a manifestation of development stage if it is not based on heredity.

But anyway, we must remember that black people are violent, reactionary, (and for now poor and dumb) this makes ethnic conflict inevitable. Would a high IQ population of black people be capable of the extreme systematic annihilation of oppressed groups to prove racial superiority? I don't think so. But regardless, this is a very tentative theory I wouldn't bet on it either way.

Black people are also more creative, friendly, open and carefree, all of these things would reach their full positive potential in a higher IQ population. There is no realistic situation where raising the intelligence of a population would be a waste of time. At the very least, if blacks were smarter they would understand the futility of scapegoating all the races problems on outside forces.

PhysicsQED:


And if you were to do this, and carry out that extremely immoral sterilization program, you would not even get the results you seek until some generations down the line as the genetic history of the population won't have automatically changed the minute you sterilize the millions of people you plan on eliminating from the gene pool.

There is no one who can provide a reasonable argument as to why eugenics, as I propose it, is unethical without using the slippy slope fallacy, double-standards or inconsistent logic.

Human morality and worldview swings to extremes. Intellectuals are not free from the hive-mind and biases of their era, they are just better at rationalizing them. Right now modern society is in a backlash against racism and eugenics, this backlash is a response to the horrors of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany. However, just as Nazi racism was a blind and irrational worldview so is modern liberalism albeit in a different direction.

Why would it be unethical to sterilize a person like this? Why is modern society willing to condone the genetic decline of the human race and the tangible suffering of future generations? This blind biased view of ethnics is inevitable in a worldview that exists only as a backlash to another. We see the same trend in other liberal worldviews like feminism which overcompensate in their reaction to a past wrong.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUW2vCPX7w

So now we have 2 retarded/poor black people who have created 15 retarded black people, who in total will probably create up to 75 retarded black people. Even if some of these offspring could have ended up normal, their environment and upbringing will stunt their IQ and they will still carry those negative genes which manifested as stupidity in their parents. This mass of slow people will create untold suffering in the world and create economic burden on society, all which could have been prevented if that mother had been sterilized.

Ethical My Ass

PhysicsQED:


2. Pleep, you are probably aware that there is an idea that has been brought up repeatedly in the IQ debate, originating from statistics, called regression to the mean, which is emphasized especially by some of those who promote these same IQ claims you have repeated on the forum. The idea basically implies that there is no practical way to substantially raise the IQ of large populations through "positive" eugenics (selective breeding of smart people) alone, since, according to this idea high IQ parents will usually have children who are less intelligent than their (high IQ) parents while low IQ parents will have children who are more intelligent than their (low IQ) parents, essentially leading to a population with an average IQ that was little different from whatever average the population started with. Now if one removes the low IQ parents as a factor (through whatever means - I get the impression from your posts that you actually want to sterilize low IQ people, which I consider extremely unethical, as you probably already know) then one will only have average IQ and high IQ people, but the implication of the regression to the mean idea, if it is actually completely true (and not just uncertain theory), is that the gain in average IQ of the population will never be substantial at all unless one removes an enormous amount - perhaps the entirety - of the below average to low IQ population so that the value of the average IQ of the population is boosted significantly. If that were done - and only if that were done - over time (and we don't know how long a period of time, but it could take several generations, and not by any means be an overnight improvement), the mean to which the children of two high IQ parents (or one high IQ + one average IQ) would eventually regress may actually be significantly higher than it originally would have been. According to this theory, 1) if you hitch two ~130 IQ people together, and they have a child and this child's IQ regresses towards the mean (setting the mean = 100), yielding an IQ of ~115 by the time he or she is mature, and 2) at the same time this is happening, two ~70 IQ people hook up, have a child, and this child's IQ regresses toward the mean, yielding an IQ of ~85 by maturity, and 3) all the average IQ people in the population are hooking up and mostly giving birth to average IQ children, with some bright ones and some not-so-bright ones here and there, as expected, then:

You've done nothing to improve the average IQ of the population. It's pretty much guaranteed to be the same.

Believe it or not, I don't read those HBT blogs, they are complete idiots. A bunch of insecure white boys, one standard deviation away from the trailer park, creating hare-brained theories filled with bias and rigid nonsensical correlations. I think the Regression to the Mean Theory is a good example of their binary reasoning.

