DNA pioneer stripped of honors over 'reprehensible' race comments

First topic message reminder :

A Nobel Prize-winningAmerican scientist who co-discovered DNA has been stripped of his honorary titles at the laboratory he once led after repeating racist comments in a documentary.

James Watson, who discovered the double-helix structure of DNA alongside Francis Crick in the 1950s, said in a PBS film that genes cause a difference in intelligence between white and black people in IQ tests.

The 90-year-old's comments were labeled "reprehensible" by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) on New York's Long Island, where Watson had been the director from 1968 to 1993.

Watson had previously told Britain's Sunday Times newspaper in 2007 that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really."

The scientist added that while he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/13/health/james-watson-honors-stripped-intl/index.html

Raggamuffin wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No. He said he wasn't yesterday.

Then why is he contradicting himself?

Where has he done that?

He claims he's not a white supremacist, but he posts up lies that if believed, would support a white supremacist position.

https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html


The facts don't lie...

"Actions speak louder than words".

Tommy's repeated idiotic propaganda posts on racial differences, intelligence and evolution-denial firmly point to his white supremacist and anti-science beliefs -- as does his usual anti-climate and political-nonsense claims..

Then to see Fred, nicko, Sly and Ragga' jumping to Tommy's defence -- without even bothering to address the crux of the O/P -- pretty well shows us where those individual members of that miserable little gang stand on this subject.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"Actions speak louder than words".

Tommy's repeated idiotic propaganda posts on racial differences, intelligence and evolution-denial firmly point to his white supremacist and anti-science beliefs --  as does his usual anti-climate and political-nonsense claims..

Then to see Fred, nicko, Sly and Ragga' jumping to Tommy's defence --  without even bothering to address the crux of the O/P --  pretty well shows us where those individual members of that miserable little gang stand on this subject.

"Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People".

Tommy Monk wrote:https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html


The facts don't lie...

The facts prove you wrong actually

If for example Asians were smarter, then all Asian nations would be smarter than every single other country.

In fact the majority of Asian countries are well down the list with simple 6 being at the top.

Again its you failing to see the facts behind the differences in some ethnic groups being smarter on average and the main reason you try to argue this Tommy is your view against Blacks. Which many can easily see

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/looking-in-the-cultural-mirror/201101/how-raise-smart-kids-chinese-style

If you believe in evolution... then you must also believe that there are different evolutionary outcomes for species depending on the various contributory environmental factors that species encounter in the different places in the world and over time...


So... just as there are variations in appearance and physical attributes etc... why is it so unbelievable to comprehend and so bad to point out that there is also evidence of significant differences in IQ too...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

If you believe in evolution... then you must also believe that there are different evolutionary outcomes for species depending on the various contributory environmental factors that species encounter in the different places in the world and over time...


So... just as there are variations in appearance and physical attributes etc... why is it so unbelievable to comprehend and so bad to point out that there is also evidence of significant differences in IQ too...!?

But humans are the only human species alive today and they are also biologically one race.

In other words the differences and this is only based on a small time frame window in humanities history. Ie a few hundred years and not hundreds of thousands of years. It can is changing with even the poor measure of IQ. Even showing the number of African American's IQ has been steadly rising over the last decade. Which is more evidence of how education thus increases the level of intelligence of people and how where it is denied people are denied that start in life. Its why you would be basically useless yourself without a formal education.

Again shows you are being inherantly disingenuous. Where again you will find differences are based upon education and an ethos of parents pushing thier children to work and study hard. This ethos can be found through out all ethnic groups within individuals and we see within some select ethnic groups and above more than average with this ethos.

So its actually you not looking at this honestly but from a biased view point you hold

What cracks me up is how Tommy is trying to prove whites are smarter than blacks and Rags (white) can't understand that's what he's doing, thus proving Tommy's theory wrong since any black person would immediately understand what he's trying to do.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:What cracks me up is how Tommy is trying to prove whites are smarter than blacks and Rags (white) can't understand that's what he's doing, thus proving Tommy's theory wrong since any black person would immediately understand what he's trying to do.

