Many of the people posting here think that affirmative action benefiting blacks is bad, but they do want affirmative action in favor of whites so they don't have to compete with Asians.
IQ is most useful as a threshold. That’s why the military won’t accept people with IQs lower than 83.
Judging by the state of black nations all over the world, 85 average IQ is not sufficient to create functional and prosperous societies. Not anyone else’s problem, truthfully.
Judging by white nations all over the world, 103 average IQ is more than sufficient. That’s why majority-white nations are among the most prosperous in the world.
There’s no reason why whites, who have proven themselves capable of creating and maintaining high quality societies, should be displaced by “higher IQ” Asians and Jews at all the levers of wealth, power, and influence.
You probably didn’t think you were indirectly advocating for ethnostates, huh?
Judging by the state of black nations all over the world, 85 average IQ is not sufficient to create functional and prosperous societies
Alright, was ancient Egypt a functional and prosperous society, or are you going to make some ad hoc rationalizations for that? The IQ was higher back then, it's the luck of the Nile, back then you could have a functional society without a higher IQ.
Judging by white nations all over the world, 103 average IQ is more than sufficient. That’s why majority-white nations are among the most prosperous in the world.
OK, so how come majority-white nations weren't the most prosperous in say 400 BC? How come you want to make judgments based on the exact moment when it suits you?
There’s no reason why whites, who have proven themselves capable of creating and maintaining high quality societies, should be displaced by “higher IQ” Asians and Jews at all the levers of wealth, power, and influence.
So you don't oppose racial preferences, and any criticism you level at blacks for wanting affirmative action is done in bad faith, because you want the exact same thing to benefit yourself.
Not previously involved in this thread, but I think some reasonable answers:
Ancient Egypt was generally not a sub-Saharan black nation. Some of the dynasties had more African influence, but genetically far more Middle Eastern, Mediterranean (Greek), Semitic, North Africa, etc. Genetic influence seems to indicate a steady gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa into Egypt over the last millenium, meaning Egypt today is more "African" than it probably ever has been before.
Your second question, I'll combine with an unasked question--why were black African peoples (including Melanesians/Australians) historically and globally the least developed peoples, no development of written language, etc? Why were white NORTHERN Europeans (since Greek/Rome/etc were very advanced) relatively undeveloped in 400BC? Geography and climate plays a very big role in both.
I'm not one to make that big a deal out of IQ differences, though I think there probably are statistically significant population-wide IQ differences when you compare certain groups. E.g. Ashkenazi Jews / Northern Europeans / East Asian Chinese / Sub-Saharan African / Australian Aborigine. IMHO, the differences are relatively minor, yet nonetheless present. I don't see any other way to explain how Jews are so incredibly over-represented as Nobel physicists or why no sub-Saharan people ever developed writing [Ethiopian ge'ez script was borrowed from Arabia].
Ancient Egypt was generally not a sub-Saharan black nation. Some of the dynasties had more African influence, but genetically far more Middle Eastern, Mediterranean (Greek), Semitic, North Africa, etc. Genetic influence seems to indicate a steady gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa into Egypt over the last millenium, meaning Egypt today is more "African" than it probably ever has been before.
But not a lot. Certainly not enough to lower an IQ that is the average of whites to 80 or so. Not when blacks in America which have far higher rates of black DNA have an average IQ of 85 or 89.
Your second question, I'll combine with an unasked question--why were black African peoples (including Melanesians/Australians) historically and globally the least developed peoples, no development of written language, etc? Why were white NORTHERN Europeans (since Greek/Rome/etc were very advanced) relatively undeveloped in 400BC? Geography and climate plays a very big role in both.
The Northern Europeans were the whitest of them all, and some do not even consider Greeks to be white. So that is why I cited them as the example. It's an ad hoc argument to blame 'geography and climate' when it's whites but discount them when it's blacks. Of course, the climate also differs for blacks, which is why they're black!
Why are Africans underdeveloped? Part of the reason is isolation, which also applies to Melanesians. That it may also be partly genetic is something that I do believe, but I don't like that people pretend to know causes for sure (rather than likelihood) and how they make sweeping assertions like a supposed IQ cutoff for a civilization.
I think there probably are statistically significant population-wide IQ differences when you compare certain groups.
Yes, that is not even called into question by serious people on the left. The dispute is about what the causes of these are.
I don't see any other way to explain how Jews are so incredibly over-represented as Nobel physicists or why no sub-Saharan people ever developed writing [Ethiopian ge'ez script was borrowed from Arabia].
Writing was not invented that often. And of course, the Arabs and the Jews did not invent their own alphabet, they took it from the (Semitic) Phoenicians. Same for the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans. Did the Europeans invent any writing system? Linear A maybe? I'm not sure if that was borrowed from someplace else, but ours was.
The Northern Europeans were the whitest of them all, and some do not even consider Greeks to be white. So that is why I cited them as the example. It's an ad hoc argument to blame 'geography and climate' when it's whites but discount them when it's blacks. Of course, the climate also differs for blacks, which is why they're black!
100% agree. Both northern Europe and sub-Saharan Africa were largely isolated. Both dealt with difficult weather and climate.
Why are Africans underdeveloped? Part of the reason is isolation, which also applies to Melanesians. That it may also be partly genetic is something that I do believe, but I don't like that people pretend to know causes for sure (rather than likelihood) and how they make sweeping assertions like a supposed IQ cutoff for a civilization.
Agree.
Yes, that is not even called into question by serious people on the left. The dispute is about what the causes of these are.