Basically, the only way to make sense of that idea is by assuming that the races are difference species (which is incorrect) and that every person in a particular race has a predetermined IQ bell curve. This means that any black person who ends up smart is still a carrier of the same genes that make a dumb black person dumb. This is not how heredity works. In fact the only way this theory would hold out is if people in a population was selecting sexual partners at random. That is, if a man with an IQ of 140 is just as likely to mate with a woman with an IQ of 60 as he is to mate with someone around his own intelligence. This is not the case, but if it was then yes, regression to the mean would occur.

To take it a step further: The standard deviation of the population would decrease and over time everyone would be pulled to the average IQ.

The reality is that high IQ women typically mate with high IQ men. When this occurs the result is, in effect, a separate population that regresses to its own mean. If you combine the two populations and look the distribution on a bell curve, you would see a higher standard deviation and longer tails when compared to the theoretical population that reproduces at random. Personally, I believe that if this goes on for long enough human IQ will no longer follow a Gaussian distribution and start to become something akin to HG Wells novel "The Time Machine."

The very existence of human IQ variance between races implicitly suggests that natural Eugenic factors were at work in certain populations, but not in others. Animal domestication proves this also. Selecting for certain traits increases the frequency of those traits; basic heredity. The Regression to the Mean Theory as an argument against eugenics is nonsense.

PhysicsQED:
unless you are willing to literally stop people who do not meet your IQ cutoff mark from reproducing - and prevent the existence of the descendants of not just a few of them, but basically a huge portion of those on the left of the bell curve for the target population - then whatever eugenic program you carry out will likely have little effect. And if you were to do this, and carry out that extremely immoral sterilization program, you would not even get the results you seek until some generations down the line as the genetic history of the population won't have automatically changed the minute you sterilize the millions of people you plan on eliminating from the gene pool.

Feel free to take your time to respond in detail if you need to since I won't be back on the forum for several days.

I'm going to illustrate my understanding of what a successful IQ-development program would look like, lets use Namibia for example. This is a country that would be perfect for such a program, as would Swaziland, Lesotho and Equatorial Guinea.

Population: 3,000,000

Average IQ: 74

IQ- development, as I understand it, is not just about preventing dumb people from reproducing it is also about making sure that the best genes are passed down to the future. This involves no coercion; the majority of Africans live on two dollars a day and it would not be difficult to provide satisfactory compensation for everyone involved. The people in question are poor already, there is the added benefit of making their lives easier by alleviating the burden of large families on people who are already struggling.

Contraceptives like Depo-Provera and ValsaGel can provide safe long-term fertility reduction. These drugs are reversible.

The first step would be to increase the difficulty of primary and secondary education, creating an IQ ceiling of around 100 for graduating high school. Students who do not meet this mark will be steered towards vocational education. Thus, the value of a high school degree will carry the weight that a college degree does currently, saving citizens of average intelligence the financial burden of paying for useless university degrees while creating a vast unskilled and semi-skilled workforce.

The students who are qualified for university, fall into 2 brackets: IQ of 115+ and IQ of 134 +. Students who score above 134 are a nations most valuable resource. These students should not be temped to leave the country, to this end they will payed a stipend and educated for free. In a country like Namibia, home to uranium deposits and vast mineral wealth, university education should be in subjects like; Nuclear/Electrical/Petroleum Engineering, Geology and Chemistry. (These are the types of skills Africa needs to exploit her natural resources, humanities should be taught in secondary school, or learned at home.) According to ghetto-statistics, the number of people qualified to attend the top-tier college should be (guesstimating) 1/10,000. 300 in the entire population of 3,000,000. The males will be payed $50 each to donate sperm to a sperm bank.

People like this are less than 1/10,000,000 these genetics are worth their weight in gold.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD4X7a0J_ng

On the other end of the bell-curve, the bottom 16 percent, (480,000 people in a population of 3 million) will be categorized as low functioning. These people are around 59 IQ and below. People at 59 IQ are able to do simple menial tasks, people below 50 are unemployable and need government help to have a realistic role in a modern economy. These are the Boko Haram. If they are not taken under the wing of the government they will tear down the society. The men in this category will be given the option to, for compensation, revive a ten year birth control injection called Valsagel that can be reversed at any time. These men will also be given a job and a place to live. The women will be given the option of artificial insemination by the sperm of the 130+ men who donated at the university.