I agree Ben. Some are either being blind to Tommy's reasons (being that he has not even proposed any biological reason for his claims) or they do know and thus are actually defending his poor views.

Thor wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:What cracks me up is how Tommy is trying to prove whites are smarter than blacks and Rags (white) can't understand that's what he's doing, thus proving Tommy's theory wrong since any black person would immediately understand what he's trying to do.

I agree Ben. Some are either being blind to Tommy's reasons (being that he has not even proposed any biological reason for his claims) or they do know and thus are actually defending his poor views.

A case of "which is worse," right?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Thor wrote:

I agree Ben. Some are either being blind to Tommy's reasons (being that he has not even proposed any biological reason for his claims) or they do know and thus are actually defending his poor views.

A case of "which is worse," right?

Agreed. Its all welll and good castigating the likes of Wolf for being abusive, but why are these same people not challenging Tommy?

We have various categories of race within the category of human... all with distinctly different physical appearance and attributes...


So again... why is it so beyond belief that there might be inherent differences in mental ability too...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:We have various categories of race within the category of human... all with distinctly different physical appearance and attributes...


So again... why is it so beyond belief that there might be inherent differences in mental ability too...!?

Yes they are social constructs, the racial classifications
All people within each social construct racial group has disintinctly differnce physical appearance
So are now Blondes a race to you?
How about blue eyes?
As to your question, I revert back to your lack of understanding of biology
Races are not biologial in humans
Hence how can there be an in herant racial differences in intelligence, when all humans look uniquely different?

Thor wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Thor wrote:

I agree Ben. Some are either being blind to Tommy's reasons (being that he has not even proposed any biological reason for his claims) or they do know and thus are actually defending his poor views.

A case of "which is worse," right?

Agreed. Its all welll and good castigating the likes of Wolf for being abusive, but why are these same people not challenging Tommy?

Yep.

Thor wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:We have various categories of race within the category of human... all with distinctly different physical appearance and attributes...


So again... why is it so beyond belief that there might be inherent differences in mental ability too...!?

Yes they are social constructs, the racial classifications
All people within each social construct racial group has disintinctly differnce physical appearance
So are now Blondes a race to you?
How about blue eyes?
As to your question, I revert back to your lack of understanding of biology
Races are not biologial in humans
Hence how can there be an in herant racial differences in intelligence, when all humans look uniquely different?

Blondes as well as blue eyes are racial traits found within certain categories of the human race...


And are distinct differences to the physical appearances of many of other categories of the human race...


So you are just proving my point really didge...


If we were all the same then there wouldn't be so many physical differences... and we wouldn't have an all black 100 metres sprint final and an all white swimming final for example...


It is undeniably evident that there are various physical appearance and attribute differences between the human groups... so it is inconceivable to rule out the possibility that there will likely be variations in mental ability too...!


In fact... there is evidence to show it is true...

Tommy Monk wrote:

If you believe in evolution... then you must also believe that there are different evolutionary outcomes for species depending on the various contributory environmental factors that species encounter in the different places in the world and over time...


So... just as there are variations in appearance and physical attributes etc... why is it so unbelievable to comprehend and so bad to point out that there is also evidence of significant differences in IQ too...!?

With all due respect :

You really are one fucked-up cretinous racist piece of fascist shit, Tommy...

Human beings are one unique species..

The observable and confirmed fact in your post above showing us that you believe that Asians, Caucasians and Negroes are three separate species, this in turn demonstrates your true nature as a braindead fascist, racist white supremacist little anti-science punk.

While the earlier targetted attacks against me by your most ardent supporters on here only goes to further expose their weak-brained support for your racist ideas..

Tommy is mildly abusive, Wolfie is way over the top !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWSx0bBiNIs

Posters who refuse to accept that they are Women hating, bullying,, foul mouthed wankers , strike a cord to anyone here ?