I don't think this is right. I think many on the left would dispute any differences of any kind between ethnicities or races. Hell these are the people who refuse to acknowledge any difference between men and women.
Writing was not invented that often. And of course, the Arabs and the Jews did not invent their own alphabet, they took it from the (Semitic) Phoenicians. Same for the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans. Did the Europeans invent any writing system? Linear A maybe? I'm not sure if that was borrowed from someplace else, but ours was.
The Egyptians invented writing, so did some Semitic peoples (Arabians and Phoenicians, deriving from Egyptian), the Sumerians invented writing, Greeks Linear A, etc., and from there those roots expanded far and wide. Greek is a pretty big upgrade and evolution over Phoenician. Later, Viking runes seem to be an original invention. Likewise the alphabet evolution from Greek -> Etruscan -> Latin involves some very large shifts and evolutions.
Other than Ethiopian, I'm not sure any African peoples adopted or adapted any scripts until very recently? Not my area of expertise, but Ethiopian is interesting. Semitic language, semitic alphabet, and an almost exact copy of the Arabian script. It's pretty much a direct borrowing. Phoenician -> Greek is a much bigger shift.
IQ is most useful as a threshold. That’s why the military won’t accept people with IQs lower than 83.
Judging by the state of black nations all over the world, 85 average IQ is not sufficient to create functional and prosperous societies. Not anyone else’s problem, truthfully.
Judging by white nations all over the world, 103 average IQ is more than sufficient. That’s why majority-white nations are among the most prosperous in the world.
There’s no reason why whites, who have proven themselves capable of creating and maintaining high quality societies, should be displaced by “higher IQ” Asians and Jews at all the levers of wealth, power, and influence.
You probably didn’t think you were indirectly advocating for ethnostates, huh?
Alright, was ancient Egypt a functional and prosperous society, or are you going to make some ad hoc rationalizations for that? The IQ was higher back then, it's the luck of the Nile, back then you could have a functional society without a higher IQ.
OK, so how come majority-white nations weren't the most prosperous in say 400 BC? How come you want to make judgments based on the exact moment when it suits you?
So you don't oppose racial preferences, and any criticism you level at blacks for wanting affirmative action is done in bad faith, because you want the exact same thing to benefit yourself.
Not previously involved in this thread, but I think some reasonable answers:
Ancient Egypt was generally not a sub-Saharan black nation. Some of the dynasties had more African influence, but genetically far more Middle Eastern, Mediterranean (Greek), Semitic, North Africa, etc. Genetic influence seems to indicate a steady gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa into Egypt over the last millenium, meaning Egypt today is more "African" than it probably ever has been before.
Your second question, I'll combine with an unasked question--why were black African peoples (including Melanesians/Australians) historically and globally the least developed peoples, no development of written language, etc? Why were white NORTHERN Europeans (since Greek/Rome/etc were very advanced) relatively undeveloped in 400BC? Geography and climate plays a very big role in both.
I'm not one to make that big a deal out of IQ differences, though I think there probably are statistically significant population-wide IQ differences when you compare certain groups. E.g. Ashkenazi Jews / Northern Europeans / East Asian Chinese / Sub-Saharan African / Australian Aborigine. IMHO, the differences are relatively minor, yet nonetheless present. I don't see any other way to explain how Jews are so incredibly over-represented as Nobel physicists or why no sub-Saharan people ever developed writing [Ethiopian ge'ez script was borrowed from Arabia].
But not a lot. Certainly not enough to lower an IQ that is the average of whites to 80 or so. Not when blacks in America which have far higher rates of black DNA have an average IQ of 85 or 89.
The Northern Europeans were the whitest of them all, and some do not even consider Greeks to be white. So that is why I cited them as the example. It's an ad hoc argument to blame 'geography and climate' when it's whites but discount them when it's blacks. Of course, the climate also differs for blacks, which is why they're black!
Why are Africans underdeveloped? Part of the reason is isolation, which also applies to Melanesians. That it may also be partly genetic is something that I do believe, but I don't like that people pretend to know causes for sure (rather than likelihood) and how they make sweeping assertions like a supposed IQ cutoff for a civilization.
Yes, that is not even called into question by serious people on the left. The dispute is about what the causes of these are.
Writing was not invented that often. And of course, the Arabs and the Jews did not invent their own alphabet, they took it from the (Semitic) Phoenicians. Same for the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans. Did the Europeans invent any writing system? Linear A maybe? I'm not sure if that was borrowed from someplace else, but ours was.
See my comments down-thread.
100% agree. Both northern Europe and sub-Saharan Africa were largely isolated. Both dealt with difficult weather and climate.
Agree.
I don't think this is right. I think many on the left would dispute any differences of any kind between ethnicities or races. Hell these are the people who refuse to acknowledge any difference between men and women.
The Egyptians invented writing, so did some Semitic peoples (Arabians and Phoenicians, deriving from Egyptian), the Sumerians invented writing, Greeks Linear A, etc., and from there those roots expanded far and wide. Greek is a pretty big upgrade and evolution over Phoenician. Later, Viking runes seem to be an original invention. Likewise the alphabet evolution from Greek -> Etruscan -> Latin involves some very large shifts and evolutions.
Other than Ethiopian, I'm not sure any African peoples adopted or adapted any scripts until very recently? Not my area of expertise, but Ethiopian is interesting. Semitic language, semitic alphabet, and an almost exact copy of the Arabian script. It's pretty much a direct borrowing. Phoenician -> Greek is a much bigger shift.
Neither here nor there, but interesting.