The prospect of smarter children gives the low IQ woman an option for social mobility. These children can graduate high school, maybe even go to college and lift their entire family out of poverty. The average IQ of these children will be a full standard deviation greater than the current mean of 74. In several generations the average IQ of the nation that undergoes an IQ-development program will rise to first world levels.

Ben Carson


Is I.Q a reliable measure of intelligence?

MorrowCaligari:
Ben Carson

Is I.Q a reliable measure of intelligence?

Ask that on my other thread.

@pleep

1. Possibility. Do you believe that variations in human IQ and behavior are impossible? If so, why?

No I don't believe it is impossible to have variations in human IQ. Reason - From my little knowledge of biology, our genes code for many proteins, that leads to many different phenotype; genes splice themselves differently at times, undergo mutations or deletions so it makes sense to say that the genes that code for IQ can also undergo variations and mutations. For some mutations we don't see any noticeable change in phenotype, but in some we see these changes. Phenotype- is the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.

2. Evidence. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that IQ/behavior can vary between races, but disagree with the evidence as to whether or not bad genes have actually manifested in black people: Why? You cannot argue this premise unless you have accepted premise 1.

Yes I acknowledge it can vary between races from my point 1. From the definition of phenotype we see that there is an interaction between our genes and environment. The races are localized in different geographical locations. And we tend to adapt to whatever challenges the environment throws back at us. Now do not limit environment to geography, climate change, etc but also include the races approach to social norms, reception to knowledge- finding this knowledge and reception to change. Now I would make an assumption that this other environmental factors which interact with the genetic codes over the years have framed how the IQ are arranged. From what we garner from biology, the continuous demand the environment places on us, positions our genes to rearrange themselves to that circumstance. With that I can make an assumption that certain races prioritized on different things and the thirst for knowledge may just be what certain races prioritized on. There is a theory out there that says it's easier to use Chinese, Japanese, Korean languages with understanding maths. So these external factors may work in favor of certain genes thereby increasing the viability of genes that code for IQ in these populations.

3. What is the solution? If you have accepted the fact that the black race suffers from below average IQ/negative behaviors, but don't think Eugenics would actually solve this problem: Why? 4. If you have accepted the fact that black people suffer from below average IQ and that Eugenics will solve the problem, but disagree with the ethnics of eugenics: Why?

Only from a sentimental point of view am I averse to eugenics. The idea of eugenics is rational but I don't believe I have such moral rights to pursue such a cause. I think you have already provided a solution. Africa needs to retain its best to develop.

I knew this was pleep as soon as I saw the title of the thread.

Give it up pleep you've been on the same stuff for 3-4 years now. You had the same argument between your self and physicsPHD 3-4 years ago. except it was concerning Jews. You've rehashed the same topic countless times now. Matter of fact I just replied to one of your nonsense topics a couple months ago dealing with the same thing( https://www.nairaland.com/2233409/black-race-iq-intelligence-eugenics ) .....It's getting old.

If you have personal demons because someone "lied to you" about African history or what ever it was you said had happened to you, then deal with that. If you need assistance in dealing with it at least be upfront about the fact so everyone knows what the deal is.

I feel like I'm the only one who remembers pleeps issues.

Stillfire:
@pleep


No I don't believe it is impossible to have variations in human IQ. Reason - From my little knowledge of biology, our genes code for many proteins, that leads to many different phenotype; genes splice themselves differently at times, undergo mutations or deletions so it makes sense to say that the genes that code for IQ can also undergo variations and mutations. For some mutations we don't see any noticeable change in phenotype, but in some we see these changes. Phenotype- is the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.