I never said Asians Caucasians and negroes are 3 separate species... but if we were all exactly the same then you wouldn't have these different names for these different groups...

People of different races often have children together. This happens without unusual difficulty, and their children are healthy and thriving. One of them was even President of the United States, and a good one at that.

This proves that humans are all the same species.

New York Times:

Scientists have long suspected that the racial categories recognized by society are not reflected on the genetic level. But the more closely that researchers examine the human genome -- the complement of genetic material encased in the heart of almost every cell of the body -- the more most of them are convinced that the standard labels used to distinguish people by ''race'' have little or no biological meaning.

They say that while it may seem easy to tell at a glance whether a person is Caucasian, African or Asian, the ease dissolves when one probes beneath surface characteristics and scans the genome for DNA hallmarks of ''race.''

Dogs can mate and have offspring... but you wouldn't say that a Labrador is the same as a Pitt bull or a poodle...

Tommy Monk wrote:
Dogs can mate and have offspring... but you wouldn't say that a Labrador is the same as a Pitt bull or a poodle...

The point is that while they might not look alike, at the genetic level they're practically identical.

"Practically identical"...

But still different...

Thor wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

A case of "which is worse," right?

Agreed. Its all welll and good castigating the likes of Wolf for being abusive, but why are these same people not challenging Tommy?

I disagree entirely with some of Tommy's posts and opinions (which, I suspect, he knows full well)...at least those that I read. I can't speak for anyone else here, but personally I have neither the time nor the inclination assiduously to read more than a very small percentage of what appears here on a daily basis, and even less to involve myself in some of the arguments, fascinating though they may well be to the participants.

If Tommy is a "white supremacist", then I think he is absolutely wrong; in fact I know that he is. But I don't know the man; I've never met him and I don't know whether he is a racist, a Fascist or a NAZI -or even all three - and whether he himself even believes everything that he cites or posts.

I very much doubt  whether any one of us here is anything at all like the character that exists in the imagination of those who "know" them only in the weird world of the social media and groups such as this.

He may even be playing Devil's Advocate for all I know. I've done it often enough, so I wouldn't "castigate" him for that.

But without a shadow of a doubt he does introduce contentious and sometimes controversial and highly divisive topics - which he has an absolute right to do, in my opinion, though not, apparently in the opinion of some of the self-appointed, self-styled "guardians" of the supposed moral and ethical standards of the rest of us.

Personally, I am not sufficiently enthralled by the topic to get myself involved in some interminable, acrimonious and inevitably abusive debate... and if that is to be interpreted as "defending" any type of extremist or form of extremism, then I suggest that it can be only in the mind of someone who lacks either the maturity or intellect to pursue any discussion beyond the level of mindless chanting at a street demo.

Tommy Monk wrote:"Practically identical"...

But still different...

Different in trivial ways. Two poodles aren't identical, either. My mom has a Boston Terrier that is twice the size of the typical Boston Terrier, yet her parents were both full-blood.

You and I have more genetically in common with some black people than we do with some white people. The amount of genetic material that makes up your skin color is quite small.

And a side note:

You claiming in this thread not to be a white supremacist after making the claims you've made would be like me saying that all life on earth comes from an original common ancestor and then saying, "But I don't believe in evolution!"

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thor wrote:

Agreed. Its all welll and good castigating the likes of Wolf for being abusive, but why are these same people not challenging Tommy?

I disagree entirely with some of Tommy's posts and opinions (which, I suspect, he knows full well)...at least those that I read. I can't speak for anyone else here, but personally I have neither the time nor the inclination assiduously to read more than a very small percentage of what appears here on a daily basis, and even less to involve myself in some of the arguments, fascinating though they may well be to the participants.

If Tommy is a "white supremacist", then I think he is absolutely wrong; in fact I know that he is. But I don't know the man; I've never met him and I don't know whether he is a racist, a Fascist or a NAZI -or even all three - and whether he himself even believes everything that he cites or posts.

