More selective Darwinism.. very UN-PC!

Black people 'less intelligent' scientist claims

Remember I have said that one element of evolution that atheist liberals and fundamentalists agree on is that it doesnt apply to modern man?

Well, the idea isnt new that 'blacks are less intelligent than the other races of man', it's in the basis of 'Eugenics' and has been used by fascists everywhere as an excuse for their actions
Guy named Shockley did a study in the late sixties and early seventies that found the same.

With the same result, of course: ANY SUCH IDEA IS RACIST!!!

I'm wondering what Mr Vaz' qualifications are, to call those results 'unscientific'?

Here's the same point I came up with when Shockley got in hot water... besides EVOLUTION selecting the fittest for survival in the given environment.. IT SIMPLY DOESNT MATTER!!!!!! Besides the tests being oriented to the more deevloped world, back then we heard that humans only use about ten percent of their available intelligence, anyway.

Whether that was actually true or not, the variation in intelligence between close relatives with the same background and gene pool will cause one to ask what's the beef.

Anyone can see it's more a matter of nurture than nature anyway. But nature shouldnt be totally ignored.

Take two 16 yo kids raised in Norway, one Scandi blonde, blue eyed and the other one black with ancestry in the near forest plains of Africa.

Drop them into the latter environment and lets bet on which one survives longer!

Now lets do the same into the wilds of northern Canada.

Of course common sense has no place in the current world.

 

I read this a little while ago and felt saddened, anyone who says anything unpalatable will be derided as a racist/bigot/hate figure, and it serves to deny open debate.

There is strong evidence that personal characteristics are inherited genetically. Is it wrong to suggest that intelligence is linked to genetic factors? Genetics is more likely to act as a limiting factor on what a person can achieve with social interaction allowing a person to achieve their potential – or not.

The leap to “all black people are none too bright” is unrealistic because of the vast amount of genetic material it covers in the wide social surroundings that material exist in, but I am glad that Watson said something on the subject because it allows discussion that would not have happened otherwise. The best way to refute an unjust position it to deconstruct it and logically argue against it.

There is strong support that population groups of similar genetic material have similar genetic predispositions. A more realistic claim may be “the people of Burnley are predisposed genetically to be the most stupid people in the UK” [Burnley chosen at random – sorry to the locals but I needed to pick on someone].

Personally, from non-scientific, personal observation I have always felt that the Korean kids who live in my area have a much better aptitude for academic success than any other group. Obviously there are social factors that affect this, most go to Saturday Korean school. Their parents have moved to the UK at some point and the family dynamics are different those of a typical London family.

The question is - does that make me a racist since I hold a belief that I cannot support scientifically and that I am a bad person for saying it? Does it prompt further research to see if statistically the Koreans do better? Do we just ignore it and wonder where Fulham’s next win will come from?

P.S. PF - Keith Vaz is a minor politician, lawyer and Blair cronie who was implicated in scandal over cash for passports, as far as I know he has not scientific background.