Yes I acknowledge it can vary between races from my point 1. From the definition of phenotype we see that there is an interaction between our genes and environment. The races are localized in different geographical locations. And we tend to adapt to whatever challenges the environment throws back at us. Now do not limit environment to geography, climate change, etc but also include the races approach to social norms, reception to knowledge- finding this knowledge and reception to change. Now I would make an assumption that this other environmental factors which interact with the genetic codes over the years have framed how the IQ are arranged. From what we garner from biology, the continuous demand the environment places on us, positions our genes to rearrange themselves to that circumstance. With that I can make an assumption that certain races prioritized on different things and the thirst for knowledge may just be what certain races prioritized on. There is a theory out there that says it's easier to use Chinese, Japanese, Korean languages with understanding maths. So these external factors may work in favor of certain genes thereby increasing the viability of genes that code for IQ in these populations.



Only from a sentimental point of view am I averse to eugenics. The idea of eugenics is rational but I don't believe I have such moral rights to pursue such a cause. I think you have already provided a solution. Africa needs to retain its best to develop.

I respect your opinion on eugenics, it can be a tough pill to swallow. I still have to ask you though; can you identify what specific element of Eugenics you feel is morally wrong?

Do you feel like it is wrong to ask certain people to make sacrifices for the greater good?

Isn't it the responsibility of all of us living today to create a better future for future generations? If so, why would you feel that its immoral to perform the action that will provide the best possible benefit to your people and solve most of Africas problems? There is a sense of urgency, this current path Africa is on will lead to great suffering and no black person anywhere on the planet will be able to turn a blind eye to it. The world is growing tired of black people, even as we speak millions of low IQ Africans are spilling out of the continent and awakening the spirit of racism everywhere they go.

How long do you think this will continue before the world says enough and leaves these black people do die? As I mentioned, human behavior moves like a pendulum. Multiculturalism is currently in vogue but this will not last forever. Racism and nationalism will return to the western mainstream and when that happens black people will die:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOGSBHqRDuw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmqOlxNQABI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWrGSndkf6U

Where is the honor, the humanity in this? Africans are breeding like rats and being treated like rats, we are loosing our human dignity. Within 50 years race relations will be at 1940's levels, mark my words.

As the world runs shorter on natural resources we will see colonization 2.0. The technological gap between blacks and whites is greater now than it was when the British used Gatlin Guns on Zulu Warriors. Africa, and black people in general are screwed in every sense of the word. What we need is geniuses, and the real immorality is letting the low functioning breed black genius out of existence when we need it more than ever.

pleep:
After discussing this topic over several threads I have come to the conclusion that nothing productive has been accomplished, and no information has been shared. The caliber of discussion is very low and the topics are being muddied by intellectual dishonesty and straw-man arguments. Instead of asking questions that would have illuminated the topic, commentators became butt-hurt and begin using the typical anti-intellectual deflections so common among black people.

To reiterate my position: I think the majority of problems affecting blacks are caused by the below average heritable IQ of the population. This will not be solved by practical improvements in environment and thus the only solution will be selective reproduction.

Unlike my previous threads, this topic will be strictly intellectual and I will not respond to people who do not have a level of understanding needed to discuss this issue. Most nairalanders do not know how to have an intellectual discussion so i'm going to break down my position into 4 sequential premises that should be argued separately:

You are not really arguing properly here.
There is a great difference between true arguments and sophistry.

pleep:

1. Possibility. Do you believe that variations in human IQ and behavior are impossible? If so, why?

There are at least 9 types of intelligence (http://skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm). So what exactly do you mean by IQ?

pleep:

2. Evidence. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that IQ/behavior can vary between races, but disagree with the evidence as to whether or not bad genes have actually manifested in black people: Why? You cannot argue this premise unless you have accepted premise 1.

Mumu. You cannot use dubious test scores for 400 people to make sweeping generalizations about the remaining 1 Billion.

pleep:

3. What is the solution? If you have accepted the fact that the black race suffers from below average IQ/negative behaviors, but don't think Eugenics would actually solve this problem: Why?

The best solution is to apply Eugenics to yourself, so that you do not infect others with your crass stupidity.

pleep:

4. If you have accepted the fact that black people suffer from below average IQ and that Eugenics will solve the problem, but disagree with the ethnics of eugenics: Why?

IQ is a dubious concept.
You cannot validly jump from the dubious concept of IQ to the evil concept of Eugenics.
Eugenics is evil, do not spend your time entertaining evil thoughts against other people.
Get a life

pleep:


4. If you have accepted the fact that black people suffer from below average IQ and that Eugenics will solve the problem, but disagree with the ethnics of eugenics: Why?