I very much doubt  whether any one of us here is anything at all like the character that exists in the imagination of those who "know" them only in the weird world of the social media and groups such as this.

He may even be playing Devil's Advocate for all I know. I've done it often enough, so I wouldn't "castigate" him for that.

But without a shadow of a doubt he does introduce contentious and sometimes controversial and highly divisive topics - which he has an absolute right to do, in my opinion, though not, apparently in the opinion of some of the self-appointed, self-styled "guardians" of the supposed moral and ethical standards of the rest of us.

Personally, I am not sufficiently enthralled by the topic to get myself involved in some interminable, acrimonious and inevitably abusive debate... and if that is to be interpreted as "defending" any type of extremist or form of extremism, then I suggest that it can be only in the mind of someone who lacks either the maturity or intellect to pursue any discussion beyond the level of mindless chanting at a street demo.

Fai enough Fred, though again in my view based on countless posts, articles and views he has made. Its clear he certainly holds a prejudiced view racially.

Also for the record Wolf was out of order for making unfounded accusations against you and others.

I am certainly not against Tommy posting anything. In fact happy that he does. Just be nice to see people challenge said views in the article and again ask why Tommy has brought this same topic up on IQ numereous times, with a view to argue against Blacks.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:

Yes they are social constructs, the racial classifications
All people within each social construct racial group has disintinctly differnce physical appearance
So are now Blondes a race to you?
How about blue eyes?
As to your question, I revert back to your lack of understanding of biology
Races are not biologial in humans
Hence how can there be an in herant racial differences in intelligence, when all humans look uniquely different?

Blondes as well as blue eyes are racial traits found within certain categories of the human race...
And are distinct differences to the physical appearances of many of other categories of the human race...
So you are just proving my point really didge...
If we were all the same then there wouldn't be so many physical differences... and we wouldn't have an all black 100 metres sprint final and an all white swimming final for example...It is undeniably evident that there are various physical appearance and attribute differences between the human groups... so it is inconceivable to rule out the possibility that there will likely be variations in mental ability too...!


In fact... there is evidence to show it is true...

You say blonde and blue eyes are racial traits?

How exactly, when half the worlds population, no matter which ethnic group have brown eyes and black  hair, brown hair?
You see it is in fact you very confused here. I mean what unique feature do whites? Asians? Blacks have?
And are they simple a by-prodcut of the environment? In other words, it would hold no view based on intelligence
So you then claim distinct biological differences?
So I am really looking forward for you to show how exactly you claim I proved your point?
The only thing you will find unique in some ethnic groups, is medical conditions. Mainly inhertited through genetics of families. Which we already know with things like cancer. Both Prostrate and Breast care share the same genetic gene that can be passed on.

You then end with something even more absurd. That because a small number of sports people are the best at the present time and for a number of decades. This is your bases and as absurd as it is on intelligence. That this makes this entire group classified as a race to be supperior in certain strenghs?

Really?

Is that now why there is more and more african American swimmers?

Who is to say if then Asians become the faster top sprinters, or then whites again.

So you see the absurdity of your point. Its like I said, even using the poor IQ method, over the last couple of decades African Americans levels have been increasing vastly faster to that of whites in America. Whites on average are still higher, but clearly within a decade or so. They will be basically even, based on the increasing rates. Which clearly shows that access to education  and an ethos by families is leading to the divide dwindling all the time.

So you see this further proves your points have no validty or reason. They are not based on eye colour, hair colour, but for some reason skin colour. Again hence the absurdity. You need to stop looking at everthing in the present as if this is then the set standard, when life is continually changing. The biggest hole in your argument, is that there simple is no people on this planet that could constitute as a pure race. As everyone is inherantly ethnically mixed over thousands of years.

Have a read

IQ and environment

The world’s leading IQ theorist, Jim Flynn, has proved that IQs have risen across the board over the last century (100 years ago the average IQ by today’s standards would be about 70). The reason for this “Flynn Effect”, as it has been dubbed, has nothing to do with genetics and all to do with environment – in particular, increased exposure to various forms of abstract logic, which is what the tests measure.

