user created polls & quizzes      

WHICH ETHNIC MINORITY HAS HIGHEST IQ?

choices :
[+] ballot by iwaslikeu


this ballot was closed by maintainer :
LCD : on Oct 12, 2014 because Not niggers.

chinese
japanese
jews
eskimos
red necks
humans
hispanics...obviously
none, only white people have iqs
bosnians
indian
Welsh
Canadians, they drink clean fresh water
White power
blacks
asians
iran
greeks
none thats why they are all minorities
Burmese Pygmy Headhunters
All races, but blacks, they are retarded.
atheists
White Anglo-Saxon Protestants
Does not have to do with race but with environment
filipinos
scots
Ashkenazi Jews
What a stupid question
arabs
armenians
Russians
jive arse colours, wot?
Aryans
monkies
pimp mexicans
muslims
Peruvians
white people
Polish
The darker the skin, the dumber they come
people that don't visit this website twice
Mongolians
latvians
the english aka the master race
hungarians
Swedes
nobody, IQ depends on the person, not the race
HOBBITS
Iraqis
native american
Albanians
Silicon Valley folk
OF COURSE TURKS
me
Dirt black welfare tenants
Douchebags
vietnamese
Orlando Bloom
Koreans
serbian
somalis
Vikings! aaarrrgggg!
ME (144) genius level where is mensa now
My Dick !
germans
Mutants
wish Hitler coulda had his way
Iranians
brazilians
egyptian
Irish
BEER DRINKERS
jappy
Steven Hawking
jappylanders
Australians
conservatives
NATIONALITIES you 'tards
anti- Bush
every group of ppl have the same IQ
Everybody except blacks and hispanics
Dutch
ITALIANS
SORRY, THIS POLL
IS NOW CLOSED.

Ballot #5541 :
Voting Finished : SEE RESULTS

Comment:
Register to submit comments
You may still vote without registration

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM
smile bank:








similiar ballots:
138633. Pelosi as minority leader, yes or no?
139343. Is a minority government better than a majority?
141300. What ethnic restaurant do you think you'd like the most?
22700. Are racists a minority group who should not be discriminated against?
85385. Are white people an oppressed minority?
91490. Does pointing out that you're a minority ever really help your image in the public eye?
139733. Why do some people think it's okay to make ethnic,
72087. Affirmative action proponents: would you give up your job to a minority?
140280. True/False: Christians are a minority in Hawaii
6312. are you ashamed of your ethnic or racial heritage?



COMMENTS:
I dont think bosnians are minorities here! neither are welsh
Black people let there dicks think thats why they are all infested with aids
hey guest i_was_like_u doesn't sound like Japanese name to me.
Fuck jews, japs, blacks and chinks. I have an IQ of 69, so what. I will kill all of you by bury you underneath feces and gasoline and lite it on fire. A genius covered with shit and fire is just a fucking retard.
The average Black man's IQ is about 80. That's nearly borderline retarded/slow learner category. Sad, but blacks are biologically inferior
Whites on average, achieve most in the educational system, although this is matched by children from Asian backgrounds in all subjects and at all levels (with the notable exception of English language). Indeed, if we take this factor into account, it is evident that, on average, children of Asian descent achieve more than their white counterparts.

Afro-Caribbean children, on the other hand, appear to significantly underachieve in the education system. This is not just true in Britain and Europe, but also comparatively in terms of societies such as America