Since your IQ is so high, prove to us that you are smarter than this man ==>

Rutgers University Website

http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~mlittman/courses/cs105-06b/lectures/17parallel.pdf

The Nine Types of Intelligence

By Howard Gardner
http://skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm



1. Naturalist Intelligence (“Nature Smart”)
Designates the human ability to discriminate among living things (plants, animals) as well as sensitivity to other features of the natural world (clouds, rock configurations). This ability was clearly of value in our evolutionary past as hunters, gatherers, and farmers; it continues to be central in such roles as botanist or chef. It is also speculated that much of our consumer society exploits the naturalist intelligences, which can be mobilized in the discrimination among cars, sneakers, kinds of makeup, and the like.



2. Musical Intelligence (“Musical Smart”)
Musical intelligence is the capacity to discern pitch, rhythm, timbre, and tone. This intelligence enables us to recognize, create, reproduce, and reflect on music, as demonstrated by composers, conductors, musicians, vocalist, and sensitive listeners. Interestingly, there is often an affective connection between music and the emotions; and mathematical and musical intelligences may share common thinking processes. Young adults with this kind of intelligence are usually singing or drumming to themselves. They are usually quite aware of sounds others may miss.



3. Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (Number/Reasoning Smart)
Logical-mathematical intelligence is the ability to calculate, quantify, consider propositions and hypotheses, and carry out complete mathematical operations. It enables us to perceive relationships and connections and to use abstract, symbolic thought; sequential reasoning skills; and inductive and deductive thinking patterns. Logical intelligence is usually well developed in mathematicians, scientists, and detectives. Young adults with lots of logical intelligence are interested in patterns, categories, and relationships. They are drawn to arithmetic problems, strategy games and experiments.


4. Existential Intelligence
Sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence, such as the meaning of life, why do we die, and how did we get here.



5. Interpersonal Intelligence (People Smart”)
Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand and interact effectively with others. It involves effective verbal and nonverbal communication, the ability to note distinctions among others, sensitivity to the moods and temperaments of others, and the ability to entertain multiple perspectives. Teachers, social workers, actors, and politicians all exhibit interpersonal intelligence. Young adults with this kind of intelligence are leaders among their peers, are good at communicating, and seem to understand others’ feelings and motives.



6. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (“Body Smart”)
Bodily kinesthetic intelligence is the capacity to manipulate objects and use a variety of physical skills. This intelligence also involves a sense of timing and the perfection of skills through mind–body union. Athletes, dancers, surgeons, and craftspeople exhibit well-developed bodily kinesthetic intelligence.



7. Linguistic Intelligence (Word Smart)
Linguistic intelligence is the ability to think in words and to use language to express and appreciate complex meanings. Linguistic intelligence allows us to understand the order and meaning of words and to apply meta-linguistic skills to reflect on our use of language. Linguistic intelligence is the most widely shared human competence and is evident in poets, novelists, journalists, and effective public speakers. Young adults with this kind of intelligence enjoy writing, reading, telling stories or doing crossword puzzles.



8. Intra-personal Intelligence (Self Smart”)
Intra-personal intelligence is the capacity to understand oneself and one’s thoughts and feelings, and to use such knowledge in planning and directioning one’s life. Intra-personal intelligence involves not only an appreciation of the self, but also of the human condition. It is evident in psychologist, spiritual leaders, and philosophers. These young adults may be shy. They are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated.



9. Spatial Intelligence (“Picture Smart”)
Spatial intelligence is the ability to think in three dimensions. Core capacities include mental imagery, spatial reasoning, image manipulation, graphic and artistic skills, and an active imagination. Sailors, pilots, sculptors, painters, and architects all exhibit spatial intelligence. Young adults with this kind of intelligence may be fascinated with mazes or jigsaw puzzles, or spend free time drawing or daydreaming.

^ This thread is for high IQ people only, i'm not going back and forth with you here. You can ask all of this on one of my other threads

imhotep:

Can you even define intelligence properly?
You will probably reduce intelligence to the ability to function in a workshop.

This thread is not the place for you, go to the other thread.

This is the last response i'm giving you here.

pleep:
This thread is not the place for you, go to the other thread.