Different population groups are exposed to markedly different environmental conditions, which is why average scores vary. For this reason IQ scores are rising faster in some populations than others (average IQs of Kenyan children were shown to have risen by 26.3 points in 14 years). Similarly, black American IQs are rising at a faster rate than those of white Americans, while Jewish Americans went from having below average IQs at the time of the First World War to having above average IQs now.

This illustrates how absurd it is to compare the IQs of different populations but when you remove IQ scores from the tool box of the scientific racists, the rest of their case falls to dust.

And yet the widespread combination of misplaced faith in the immutability of IQ and misplaced faith in the ability of genes to determine behaviour has allowed their claims to fester away, unchallenged in the public arena. The problem in not challenging these bad ideas promptly and vigorously goes way beyond their flawed science. If the public and its opinion makers come to accept notions like Wade’s – such as that Africans are, by nature, none-too-bright tribalists – we’ll be in danger of returning to the dangerous mentality that formed the ballast for colonialism and slavery.

Gavin Evans is the author of Black Brain, White Brain: Is intelligence skin deep? The book is published by Jonathan Ball in South Africa and Thistle in the UK..

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:How can anyone generalise on intelligence based on the colour of their skin?

Just answer that.

You can't.

But you can report test scores based on skin color.

Then you debate what the test scores actually measure.

Some would say very little, other's a great deal.  

When I worked in the education system, year after year the same results always came back: white boys born in the summer scored the worst in exam results.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You can't.

But you can report test scores based on skin color.

Then you debate what the test scores actually measure.

Some would say very little, other's a great deal.  

When I worked in the education system, year after year the same results always came back: white boys born in the summer scored the worst in exam results.

Would those also be the youngest boys in their class?

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You can't.

But you can report test scores based on skin color.

Then you debate what the test scores actually measure.

Some would say very little, other's a great deal.  

When I worked in the education system, year after year the same results always came back: white boys born in the summer scored the worst in exam results.

How many came from broken homes Eddie without a father figure?

Maddog has some wierd view to base this on skin colour. I ask on what point in history and what point to come?

I would ask how can the colour of the skin be the biological reason, when all humans no matter their skin colour can and do wrong.

So do you test these scores on hair coolour?

Eye colour?

Nose shape and size?

Dick size?

How hairy?

How not hairy?

Hair colour?

I could go on but you get the point. In that why is the base standard on testing scores on skin colour, when its one of many features that humans have?

In other words such a view is simple designed to racially view people as inferior. When even more absurd, having pale skin is an evolutionary disadvantage.

Thor wrote:

eddie wrote:

When I worked in the education system, year after year the same results always came back: white boys born in the summer scored the worst in exam results.

How many came from broken homes Eddie without a father figure?

Maddog has some wierd view you can base this on skin colour. I ask on what point in history and what point to come?

I would ask how can the colour of the skin be the biological reason, when all humans no matter their skin colour can and do wrong.

So do you test these scores on hair coolour?

Eye colour?

Nose shape and size?

Dick size?

How hairy?

How not hairy?

Hair colour?

I could go on but you get the point. In that why is the base standard on testing scores on skin colour, when its one of many features that humans have?

In other words such a view is simple designed to racially view people as inferior. When even more absurd, having pale skin is an evolutionary disadvantage.

Different races score differently on tests, but that's because of cultural differences.

Let's take SAT scores in the US. Are the folks with the higher scores actually more intelligent? Maybe that's a component of those results, but not the only factor affecting scores.

For one, some very bright folks just don't test well.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

How many came from broken homes Eddie without a father figure?

Maddog has some wierd view you can base this on skin colour. I ask on what point in history and what point to come?

I would ask how can the colour of the skin be the biological reason, when all humans no matter their skin colour can and do wrong.

So do you test these scores on hair coolour?