Why do you ask, will you award them a prize? Do you even know what an Intelligent Quotient test measures? If you think it's intelligence, then you're the idiot!
It is Whites who develop these IQ exams, and one would assume that that makes them automatically biased. You see, if one race of people include life experience into an exam and others whom never experienced the same and take this exam, then, why would we expect that group to pass the racially biased exam? I think if you have those filtering through a educational system that is deficient and failing to provide the basis educational neccessities, why expect them to do well when taking such a racially biased I.Q exam? Sorry, I miss the point of those whom assume certain ethnic groups possess a lower I.Q in comparison to others...
Isn't this tet going to be bias to any one answering to there on race? If i would have to wager a guess, not canandains.
Generally, Japs do best on mathmatical reasoning, where jews perform on verbal reasoning. I know some brilliant asian engineers, but they write like 6th graders, and they were born in the U.S.
It's Japanese.no dispute.I had 16 Japanese and Japanese American kids in my class.2 of them went to Harverd.4 went to Cornell.7 went to Stanford.They are extremly smart.yet so humble.I love them.
"hey, im black and i have an IQ of 159....MUTHAFUCKAZ!" Online IQ test, perhaps? Ha. I have an IQ of 163, AND the ability to spell. Dumb knee-grow.
RACIST PEOPLE!!! you disgust me
To be honest I'd have to say that environment and education can do wonders for members of any race. Anyone ever read about George Washington Carver? Dude invented like 100 things from frickin peanuts. Black people have potential they are just disillusioned and don't try because people tell them they can't get anywhere. The Japanese are simply trained young..trained hard to get a jump on the rest of the world. The jews...aren't especially intelligent they simply pass down secret tricks from generation to generation, like how to turn a dollar into a thousand using only a little deceit and treachery sprinkled with a dash of knife in back.
China scares me because they keep to themselves as a people. Who knows what the Chinese might do if they decide to break their isolationism.
The only stupid races i can think of are the Austrailian Aborigines, the Maoris of New Zealand, those damned Eskimos, and of course, the French.

Just kidding about the Aborigines,Maoris and Eskimos.
only white people are smart
the fucking huns
Not me, I always say what I think. But the difference is I think rationally. rational thinking means you might have to ignore Political Correctness sometimes, but at least in the end you're left with truth, and not political propaganda far-leftist cockamamie or far-right bigotry.
Didn't the Chinese produce inventions, while the Japanese are a copy of Korean culture. This poll sucks.
mexican i live in san antnio and there better than black people
First of all, JEW IS NOT A RACE!!! As for me, THE DUTCH KICK ALL ASS!
americans have small dicks
Absolutely marvelous, hilarious and yet educational too. I love the "....Aborigines, Mauris, Eskimos and French. ....Just kidding about the Abo's etc. etc..." comment. Most amusing. And thanks also to the chap who told us of the Penguins involvement in Linux development, I for one had no idea. Bravo Penguin types, bravo.
Guinea 59?!? That can't be right; half the population would be drooling mongolics! Dumb is one thing, but moderately mentally retarded is another. I suggest you double-check those stats with a different site.
Fuck the race... anyone who have an IQ under 140 is dumb. Took the real test from your local psychiatrist and find it out for real. If you have IQ unnder 120, you should go back or stay in school. If you have an IQ under 100, go kill yourselves, you fucking moron.
IQ tests do not measure intelligence but performance on a particular test. The people who tout that they have high "IQ's" infact are the least intelligent of all.
this poll is funny, what's even more funny is how upset people get
whites invented the VCR

sony and matsushita are american companies

whatever

genetics is not constant over time

for example in ancients times middle eastern people e.g. semities, anatolians, greeks were genetically the smartest people or at least this is what the models of evolution would predict.

but early urbanization, mongrelization and inbreding have reduced their genetic fitness.

ARYANS!
I believe your IQ doesn't depend on your race. It depends on the education available to you in the place you live.
Wow.I posted this one a couple month ago and totally forgot about it.It was kinda joke.I'm quite surprised,people are seriously debating this one.well,I went to school in Cali.The smartest kids are always Japanese and Chinese.Like Hitler guy saya,They usually go to Ivy league school.I went to U.C Berkley.pretty good school I think.I think over 45 % of the students are asians at Berkley too.But I wouldn't say its their IQ though.They study hard.If they are not in classroom,They are at library.You don't see them in the gym.That's for sure.
The asians who come here often have very high IQs. Not necessarily because they are smarter, but because they have very strict parents who make them work hard and don't allow them to go out or do things normal kids and teens do. Then they go out into the world and are willing to work harder than everyone else. Seriously...if you notice, the americanized asians are just as dumb as everyone else. LOL.
Fuck off whitey
Goddammit i hate you jews
what adumb question. obviously the personwho wrote this is dumb if they think ethnicity has anything to do with intelligence.
We need to break the steriotypes of ethnic minorities and celebrate diversity! Why should we judge people by the content of their character when mother earth has evolved such nice little groups of people such as asians, blacks, and indians that we can celebrate their uniqueness individually and as a group in a free world governed by peace and nothing but peace.
This shit is so fucking sad.Minorities have nothing to do with a person's IQ.You racist fucker!
All men and women were created equal. thou shall not compare intelligence amongst yourselves.
The History of Jews as Parasites on their Host Nations,
December 12, 1998, by Dr. John Pierce of The National Alliance