This is the last response i'm giving you here.

I have told you to go and learn how to think properly.
You are thinking inside a very tight BOX.

[b]See: [/b]https://www.nairaland.com/2783928/intellectual-discussion-black-people-lower#40919933

My post above that has now been unlocked.

Next thing you know this bloke will recommend castrating black people If he hasn't already.

RandomAfricanAm:
I knew this was pleep as soon as I saw the title of the thread.

Give it up pleep you've been on the same stuff for 3-4 years now. You had the same argument between your self and physicsPHD 3-4 years ago. except it was concerning Jews. You've rehashed the same topic countless times now. Matter of fact I just replied to one of your nonsense topics a couple months ago dealing with the same thing( https://www.nairaland.com/2233409/black-race-iq-intelligence-eugenics ) .....It's getting old.

If you have personal demons because someone "lied to you" about African history or what ever it was you said had happened to you, then deal with that. If you need assistance in dealing with it at least be upfront about the fact so everyone knows what the deal is.

I feel like I'm the only one who remembers pleeps issues.

This is a dialectic discussion, I can already tell you are not the type of person who meets the IQ threshold to contribute.

pleep:

This is a dialectic discussion,

If you really knew what "dialectical discussion" meant, you will first of all enter into a dialectic with your fictitious idea of IQ before coming here to spew rubbish.
See what your high IQ Aryan race animals are doing in this photo ==>
Is this part of your m0r0nic eugenics program? ==>

pleep:

I respect your opinion on eugenics, it can be a tough pill to swallow. I still have to ask you though; can you identify what specific element of Eugenics you feel is morally wrong?

Do you feel like it is wrong to ask certain people to make sacrifices for the greater good?

Isn't it the responsibility of all of us living today to create a better future for future generations? If so, why would you feel that its immoral to perform the action that will provide the best possible benefit to your people and solve most of Africas problems? There is a sense of urgency, this current path Africa is on will lead to great suffering and no black person anywhere on the planet will be able to turn a blind eye to it. The world is growing tired of black people, even as we speak millions of low IQ Africans are spilling out of the continent and awakening the spirit of racism everywhere they go.

How long do you think this will continue before the world says enough and leaves these black people do die? As I mentioned, human behavior moves like a pendulum. Multiculturalism is currently in vogue but this will not last forever. Racism and nationalism will return to the western mainstream and when that happens black people will die:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOGSBHqRDuw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmqOlxNQABI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWrGSndkf6U

Where is the honor, the humanity in this? Africans are breeding like rats and being treated like rats, we are loosing our human dignity. Within 50 years race relations will be at 1940's levels, mark my words.

As the world runs shorter on natural resources we will see colonization 2.0. The technological gap between blacks and whites is greater now than it was when the British used Gatlin Guns on Zulu Warriors. Africa, and black people in general are screwed in every sense of the word. What we need is geniuses, and the real immorality is letting the low functioning breed black genius out of existence when we need it more than ever.

I agree and do understand the urgency you predicate.
As I said it is only from a sentimental side point am I averse to it. I do not have any rational conclusion to tell you why we shouldn't get rid of negative genes which I will be the first to say manifests. But only on an emotional thought am I averse to it. The negative consequence of eugenics is that it is in conflict with human rights...the right to reproduce. My line of work is in clinical research, and being protective of vulnerable subjects in the society is what we are enforced to do, it is not far-fetched to say that has shaped my sensibilities. But I do understand where you are coming from. What we need are geniuses to get in the corridors of power. Unfortunately Africa's rich elite, its leaders- traditionally or politically are not made up of intellectuals. I know the metrics you use to determine who should be sterilized depends on IQ, but have a thought about how this will turn out to be a thing between the rich versus the poor, whereby the rich increases rate of reproduction (because they have the resources at their disposal) and poor reduce their rate of reproduction. Now that doesn't seem bad but, one thing we need to consider is that increasing the breeding of this rich elite will not translate to an increase in positive genes because our rich elite is not comprised of the Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerbergs but thieving politicians, business men or old money with ties to the slavery era with no innovative idea or scientific inventions to their name. I think a better question of how we can help Africa get its bearing is how can we take power from these traditional or political institutions and give it to intellectuals? Or what do you think?

pleep:

Where is the honor, the humanity in this? Africans are breeding like rats and being treated like rats, we are loosing our human dignity. Within 50 years race relations will be at 1940's levels, mark my words.