Eye colour?

Nose shape and size?

Dick size?

How hairy?

How not hairy?

Hair colour?

I could go on but you get the point. In that why is the base standard on testing scores on skin colour, when its one of many features that humans have?

In other words such a view is simple designed to racially view people as inferior. When even more absurd, having pale skin is an evolutionary disadvantage.

Different races score differently on tests, but that's because of cultural differences.

Let's take SAT scores in the US. Are the folks with the higher scores actually more intelligent? Maybe that's a component of those results, but not the only factor affecting scores.

For one, some very bright folks just don't test well.    

That is completee gibberish

At present for exmple those scoring lowest in this country and doing worst are working class white boys and mainly from broken homes.

There is two factors for you why they have and always have faired poorly in society. Where the same applies to any ethnic groups

So based on SAT scores at present men are dumber than women, based on your premise?

Do you not see how absurd a standard of test based on a present time frame is utterly dumb to state?

Again I ask you Maddog, what has skin colour got to do with any of this?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Different races score differently on tests, but that's because of cultural differences.

Let's take SAT scores in the US. Are the folks with the higher scores actually more intelligent? Maybe that's a component of those results, but not the only factor affecting scores.

For one, some very bright folks just don't test well.    

That is completee gibberish

At present for exmple those scoring lowest in this country and doing worst are working class white boys and mainly from broken homes.

There is two factors for you why they have and always have faired poorly in society. Where the same applies to any ethnic groups

So based on SAT scores at present men are dumber than women, based on your premise?

Do you not see how absurd a standard of test based on a present time frame is utterly dumb to state?

I never said anyone was dumb. I said they scored lower on the SAT.

But critics of affirmative action -- perhaps including the U.S. Justice Department -- have focused on test scores to argue that elite colleges are discriminating against Asian applicants. The new data not only show Asian students earning top scores, but also that Asian students were significantly more likely to have met what the College Board calls "benchmark" scores indicating that students have a 75 percent chance of earning a C or higher in various college courses

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/27/scores-new-sat-show-large-gaps-race-and-ethnicity

Thor wrote:Again I ask you Maddog, what has skin colour got to do with any of this?

I have no idea. I would say it more cultural than anything else. Also, income has a great deal to do with education and test scores.

And the next point you need to digest, is that at any given time in history. Is that some groups do better then others.
Take European and American history.

How well did the majority of these people do without education?

What were their IQ levels then?

Compare that to people today, where they have access to education?

Thor wrote:And the next point you need to digest, is that at any given time in history. Is that some groups do better then others.
Take European and American history.

How well did the majority of these people do without education?

What were their IQ levels then?

Compare that to people today, where they have access to education?

No doubt, schools come into play too.

My point is simple. Test scores vary by ethnicity in the US. What the test scores measure is up for debate.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

That is completee gibberish

At present for exmple those scoring lowest in this country and doing worst are working class white boys and mainly from broken homes.

There is two factors for you why they have and always have faired poorly in society. Where the same applies to any ethnic groups

So based on SAT scores at present men are dumber than women, based on your premise?

Do you not see how absurd a standard of test based on a present time frame is utterly dumb to state?

I never said anyone was dumb. I said they scored lower on the SAT.

But critics of affirmative action -- perhaps including the U.S. Justice Department -- have focused on test scores to argue that elite colleges are discriminating against Asian applicants. The new data not only show Asian students earning top scores, but also that Asian students were significantly more likely to have met what the College Board calls "benchmark" scores indicating that students have a 75 percent chance of earning a C or higher in various college courses

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/27/scores-new-sat-show-large-gaps-race-and-ethnicity

Which asians students?

Japanese?

Pakistani?

How about African american women who are also doing very well?

So scores on SAT's is now the gold standard of some tests?

Who had the better ethos to do well and sudy?

Did you factor this?

How many asians come from broken homes?

Did you factor that?

Again what has that got to do with the colour of someones skin?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:Again I ask you Maddog, what has skin colour got to do with any of this?