Abstract of Lecture. Beginning with ancient authors, the Jews have been described as parasites who have entered their host nations and gained control of their wealth, forcing their native population to work for them, to produce wealth for the Jews. Dr. Pierce analyzes this history and finds it applicable to Jews throughout World History and especially in America today. Do you agree or disagree with this analysis? For what reasons? In either case, you will require Real Audio to hear this 25 minutes analysis. The Real Audio Player may be downloaded in a few seconds from Real Audio.
by vontion on Mar 01, 2004

Ancient Mayans.
My Dick has the highest IQ.
Native Americans fuckin' rock you white aZZ bitches! Go to Hell you white people!! White isn't even a minority! Fuck you whie people!
Go the persians...we are the smartest evrywhere they go they make so type of impact, and oh screw you ...the racist pricks out there....you are a bunch of irogant cock nits.
I agree.Japanese girls are pretty dumb.But Japanese guys,They are genius.What I don't understand is why they always wear soccer shirt like American kids wear bascketball shirt.And it always say"Ronaldo"on the back.I suppose he is a soccer player.Does anybody know who the fuck "Ronaldo"is??
It is the smart whites that developed the IQ test for the stupid blacks to take
i was gonna say japs but i reckon gays are
RONALDO MANIA

badass soccer player

oh yeah, jews are fuckin terrible people

I'd like two egg rolls please.
It's not true A new book out documents that 97% of all inventions and technical advancements are from euro boys - - - - it just seems that way because popular literature and history taught in schools is skewed.
European civilization and thus its inventions borrowed heavily on non-European ancient civilization.
It is absurd to say that each human shares the same phenotype. Some groups are more biologically adept at solving complex problems. No ammount of pc fascism will change that fact.
MYTH: Some ethnic groups have genetically inferior IQ's.

FACT: Poverty creates large IQ differences even between groups of the same ethnicity.

There are too many examples of discriminated minorities even within ethnic groups that score worse on IQ tests to believe the myth that the differences are genetic.

On average, African-Americans score 7 to 15 points lower than European-Americans on IQ tests. Many conservatives believe this is because blacks are genetically inferior to whites. But liberals believe that the IQ gap is the result of nearly three centuries of slavery and yet another 130 years of segregation and institutionalized racism. Even the Civil Rights Act and affirmative action have not eliminated discrimination against blacks -- they've merely reduced it somewhat. The result of this discrimination is that a disproportionate percentage of blacks work at lower-paying jobs, live in poverty and squalor, lack health care and child care, and do not receive the quality of education and personal development available to richer members of society. All these deprivations work to suppress IQ and educational achievement in children during their critical developmental years.

Which viewpoint is correct? The answer becomes obvious when you compare the lower IQ results of other discriminated minorities around the world, many of whom are of the same genetic stock.

Perhaps the most dramatic example is the Northern Irish. Even though they come from the same ethnic group, Catholics (the discriminated minority) score 15 points lower on IQ tests than Protestants.

In the U.S., both Korean and Japanese students score above average in IQ tests; many scholars agree that, genetically, they are about as close as two ethnic groups can get. But the Korean minority living in Japan scores much lower on IQ tests than the Japanese. Why? The Japanese are extremely racist towards Koreans; they view them as stupid and violent, and employ them only in the dirtiest and lowest-paying jobs. Tensions are so great between the two groups that violence often erupts in the form of riots.

In the U.S., Polish Jews arriving before 1910 were also perceived as stupid (for no other reason than they were accustomed to a different culture and spoke another language). So many "Pollock" jokes arose that Americans still tell them to this day, even if no one remembers why. The Polish Jews suffered heavy job discrimination and suspicion of criminality; not surprisingly, their children suffered low grades and IQ test scores. Today, of course, many Americans hold the opposite prejudice; Jews are viewed as the most brilliant of ethnic groups.

Russian-born Jews who became American soldiers in World War I also scored low on IQ tests. So low, in fact, that Carl Brigham, the creator of the Scholastic Aptitude Test, declared that the results "disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent."