As the world runs shorter on natural resources we will see colonization 2.0. The technological gap between blacks and whites is greater now than it was when the British used Gatlin Guns on Zulu Warriors. Africa, and black people in general are screwed in every sense of the word. What we need is geniuses, and the real immorality is letting the low functioning breed black genius out of existence when we need it more than ever.

If this is true, then it is perhaps too late already to take measures, anyway. Your artificial geniuses won't help, either. They will be lured to the western countries, to further advance the white race. Remember, societal relations are a very slowly-reacting system; you might need centuries to change them. Unless you go the path of Hitler or Mao Zedong to speed up things. But going totalitarian has its own perils.

makahlj2:


If this is true, then it is perhaps too late already to take measures, anyway. Your artificial geniuses won't help, either. They will be lured to the western countries, to further advance the white race. Remember, societal relations are a very slowly-reacting system; you might need centuries to change them. Unless you go the path of Hitler or Mao Zedong to speed up things. But going totalitarian has its own perils.

Totalitarianism is the first step, we just need a leader with a high enough IQ to make it work.

Autocracies work when the leadership is intelligent and has a sound economic plan. Look at China

Stillfire:


I agree and do understand the urgency you predicate.
As I said it is only from a sentimental side point am I averse to it. I do not have any rational conclusion to tell you why we shouldn't get rid of negative genes which I will be the first to say manifests. But only on an emotional thought am I averse to it. The negative consequence of eugenics is that it is in conflict with human rights...the right to reproduce. My line of work is in clinical research, and being protective of vulnerable subjects in the society is what we are enforced to do, it is not far-fetched to say that has shaped my sensibilities. But I do understand where you are coming from. What we need are geniuses to get in the corridors of power. Unfortunately Africa's rich elite, its leaders- traditionally or politically are not made up of intellectuals. I know the metrics you use to determine who should be sterilized depends on IQ, but have a thought about how this will turn out to be a thing between the rich versus the poor, whereby the rich increases rate of reproduction (because they have the resources at their disposal) and poor reduce their rate of reproduction. Now that doesn't seem bad but, one thing we need to consider is that increasing the breeding of this rich elite will not translate to an increase in positive genes because our rich elite is not comprised of the Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerbergs but thieving politicians, business men or old money with ties to the slavery era with no innovative idea or scientific inventions to their name. I think a better question of how we can help Africa get its bearing is how can we take power from these traditional or political institutions and give it to intellectuals? Or what do you think?

You bring up some good points, I agree with most of what you said but want to bring up another perspective.

It would be better if the intellectuals led the country, the problem is that just because a person is high IQ doesn't mean they will make a good politician. Politics requires a different skill-set than academics like science or mathematics. A politicians is more akin to a pastor than an intellectual. He must be charismatic and personable but smart enough to read the pulse of the people and manipulate to get his way. To this end a politician must be smart but not too smart or the common people will not be able to relate to him. The general consensus is that politicians typically fall 1-2 standard deviations higher than the average IQ of the population. (15 -30 points) People like Bill Gates and Zuckerberg score 3-4 standard deviations higher, making them way too different from the population to be leaders.

IQ tends to have an inverse correlation with charisma, and people without charisma are not successful in politics.

So in America, where the average is 100, the politicians typically score from 115 to 130. The average IQ of U.S presidents is 128 which supports this claim, as this score is almost exactly 2 standard deviations from the average. The same trend is found in every nation and has been going on for a long time. Even the average Nazi IQ was around 2 standard deviations from the average, you can see the scores here: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/meetthedefendants.html

On the other-hand, the best scientists in these countries typically will score in 150's 160s and even 180s in IQ.

Now when we apply this theory to Africa the full magnitude of the problem becomes evident. The average IQ of Nigeria is from 67-84, I think it is around 75. The average for the continent of Africa is 70. The average African leader will scores 1 to 2 standard deviations higher than average, giving him an average score of 85-100. This is good for a factory worker or a truck driver, but for the leader of an entire economy and controller of millions of dollars/lives this level of intelligence is a disaster. Modern economies are far too complex to be handled by someone with an IQ of 85-100 while hes competing with leaders scoring at 130 +.