I have no idea. I would say it more cultural than anything else. Also, income has a great deal to do with education and test scores.  

So skin colour has no relevance then?

At the same time, SAT scores showed continued patterns in which white and Asian students, on average, receive higher scores than do black and Latino students. And, as has been the case for years, students from wealthier families score better than do those from disadvantaged families. These and other figures -- including new data on Advanced Placement participation -- are being released today by the College Board.


https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/03/sat-scores-drop-and-racial-gaps-remain-large

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:And the next point you need to digest, is that at any given time in history. Is that some groups do better then others.
Take European and American history.

How well did the majority of these people do without education?

What were their IQ levels then?

Compare that to people today, where they have access to education?

No doubt, schools come into play too.

My point is simple. Test scores vary by ethnicity in the US. What the test scores measure is up for debate.

How did test scores be forr your grand parents?

Does that make them thicker, based on the level of learning and access to this today?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I have no idea. I would say it more cultural than anything else. Also, income has a great deal to do with education and test scores.  

So skin colour has no relevance then?

We don't really keep stats on skin color. We do on ethnicity, and different groups score differently.

Maddog wrote:At the same time, SAT scores showed continued patterns in which white and Asian students, on average, receive higher scores than do black and Latino students. And, as has been the case for years, students from wealthier families score better than do those from disadvantaged families. These and other figures -- including new data on Advanced Placement participation -- are being released today by the College Board.


https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/03/sat-scores-drop-and-racial-gaps-remain-large

So wealth and opportunity fare better for people well off, no matter skin colour

Care to retract your original point to eddie?

Also, does this not mean my point is well founded on access to edcuation?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course he won't. He's the one who started spouting all the bile.

Defending his position? Do shut up.

You're a fucking outright lying piece of shit, Ragga'  --  just like your odious lying chums Sly, HT and gellibelli'...

Tommy started the crapfest on here -- stating that Asians and "whites" are "more intelligent" than "blacks"..

I criticised Tommy's lying racist bullshit for what it is --  and then it was nicko who threatened me with violence, right after Fred had criticised me simply for telling the truth  !

And you and Sly then joined in the gang-attacks, readily cheering them on, and then trying to excuse your own racist and xenophobic feelings by piling more lies upon lies..

I have commented on the o/p in my above posts --  something that you, Sly, nicko and Fred have repeatedly failed to do...       Proving once again who the supporters of Tommy's racist and xenophobic 'white supremacist' drivel on here really are --   you horrible little mob of whining Englische snowflakes really should be ashamed of yourselves..

You're the liar wolfboy. This is where you started spouting the bile:

... you slithering little neo-nazi piece of slime..

You're the xenophobic one - you've mentioned the ethnicity and nationality of various posters in a negative way twice in this thread now.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

So skin colour has no relevance then?

We don't really keep stats on skin color. We do on ethnicity, and different groups score differently.

Why?

What is the point?

To help those less well off in the US?

Or as a means as a weapon to form a hatred?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No doubt, schools come into play too.

My point is simple. Test scores vary by ethnicity in the US. What the test scores measure is up for debate.

How did test scores be forr your grand parents?

Does that make them thicker, based on the level of learning and access to this today?

No. Education is key, and different ethnicities have access to different levels of education.

That will play a part in test scores.

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

We don't really keep stats on skin color. We do on ethnicity, and different groups score differently.

Why?

What is the point?

To help those less well off in the US?

Or as a means as a weapon to form a hatred?

There are people that like to measure such things. I guess they would say that the information could be used to helpt those groups that historically perform worse on tests.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:What cracks me up is how Tommy is trying to prove whites are smarter than blacks and Rags (white) can't understand that's what he's doing, thus proving Tommy's theory wrong since any black person would immediately understand what he's trying to do.

I told you - he also said that Asians had a higher IQ than white people.

I wish you wouldn't use the terms "blacks" and "whites" - it sounds common.