There are countless examples around the world where the dominant ethnic group scores higher on IQ tests than the discriminated minority, even when the two groups are of the same ethnic stock.

Yoohooo ! Yeah the Canadians you rock !

Except Canadians, I'd say rabbits, just fuckin' rabbits !! They control the world and our minds.
by pRn [+]

Such ignorance! I demand proof of your so called surveys.
Black people let there dicks think thats why they are all infested with aids
by Franchesco on Dec 30, 2003


The number 1 aids infected people in the united states are still white homosexuals .

Black people let there dicks think thats why they are all infested with aids
by Franchesco on Dec 30, 2003

the number 1 race infected with aids is
Whites at 380450 and blacks at 300133 . so whites and blacks are equally ifected with only 80317 more whites .

The smartest man in history was a Jew from Russia. He died of a brain hemorrhage.
I love RACIST people
I love RACISM ...but i am not to keen on BLACKS

They annoy me very much

Well intelligence covers a broard spectrum of mental ablilities and we still know very little about what goes on whithin our brains.

Composing music and creating art requires different mental resources from say mathematical computation.
Iam good at remembering data and seeing patterns in sytems however Iam crap at art and hopeless with foreign languages.

IQ tests can only offer a valuation for specific mental processes that are known to us.

Some races may be better at particular tasks but you cannot generalise the term 'intelligence' and say one race is smarter or more stupid, that is unscientific as well as racist.

Let's put it this way if your father had a buisness and taught you about whatever his buisness does would'nt that give you an advantage over others at a young age ? It's totally relevant to what you are exposed to at a young age . If you grow up Around a project are trailer park with one parent who's a crack head chances are your going to be dumb . If you grow up with a middle class are above two parent home chances are you'll have more options . Like New Orleans most all of their Mayors police men , fire men and males and females in position of power are black . So of course the middle classed and upper classed blacks will do better than othe blacks in opposite settings . All races have smart and dumb people . At black colleges the majority of people study Criminal Law , and Psychology .
There is no such thing as an IQ
The brain is very well understood and has always been so.
But not by the Mediaeval Europeans and present day pop culture Globalists
Mathamatics is an illusion and imposition
(mutilation) on a protesting brain
Language is not"real" and has nothing to do with any natural function of the brain.
And EVERYONE would have the means of artistic brilliance if their brains were allowed to function properly

Creative formative motion is open, goal oriented, structured, concentrated, dynamic, self-organising, self-divesting of the less valuable, rythmical, cyclical, sinuous, pulasating, inrolling and centripetal =the cycloid- spiral-space -curve,
The whiteys are devolution, deterioration, increasing disorder, decay,
instability, inefficiency, bankruptcy.
Dionysion vs Appolonian. Diogenes vs Plato. Crazy Horse vs
Custer.
Cathars vs Christians.
India vs Britain.
Issa vs Jews and Romans
The WHOLE FUCKIN WORLD vs the New World Order Capitalists.

Billy Connolly vs **insert anal retentive moron here______**
Al-hallaj vs the muslims
BMnuts, you smoke too much crack
I say good old Steven hawking. His ethnicity means nothing, but he is a cripple and a scientist, making him a minority on 2 other fronts.
Big monkey nuts do you randomly type into your keyboard or something?
Because you talk utter bullshit sometimes.
If you think language has nothing to do with the brain then there is something wrong with yours me ol m8.

Ive met crack heads who make more sense.

Also BMN I get the feeling you don't much like white people..?

We are all bretheren we all share the same ancestors the same pains the same hopes so f*ck you BMN and all you racist garbage out there I fucking hate your kind, why wont you all just DIE! and leave the rest of us to live in peace.

If you aint part of the solution your part of the problem.

One day..

BMN you understand nothing, you live in a dream world constructed from your own diseased mind.

Try to keep it real..

On any subject your answer is meaningless, insane and ultimately TOTAL CRAP!

You are not brilliant you are pathetic and you have my pity.

