This coming from an American, (I assume that you're an American), is very refreshing. Ever heard of the joke about a swimmer and a math prof on a boat? That's kind of things prevailent in this culture and that's really depressing.
No need to have facts interfere with your beliefs eh. I have no anger or self indignation. I am just amazed at how far a liberal will go to distort reality. You have no idea where this conversation will go, because I am not saying that any other observations are valid. But to deny that blacks are faster than whites would mean there is some sort of massive structual discrimination against whites in the speed events and speed positions. Cmon zzz dont you wonder why there are so many more black guys who lead the nfl in rushing. You really think it is cause white guys dont want to be rich and famous enough? What all those white coaches who discriminate against blacks for the quarterback position discriminate against whites for running backs, wide recievers and defensive backs?
Please go back and read what I posted to you when you asked me what to say to your kid. I mean, read what I said. Sheesh...
I am sure you give a fuck about them with your mouth here on Internet forum. You know what, I was lying I really care about blacks in Africa too, just like you. Pretentious IDIOT.
Then if your responses haven't changed, there is a reading comprehension problem happening on your part. Look, if you want to spread your thinking to your kids, your right to do so. Some would prefer to have kids be color blind, understanding that seeing color when it comes to athletics and athletic performance is just silly, and harmful to the athlete. See, when a white kid goes into some competition and thinks, even on a sub conscious level "Heck, I can't beat them, they have better than I could ver be...because they have black athlete genes" he has immediately decreased his chance of winning, because winning is so much more than physical, especially at the highest level of competition. From either side, be it athletics or the world in general, if racism is in the mind of a competitor and they think they have some disadvantage because of their race, they are screwed. This applies to all races, not just black and white. Your thinking is really screwed up on this one, as I never said whites don't work hard or are not motivated, just that we see continually that poor kids can rise to high levels because they are highly motivated to get out of the poverty they have lived with all their life, and that motivation takes them from just being a good athlete to greatness. It is not a black or white issue at all.
When it comes to athletics, I suppose the liberals lies about races are acceptable. Who cares, it's only sport anyway, right? The truth, of course, is that athletic ability is also largely genetically inherited, and therefore, since it is genetically inherited, it is going to be distributed according to what amounts to 'race'. No white man has ever run 100m under ten seconds (not the last time I checked anyway). The only people to have done it are of West African extraction. Their bodies are simply the best suited to it. On the other hand, they are notoriously poor swimmers, again for largely 'structural' reasons.
I've never said it counts for everything. But why would art and love and eveyrthing that makes life rich and enjoyable simply disappear in a higher iq society? Realistically, mean iq wouldn't really be able to bumped up that much higher, anyway. But a shift from 100 to 110 would mean that the kind of outcomes associated with the very lowest IQs would be greatly diminished. Everything else would stay largely the same. In no way way would it be a world unrecognizable to you. The crack about liberals was spoken in jest. But come on, I think you have to admit that liberals have often had ample opportunity to what would have amounted in 'proving me wrong'. To take one example, education. Everyone, left and right, constantly rants about education. Few things are said to be more important than a good education. People trip over themselves to get their kids into 'good schools' in order to get those good educations. Some schools, apparently, are 'bad schools', where it's not possible to get a good eduction. Disgusted that this should be so, liberals have set about correcting things, such that there should be no more 'bad schools'. The answer to this, apparently, was more money. Some schools were said to be so starved of resources that a good education simply wasn't possible. 'More money' has duly been thrown at education. What have been the results? Student test scores are still being bemoaned. The harsh reality is that 'bad schools' means simply 'bad students'. And 'bad students' are those who can't learn and/or disrupt students who can. Remember the inspirational film "Lean On Me", where the Morgan Freeman character inspires the ghetto school to improve its test performance? Tear jerking stuff, but the most significant move he made wasn't the inspirational speeches he delivered, it was tossing out the worst students, right at the beginning of the film. Some kids are just not gonna ever learn very much. Keeping them in school just bores the pants off them and their disruptive behavior creates an environment in which not even the gifted students can learn. What is the best predictor who will or won't learn much? Trusty old IQ. A kid of IQ 75 might eventually be taught how to read, even if it takes ten years for him to learn what others master in one or two, and he should to taught to read despite how long it takes. However, it would be ridiculous to expect him to ever understand the finer points of Shakespeare. Similarly, with maths, he might eventually catch on to basic addition and subtraction, even with 'big' numbers, and manage to learn basic multiplication and percentages, and he should be taught to do, even if it does take ten years. Afterall, these are things he'll actually use in life. But why agonize him with algebra or trigonometry? Why waste valuable time (with such a kid) on history or geography or science when those things, at least in early schooling years, are largely a matter of memorizing factoids, which are then promptly forgotten and, to people of that iq stratum, never thought about again anyway? That kids have limits wich can be measured by IQ might be hard doctrine. But everything we know points to it being true. Earlier some people were rankled when I suggested that a more intelligent society would be better. Some of those are the same people who would scream bloody murder at the suggestion that some kids are not worth trying to impart highschool educations to. And yet achieving a highschool education--on merit--requires a certain level of intelligence -- a level of intelligence that many kids just don't have. Well, if an educated society is better, please realize, people, that implies that a more intelligent society is better.
Well, good. That suggests that even though every single measure we have of intelligence -- IQ and educational achievement, even when holding for economic status -- unambiguously ranks blacks as 'dumber', by a whole standard deviation, such differences are, mercifully, not apparent in general conversation. "Strongly" is rather subjective. Objectively, if some professions reqiure mastering a certain body of knowledge, or require a certain level of education, and if those professions are considered a measure of success (as they very much are), and mastering such a body of knowledge is simply beyond the ken of people below a certain level of IQ, then, again, objectively, 'success' is correlated with IQ. Living a happy, contented, meaningful, fulfilling life, on the other hand, depends very little on IQ. A person with an IQ of 90 is highly unlikely to ever develop a passion for reading 'great' literature. To him, it's no loss at all. There are a million and one things he'd rather be doing. And that's perfectly fine! If he's lucky enough to live in a society with enough higher IQ people to man the jobs that keep society working -- managers, doctors, lawyers, politicians, engineers, etc -- he can lead a great life. That's an important point, because with allthe talk about IQ, it might sound like I think it's the only measure of a man that counts. But nothing could be further from the truth. As I've said, I grew up with the prols. And while there is a great deal of ugliness (seriously man, some of the things they do to people, uuggghh), I am more than comfortabel having a drink and watching the game with them, or going fishing and shooting the breeze, or hitting a nightclub and chasing tail. Sure, there isn't really much opportunity to discuss my other interests, like social policy, economics, history, because no one's interested and sounding like a know-it-all annoys and bores people. But that doesn't bother me. I'd still rather spend time with the prols than with some lefty intellectual. I have a great deal to say in favor of the simple pleasures in life. However, for people to be able to enjoy those simple pleasures, some people have to do the demanding work of running society (the professionals), and such work requires high intellect. And therefore IQ matters. That's becase trading doesn't correlate well (at all) with making money.