Why does Race & IQ differences make people angry, but Gender differences does not?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from (self.debatealtright)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

But to compare gender to race doesn't make sense to me. Men and women have fundamental differences. Races have averages, but that's encompassing a wide set of points, for instance, there are smart black people and dumb white people.

Race has the same "fundamental differences" as gender.

Ronda Rousey is a powerful MMA fighter, but everyone still says Women are weaker than Men.

Male Rockstars grow their hair really long, but everyone still says Women have longer hair.

Now use the same logic with race. One smart black guy doesn't change most black people are dumb.

They are though. Women get away with a lot of dumb shit. And women's jail is like a shitty spa day. They chat and do each others hair. Men's jail isn't terrible but it's still a big step down.

Look at murder rates. Or any crime that involves aggression. The majority of all suspects are always Male.

Yet the reason for this is still genetic. There's no country on Earth where Women make better criminals than Men.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (33 children)

One smart black guy doesn't change most black people are dumb.

The fact that the gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States is closing shows that the gap is not due to genetic differences between the races.

(Quite apart from it being evolutionarily implausible that there would be different selection pressures in different continents strong enough to differentiate IQ, while applying across those entire continents, each with hugely different environments, and across cultural boundaries within those continents).

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Black people will never catch up to Whites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_GDP_(nominal)#GDP_(nominal)_by_continents

Africans have been around for 40,000 years, yet it's the poorest and least developed continent on Earth. Even before colonization, who were the most powerful and intelligent empires in all of history? The Roman Empire. The British Empire. The Portuguese Empire. The Mongol Empire.

Not a single black country or tribe was ever more powerful than these people.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Africans have been around for 40,000 years, yet it's the poorest and least developed continent on Earth.

Africans have been around for a lot longer than that. Europeans have been around for about 50,000. But the industrial revolution doesn't take even 1,000 years. So you're going to have to flesh out this "never catch up" claim a bit. Europeans made no significant developmental progress for 45,000 years.

Even before colonization, who were the most powerful and intelligent empires in all of history? The Roman Empire. The British Empire. The Portuguese Empire. The Mongol Empire.

The ancient Egyptian empire was hegemonic prior to the rise of any of those.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Africans have been around for a lot longer than that. Europeans have been around for about 50,000.

That's even more embarrassing. Africans had a thousand year head start but are now dead last in everything. What were they doing the entire time if they had high intelligence?

But the industrial revolution doesn't take even 1,000 years. So you're going to have to flesh out this "never catch up" claim a bit. Europeans made no significant developmental progress for 45,000 years.

Europeans had practiced farming, or domesticating animals. Not to mention, all the most noteworthy civilizations where either European or Asian in origin.

The ancient Egyptian empire was hegemonic prior to the rise of any of those.

The Black Egyptian dynasty only lasted for 90 years and funny enough, it also killed Ancient Egypt.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Europeans made no significant developmental progress for 45,000 years.

Wrong. Europeans have had a steady progress for 45,000 years. The wheel, dogs, horses, domesticated animals, chariots, metalurgy etc etc.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The wheel, dogs, horses, domesticated animals, chariots, metalurgy etc etc. Ancient Egypt had

  • Metalurgy.
  • Writing.
  • Papyrus.
  • Ink.
  • The Ox-drawn plow and the Sickle.
  • Canals and Irrigation Channels.
  • The Calendar.
  • Clocks.
  • The wheel
  • Chariots
  • Domesticated Animals
  • Horses

But the difference between Africa and Europe was the timing of the industrial revolution.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Ancient Egypt was a white civilization

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It had a range of skin colours as far as Africa goes. But it wasn't white as in European.

They the realistic art of the time showed them as highly variable, but they generally depicted themselves as brown. The mummies that survive include individuals who would've been considered white today, and individuals who would've been considered black. And many in between.

Egypt was, however, unavoidably African.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Egypt was, however, unavoidably African.

Ok, but when people talk about africans in this sub, we are talking about blacks ie. subsaharan africans, not north africans that fall under the white/caucasoid race.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Egypt was mixed. There were and are people there of Subsaharan ancestry.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

The fact that the gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States is closing shows that the gap is not due to genetic differences between the races.

Bold claim that is not supported by any evidence

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence from Standardization Samples

There’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes

Combining our estimates with results in prior literature, we show that a simple model with assortative mating fits our data well, implying that differences in children's environments between racial groups can fully explain gaps in intelligence.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Look at your sources

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Ok. Now what?

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Find better sources if you want me to engage with you on this

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Two thirds of those sources are peer-reviewed papers from the scholarly literature.

Could you describe what a better source is?

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Alt Hype or Sean Last probably have decent posts about this, from them you should be able to find studies, its a few years ago since I looked into this subject but there is nothing new under the sun

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

In what way are they better than peer reviewed scholarly literature?