Would You Rather Be Smart Or Attractive?

Now that the choices have changed I think I'd rather be chinese.

 

I can do something better than you Nerdanderthal,

Represent without credentials.

 

*sigh*
let me try to make this as simple as possible.
I do not contest the data, only your very racist interpretation of it and what it means.
plain and simple.
You claim to be possessing of a higher level of intelligence than me, yet in the other thread when asked you shrugged off the notion as not being that important.
Now it is the benchmark you wish to use?
I have not called you stupid; moron, ignorant, racist, yes, stupid no, because you obviously are not stupid.
I may as well apologize for the moron statement as well as you also obviously posses an IQ higher than 70.
But you are ignorant in a variety of ways, mainly you are ignorant to how your own bias and prejudice is coloring what you are reading/seeing.
In your mind it would appear, at least from your communications here, that you attribute all these different "ills" to racial differences.
you also seem to be ignorant of the proper ways to conduct research and how to evaluate said research.
That is an ignorant and incomplete appraisal of the data.

Why don't you go back and address the questions posed to you concerning all this crap in the thread where you first brought this up?


ps, just so you know, bringing up the same topic across multiple threads or creating multiple threads about the same topic is considered "spamming" according to the site guidelines.





132 stanford-binet
128-147 on various others.
didn't take the SAT, took the GED at 16 and started college.

 

LOOK MA!!!!
It's Col. Steve Austin!!!!!!

 

I have a higher post count and many more "likes" than you, so there!!!!! :mickey:

 

Quite right.

You're obviously bright and I don't want to discredit your brain power.

I'd love to have an ample selection of research to delve into. I think you know institutions generally frown heavily on scientists who do explore racial differences.

It's more simple than that though, it's imminently visible right on the surface.

The 100 meter champions are always black. Not because of genetic differences.
The Nobel Science winners are always white. Not because of genetic differences.

Right?

Or is it the case that after diverging evolutionary paths many thousands of generations ago, the population that remained in the warmer climate continued to hunt successfully, rewarding physical prowess with more offspring.

The population that ventured north was met with a harsh, unusual landscape, and eventually an ice age. Those who were not clever enough, resourceful enough, were met with an evolutionary bottleneck whereby only the upper portion of the bell curve survived. Some combination of this and interbreeding with Neanderthals and their giant cranial capacities lead to the Caucasoid and Mongoloid skull shapes we see today. These expanded craniums are absolutely vital for accomodating the brain power of an Einstein or Newton. Room for large brains is necessary but not sufficient for the development of a genius. Even in the general populations though, there is an obvious difference in behavior. With different skull shapes and brain shapes, goal oriented actions, violence, rape, basically all the things a well developed frontal lobe (or lack thereof) is responsible for, are affected.

I firmly believe based on a preponderance of the evidence that these well developed frontal lobes are the key to our success as a species. It seems, however to have become a liability in terms of outbreeding those with smaller brains and smaller skulls. The more religious the human, the bigger the family. The less advanced the society, the bigger the family. Sub Saharan Africa is far and away the least developed society on earth. They've simply been successful at surviving by employing ancient survival techniques. They're very well developed from the neck down on average, they're less developed from the neck up. They have higher bone density but smaller cranial capacity. THERE ARE BARELY ANY STUDIES TO BE FOUND ON THESE FACTS. EXPLORING THESE AREAS IS notttt alowwwwed.

https://depts.washington.edu/bonebio/bonAbout/race.html

If you publicly address this very real problem, you will essentially be banned from the academic community, even if you are among the greatest scientists of the 20th century.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGer1HTYU0s James Watson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ULWzSpX6sk William Shockley

 

oh, i thought this was the quality in people thread.. my bad.

 

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/318020-people-who-boast-about-their-i-q-are-losers

 

Great way to get sympathy action from dumb bitches.

He probably has a thing for black girls.

I'd love to hear what he thinks about the sustainable future of Africa.

 

Quality people

 

well without the machine probably just some gurgles and maybe a sputtery whistle

 

Well, you can buy attractive but you can't buy smart.

 

Attractive.

I want sex, not books.

 

If I were him I'd have a Walken impersonator installed.

 

unless you need a plumber

 

Plumber with a plunger you got both

 

OHHH NO YOU DII'IIINT

 

As I said before, you are allowing your personal bias color the data to fit your premise.

Your ideas are pretty juvenile overall and have been discredited time and again.
then you talk about different skull shapes and sizes....phrenology???? are you fucking kidding me???
That idiocy was discredited ages ago.

I still hold to my original assessment, your a racist troll not worth the time.

it's remarks like this that show your true feelings as a racist.

I rest my case.

 

OHHH YES I DID!