When you realize what IQ represents you begin to understand what the real problem with the African leadership is. They are not evil, they are not more selfish and nepotistic than any other people ( look at how American leaders waste the peoples money bombing Iraq for Halliburton) they are just dumber. While American leaders know how to loot and still bring development, Nigerian leaders can only loot but are not smart enough to do anything else.

So in the fundamental way I agree with you, the current elites of Africa are very dumb. The problem is that this low IQ is inevitable when the average is so low. It is my opinion that the only way to have good intelligent leaders is to increase the intelligence of the entire population because leaders invariably fall 15-30 points higher than the average.

Some IQ bellcurves for reference. You see just how rare it is to find people who score above 105 in a population averaging 75? ... 105 is the average for China.

In addition to this, even if the smartest people ran the government, who would be the engineers, the doctors and the professors?

You see the engineer shortages they are having in South Africa? Most of the students are majoring in sociology...because they are simply not smart enough to do engineering. This is what happens when the average of the population is too low. Putting intellectuals in government will help, but when the average people are not smart the economy will not go anywhere.

pleep:
You bring up some good points, I agree with most of what you said but want to bring up another perspective.

It would be better if the intellectuals led the country, the problem is that just because a person is high IQ doesn't mean they will make a good politician. Politics requires a different skill-set than academics like science or mathematics. A politicians is more akin to a pastor than an intellectual. He must be charismatic and personable but smart enough to read the pulse of the people and manipulate to get his way. To this end a politician must be smart but not too smart or the common people will not be able to relate to him. The general consensus is that politicians typically fall 1-2 standard deviations higher than the average IQ of the population. (15 -30 points) People like Bill Gates and Zuckerberg score 3-4 standard deviations higher, making them way too different from the population to be leaders.

IQ tends to have an inverse correlation with charisma, and people without charisma are not successful in politics.

So in America, where the average is 100, the politicians typically score from 115 to 130. The average IQ of U.S presidents is 128 which supports this claim, as this score is almost exactly 2 standard deviations from the average. The same trend is found in every nation and has been going on for a long time. Even the average Nazi IQ was around 2 standard deviations from the average, you can see the scores here: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/meetthedefendants.html

On the other-hand, the best scientists in these countries typically will score in 150's 160s and even 180s in IQ.

Now when we apply this theory to Africa the full magnitude of the problem becomes evident. The average IQ of Nigeria is from 67-84, I think it is around 75. The average for the continent of Africa is 70. The average African leader will scores 1 to 2 standard deviations higher than average, giving him an average score of 85-100. This is good for a factory worker or a truck driver, but for the leader of an entire economy and controller of millions of dollars/lives this level of intelligence is a disaster. Modern economies are far too complex to be handled by someone with an IQ of 85-100 while hes competing with leaders scoring at 130 +.

When you realize what IQ represents you begin to understand what the real problem with the African leadership is. They are not evil, they are not more selfish and nepotistic than any other people ( look at how American leaders waste the peoples money bombing Iraq for Halliburton) they are just dumber. While American leaders know how to loot and still bring development, Nigerian leaders can only loot but are not smart enough to do anything else.

So in the fundamental way I agree with you, the current elites of Africa are very dumb. The problem is that this low IQ is inevitable when the average is so low. It is my opinion that the only way to have good intelligent leaders is to increase the intelligence of the entire population because leaders invariably fall 15-30 points higher than the average.

Some IQ bellcurves for reference. You see just how rare it is to find people who score above 105 in a population averaging 75? ... 105 is the average for China.

Absolutely agree that the politician does not require high IQ but just a bit of knowledge here and there and a high dose of charm. That is why I used the phrase intellectuals 'get in the corridors of power' (not necessarily aspire to be presidents) but be involved big decision makings especially in the sciences...innovative sciences. Innovation and research are the best strategies for a country's growth. Africa unfortunately does not prioritize on research. For example, under the Goodluck Jonathan administration, the NAS (Nigerian Academy of Science) was given just $5 million for research. Compare to the NIH nearly $30.1* billion annually in medical research for the American people.