I find it interesting that some people now see me as some sort of authority in subjects i normally feel best left to others. It was in that context that i was sent a Youtube PM with the following:



And I'm meant to respond to this how? By Mockery or otherwise?

It isn't quite Rosenberg (as far as I've seen), but my main instinct is to call BS upon the findings of Brand. By the way, I am aware from some quick nosing around on Wiki that the cited author is another one of those Race realists who has published articles in such lowlife journals as the "American Renaissance" and "The Occidental Quarterly".

So What I am really looking for please is a beginners guide into dealing with the claims or to turn this thread into a reference in order to refute "Race realism", Brand and his ilk.

Sorry I'm in the dark here what exactly is "Race-realism" I remember hearing the truepooka talking it

forgotten observer wrote:Sorry I'm in the dark here what exactly is "Race-realism" I remember hearing the truepooka talking it

I call it "Racists trying to pretend they're supported by Academia and Science when actually they are not"

Could you give an example?

Modern racism has a deep history of "race realism". From back when eugenics was seen as an innocent science and racism was a "scientific" theory with its base being that the human race is divided into sub races- and these sub races have varied from black - white , rich-poor, Cockney- and well , 'normal', Scottish and English etc.

There is a BBC documentary which i thought was quite good. The History Of Racism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=efI6T8lovqY&list=WLE00F242590BA72F1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdBDRbjx9jo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCJHJWaNL-g

Concerning this particular issue of intelligence. Genetics seems to definitely play a role in intelligence to some degree

Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9 (of a maximum of 1.0).

So a racist, who believes that humans are fundamentally subdivided are looking for material proof of there ideology. So when blacks score lower than whites on a general test, or if it is found that for example Israeli Jews fared better than Arab Israelis on an IQ test, then this can appear as proof that humanity is racially divided, that it must be the genetic content of the white, or the Israeli Jew in this case that caused the result, that gave rise to the higher IQ result. And this leads from racial ideas to racism, reinforcing ideas of racial supremacy and superiority.

Can environmental factors explain the difference in IQ. - Yes, Quoting from Wiki again :

Heritability and socioeconomic status
The APA report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995) also stated that:
"We should note, however, that low-income and non-white families are poorly represented in existing adoption studies as well as in most twin samples. Thus it is not yet clear whether these studies apply to the population as a whole. It remains possible that, across the full range of income and ethnicity, between-family differences have more lasting consequences for psychometric intelligence."[27]
A study (1999) by Capron and Duyme of French children adopted between the ages of four and six examined the influence of socioeconomic status (SES). The children's IQs initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next. Nine years later after adoption, when they were on average 14 years old, they retook the IQ tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family's socioeconomic status. "Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average IQ scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average IQ scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98."[9][28]
Stoolmiller (1999) argued that the range of environments in previous adoption studies were restricted. Adopting families tend to be more similar on, for example, socio-economic status than the general population, which suggests a possible underestimation of the role of the shared family environment in previous studies. Corrections for range restriction to adoption studies indicated that socio-economic status could account for as much as 50% of the variance in IQ

The other point on genetics is that race has no scientific basis. A book called 50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True has a part on race. Here's the part on genes>

Genes versus races.
For those who may think that the science of genetics will somehow
validate the concept of race, think again. It certainly has not done so yet, and there is no
good reason to think it ever will. If anything, it will continue to make it clear that the
traditional race concept doesn't work. In 2010, a paper was published in Nature about the
sequencing of sub-Saharan African genomes. One remarkable discovery to come out of that
research was that the genetic distance between two bushmen who had lived their entire lives
within walking distance of one other was greater than that between any one of them and a
typical "white" European or Japanese Asian. Think about this: One of the South Africans and
a random "white" European or Japanese Asian are more closely related than the two South
Africans are to each other. Now, imagine if we made a police-style lineup with those two
South African men, a "white" European, and a Japanese Asian. Which two would most
people place into a race together? But while the two South Africans may look very similar on
the outside, the biological reality beneath the surface tells a very different story.

So although IQ may be highly hereditary, to think that "blacks" which can include diverse groups of African-Americans, Africans and Australasian aboriginals (and so on) some how share hereditary genetics in contrast to " white" is bunk.

Thank you very much PAB, will be sending all that back to him

edit: the thing I'm really looking for now is something that refutes Brand by name

If anyone is brave enough i think i found Chris Brands book free to read and download online as a PDF

http://www.solargeneral.com/library/g-factor-christopher-brand.pdf

Plus i just stumbled upon this

Scientists claim black people less intelligent than whites in Channel 4 show

PAB wrote:If anyone is brave enough i think i found Chris Brands book free to read and download online as a PDF

http://www.solargeneral.com/library/g-factor-christopher-brand.pdf

That's nice but i think you know what i really want out of this thread.