Mobius, you're a piece of shit. Your brain would be as "useful" if your fried it up by sniffing aerosols like BMN.
Mobius ,u tragic arsehole Im glad you finally showed what you are about.
U are too devolved to understand what I wrote.
if I had u here id give u an incredible arse kicking.
Its true I fucking hate your kind and i cant wait for u to get the fuck off of this planet.
That aint racist,just the truth.
I'll say it again,language is not a NATURAL function of the brain.
Read it properly arsehole.
If u dont understand what that means than get John Zerzan.Its the best written on that particular subject.
I imagine u have conversations with yourself,no?
Who said anything about brilliant?I dont believe in brilliance.
A person being transformed into a reatarded aresehole through your psychotic
warped fucking gulag school system is another matter

Powernoize
Fuck off.

Let YOU live in peace ,you prick.
Get the fuck off this planet u retarded scum
and there will be some peace.

BMN Iam a total psycho when provoked so come over here and try and kick my ass.
Is that u Mobius,or your brother?
That fact is Ill properly debate Any fart out of your mouth.Im not interested in non-intellectual conformist crap.
Think for yourself you robot.

Ok,Ill presume thats your brother.U dont sound like Mobius
SOMEONE needs to learn his/her history! the japanese are descendents of the chinese, as are koreans.

the chinese were the ones who created all those great inventions, which the whites have brought back to europe and imitated.

as for the hi-tech inventions of today, everyone knows that the US is just a mixing pot of brighter people of the world. the majority of these great genius inventors are almost always NOT american/white.

My bro may put up with your shit but i dont
unfortunately i cant create my own user name
To the TRUE.Mobius I'll discuss any point of contention properly without bullshit if there is legitimate interest.
To the brother:There are few who have the brain to get into the shape Im currently in.
Tell me how to get 171/2 inch arms without touching a weight.
Im more psychotic than u pal,and you would most likely not last beyond 2 seconds

I weigh about 16 stone pal my bro is the smart one iam the tough one.
I would squash you like a bug.
Not only that I have no pain sensation its a medical condition that has some fringe benefits.

Actually,Im the diametric opposite to psychotic.
The general population are the ones seriously warped.A population reflected by the political establishment and Jerry Springer.

Mobius might be pissed at me for these posts but he aint here now
mwahahaha

To the brother.
What can u do in UFC?
BUT NO RULES
Might make for an interesting match-up you and I unless you are a pile of blubber.And if u lift weights you are sloooooow and useless.

Were ALL those posts by the brother?
Did Mobius say any of it?

My bro or Mobius is a very clever guy he was the smartest kid in our college and ive never seen anyone beat him in an arguement about anything its annoying but he is ALWAYS right so when ppl slag him off i will defend him!
coz he wont flame but i will!
I dont know alot about science but my bruv does and if you can beat him intelectually then you are one of the smartest people on the planet.

He wrote the first one on this post i wrote the others.
The main reason why I have hate is due to things like White coats.Vivisection, vets, Bio-psychiatrists.
The lowest order of life possible--- with high IQs

My bro mobius is a very nice guy too lucky for everyone else.
He wants us all to live on the moon and shit i think he is a dreamer but really he loves people and wants the best for everyone so be nice to him or i will be back!
Btw no flab on me and i dont work out that much anymore i play rugby and do rally driving now.

Apologies to both brother and Mobius.
Scientific Materialism always sparks a reaction from me due to the previously mentioned.

The whole industrial military state is about generating brain dysfunction,intellectual conformism and arrest,soul murder.
Anyone that equates natural function and intelligence with school has completely lost all credibility.
Cant be taken seriously

The real Mobius please stand up..

Iam he and my post was the first one on this ballot attributed to Mobius.

The brain is a complex bio computer capable of thousands of different processes at a time, from regulating the heart beat to cogitating the meaning of life.

Language Big monkey nuts is probably the most important aspect of our advanced brains it is the defining ability of a communicating intelligence, to say language is unnatural is absurd.

Anything humans can do with their minds is totally natural and the product of millions of years of evolution.

Hi Mobes
Sorry, again thats the classic presentation of Scientific Materialism.There is no reference to the nature of life without the Darwinism and mechanistic-materialism. again.The true nature of the inter-relationship between autonomous beings,
Consciousness, Mental photography, holonomic brain, the abstraction and reduction into equivalen---bla bla.
Lets not worry about it.It be like knocking down an entire building and starting again with the first brick.The general mass of humanity are going to have to learn the hard way anyway so it doesnt really matter.
I have to get off this site.Im starting to go batty

Mobius,this isnt directed to you.

The Evolution of Evolution
The neo-Darwinian idea of evolution by chance mutation coupled with natural selection has from its inception been welcomed as an extremely powerful tool of explanation. It has travelled far from being used merely to explain physical heredity and the development of biological characteristics. It has been adopted by some of the most distinguished scientific and philosophical minds of the twentieth century to explain phenomena as diverse as animal and human behaviour, social movements and trends, and the progressive development of inanimate objects ranging from the elements to the stars, to galaxies and even the universe itself.
This is powerful, heady stuff. But if the idea of neo-Darwinian evolution is unsupported by evidence or experiment when applied to the heredity of plants and animals, what factual basis is there for applying the concept to other natural phenomena?
You don't have to look very far in your local public library to find examples of Darwin's ideas being pressed into service in this or that field. The Dewey decimal catalogue has been almost taken over by Darwinisms: from astronomy to linguistics and from anthropology to law and even religious thinking.
Writing in 1955, Julian Huxley said that;
The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life histories of stars and formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all-pervading process.
A little later in the same anthology of science, Huxley goes even further;
Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realise that biological evolution is only one aspect of evolution in general. Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organisation in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution - a single process of self transformation.
So, in Huxley's view, evolution is not merely a theory, it is the whole of reality. If true, this would certainly be a fundamental scientific discovery of momentous importance to our understanding of the world. But let's take a moment or two to examine Huxley's definition with the benefit of hindsight. Remember, we are looking for signs of a universally pervasive process that is directional, irreversible, increases variety and produces higher levels of organization. Is that what we find in nature?
Even a quick glance through the evidence is enough to show that it is not. First, evolution is not directional or irreversible. The kind of primary physical evidence offered for evolution is that of horses, which are always depicted as an unbroken chain of fossils that become progressively larger and more highly adapted through the ages.
The originator of this sequence as a popular illustration, George Simpson of Harvard, asserts that, for instance, the species Archaeohippus is a descendant of the ancestral Mesohippus from the earlier Oligocene period. Yet the chief characteristic of the more recent Archaeohippus is that it is a dwarf or pygmy horse, a major reversal of the previous trend toward steadily increasing size.

This example can be multiplied a hundredfold. Highly ornate extinct shellfish such as ammonites are succeeded in more recent geological strata by simpler and less ornate forms. Many later forms of dinosaur were less ornate in their anatomy than their ancestors.

Turning to the extended meaning of evolution, outside of biology, an often-quoted example is the evolution of chemical elements in the nuclear processes in the interior of stars. The energy radiated by stars comes from the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium, helium into carbon and so on, until heavier and heavier elements such as iron are finally produced. At the end of their lives, many stars detonate in cataclysmic explosions that return these newly formed heavier atoms back to interstellar space where they may later become part of a second and further star systems, in a repetitive process. Some astronomers think it highly probable that a single stellar lifetime is not long enough for substantial amounts of the heaviest elements to be created and several stellar lifetimes are necessary to accumulate the quantities of heavier elements, such as lead and uranium, that we find on the Earth. Thus these elements are said to have evolved.

Since our own bodies contain heavier elements such as iron and manganese, then this chemical evolution is an important precursor to biological evolution.

While it is perfectly true that hydrogen atoms are transmuted into heavier and heavier elements in the fusion processes occurring within stars, this process is not irreversible. On the contrary, at the end of their lives many stars explode in a burst of energy that will rip apart a large quantity of heavier atoms, returning them to elementary forms.

Moreover, when the heavier elements that are returned to space condense under gravity to form the nucleus of a new star, some of the heavy elements are pulled apart at high temperatures to form the hydrogen plasma that fuels the stellar fusion process once again.

If evolution is not irreversible, perhaps it leads to greater variety as Huxley claimed? David Raup, professor of palaeobiology at the University of Chicago, has made a special study of extinctions. He has pointed out that;

"Countless species of plants and animals have existed in  the history of life on Earth. Estimates of the total progeny of evolution range from 5 to 50 billion species. Yet only an estimated 5 to 50 million species are alive today - a rather poor survival record. With, at the most, only one in every thousand species surviving, what happened to the others?"

Far from increasing the variety of creatures on Earth, the progress of evolution seems to have had the effect of thinning out the population - and indeed that is the very basis of Darwin's concept; only the fit survive. Evolution in this Darwinian sense can be said to have increased variety if, and only if, you begin with the Darwinian concept of a single or a few organisms as the ancestors of all living things - once again the argument is circular.

Finally, we have the Huxleyan idea that evolution leads to higher levels of organization. Again the real world of natural observations provides plenty of evidence that this idea cannot be correct. A virus is not a more highly organized organism than a self-replicating cell, it is less highly organized. Yet viruses must have evolved after cells not before, because they can reproduce themselves only by taking over the replication mechanism of a host cell. A snake is not more highly organized than a lizard, it is less so because it lacks legs and arms and moves like the primitive worm; yet Darwinists believe that snakes have evolved from lizardlike creatures - and there are many similar examples of regressive development. 

None of Huxley's criteria for a generalised theory of evolution, applicable to virtually everything, turns out to be true in fact.  Yet the theory marches unstoppably on, just as though Huxley had really made his case, ceasing to be merely a theory and becoming instead an ideology. 

The replacement of Darwinism the scientific theory by Darwinism the ideology has been an important part of twentieth-century political thinking just as it was important to the politics of the nineteenth century. In Darwin's day the theory was accepted partly because it supported the racism and European chauvinism on which the mercantile empire of Britain's ruling class was built and maintained. Today, Darwinism the ideology is one of the principal bulwarks of free-market economic theories and right-wing political thinking. It represents perhaps the most complete absorption of Darwinian thinking outside of the realms of biology.

In a free market, according to economic Darwinists, the factor which guarantees the consumer the lowest prices and highest quality of goods and services is competition. But in any competition there have to be winners and losers (Darwin's struggle for survival). Moreover, there has to be a constant supply of new ideas, new products and services to provide the variety on which the natural selection of the market place will operate. Thus, in free-market capitalist economies some people must fail (companies go under; employees become unemployed) in order for the community to thrive and prosper. The question is, what is the cause of this success and failure?

Darwinists, and supporters of free-market economic policies, say that those who succeed are those who are best fitted or best adapted to the economic environment - in other words the best and the brightest. Those who fail are the weak, the slow, the not so good. This idea is cruel; but it has a certain stark magnificent grandeur about it, a kind of noble savagery. Equally important, it is a perfectly natural mechanism. It is merely an extension into human society of the great Darwinian principles of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Failure in competition may be cruel, but it is fair and just and inevitable, because it is nature's way.

Most important of all, not only is competition a natural process, it is also a healthy one - one that benefits the whole community, in the long run, because it ensures the 'evolution' of the most efficient means of producing goods and bringing them to market when and where consumers want them. The human cost of this 'evolution' is merely a necessary part of the process and the price that we in western countries pay for the prosperity we enjoy in comparison with the disastrous performance of the managed economies of Eastern Europe in the recent past.

Many right wing politicians and economists harbor these ideas in a sort of half-secret way. Because of their innately cruel and antihuman tenor they may not be spoken of directly and aloud except in the sanctity of the political club bar or in the privacy of government office. To speak aloud of these matters would be alarming and frightening to ordinary people, for they smack of Hitler and Nietzsche and ideas of racial purity, and the elimination of specimens that weaken the breed.

Right-wing politicians soften the stark reality of these Darwinian ideas by paying lip service to the need to protect the weak, the ill, the old and the unfortunate from the ravages of fate. All the while, however, they continue to believe that such 'losers' are a necessary part - indeed, an inescapable, essential part - of the economy.

Central to these beliefs and this kind of thinking is the idea that in commerce - as in all things in life - strength, skill, talent, intelligence, bravery, are all desirable qualities because they lead on to success in any endeavor. 'Fortune favors the brave'. 'None but the brave deserve the fair'.

Thus right wing politicians - most notably in recent years, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan - were able to equate their political ideas with what they like to describe as the old-fashioned Victorian values.
 

Like the rest of Darwinism, these ideas seem self-evidently true, until you dig a little deeper. What this thinking disguises is the awkward fact that in commerce, just as in nature, it is impossible to define or test any concept of fitness of purpose because it is impossible to define the fit in any way other than as those who succeed. The fit survive and those who survive are the fit. Just as in evolutionary biology, the 'survival of the fittest' is no more than a rationalization made retrospectively after the event.

In reality commercial ventures succeed for a whole variety of reasons. Sometimes it is because the entrepreneurs who run the businesses, and the people who work for them, deploy all the desirable Victorian capitalist qualities - hard work; bright ideas; giving the customers what they want. Sometimes it is because the suppliers are protected by a completely artificial and unfair monopoly or near monopoly - like the nuclear power industry, or Bell Telephone before deregulation. Sometimes it is because of a great stroke of good luck - as when the oil companies found huge oil and gas deposits in their backyard.

Failure of businesses can also occur for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, as predicted by the Darwinist model, it is because of laziness, stupidity, bad management or other failure to compete effectively. But it may also be because legislative changes force costs up, or raw materials become unexpectedly more expensive (perhaps because of war or revolution in some far away country) or because of some stroke of bad luck - as when disease strikes down the farmer's prize dairy herd.

Politicians are reluctant to accept the implications of this unpleasant fact (just as biologists are). It is that the world is fundamentally chaos-related and its effects on our political and economic systems are unpredictable. There are just as many entrepreneurs of intelligence and skill who fail as there are bad managers. And there are just as many wealthy morons who succeed as there are hardworking, thrifty, virtuous entrepreneurs. What economic Darwinists do not wish to acknowledge even to themselves, is that their theories are quite incapable of predicting which individuals, or which companies will be the losers and which will be the winners.

This paradox lies at the very heart of a free-market economy, in its stock markets. If Darwinist theories of economic competition were true then they would yield reliable predictions and it would be perfectly possible for investors to invest in companies who would always yield a high rate of return. In reality it remains impossible to obtain consistently such a high rate of return because the companies that compose the market are subject to random fluctuations in their fortunes which are essentially unpredictable.

Even with centuries of such experience, economic Darwinists still continue to believe that their theory does predict the outcome of competition, even though every day of the week some of them are losing their shirts on the stock exchanges of the world.

It is not only politicians of the right that have espoused Darwinist ideas. Karl Marx was a devout Darwinist and his political descendants on the left have retained a strongly Darwinist flavor in their political beliefs. In Das Kapital, Marx called Darwin's theory 'epoch making' and said;

"Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature's Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production and of sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?"

In this respect, Marx saw himself as applying the same reductionist analysis to a material world in which everything from chemistry to economics to human behavior was ultimately purely mechanical and could be reduced to its elements through rational analysis. The final social outcome of Marx's thinking has been the planned economies of the former Soviet Union which, unsurprisingly, have turned out also to be chaos-related and incapable of rational management.

Charles and Karl, alike in their ideological domination of much of twentieth-century reductionist thinking, share much the same fate as that century comes to an end.

Darwinists of every stripe (biological, economic, political and sociological), should celebrate their belief in nineteenth century values by hanging a Victorian-style embroidered sampler over their beds reading 'The value of shares can go down as well as up'. And each night as they say their prayers and climb into bed, they should reflect that no matter how plausible their theory may seem, it is quite incapable of predicting the behavior of anything or anyone.

i believe the cumulative iq of all african-americans isc around 127
That! Big monkey nuts was an interesting read and worthy of futher consideration.

Now were getting somewhere.

You see thats why Iam on this site, I want alternative views and conflicting data thats what makes it all so much fun!
My colleagues in my lab are so unimaginative and dont want to discuss awkward subjects with me (perhaps thats because they dislike me hehe)
All they wanna talk about is whether the HPLC needs a new frikkin' column or not.

You BMN supply new data and that my friend is the name of the game.

SKOLL!!
u are a fuckin bastard
still gettin off on the racism shit
fuckin asshole

Tests have shown the Japanese to have the highest average IQ.

Blacks and Hispanics the lowest.

You stupid fucks only squabble about race and constantly repeat yourselves. I don't care if your iq is 200, if you're a one-dimensional thinker, and believe that crap, your dumb. My iq is 127, and understand rocket science better that any of you bitches.
Whoops, sorry, forgot this IS a racist poll. Then, Jews are the smartest. I'm mostly of Scottish decent.
Sure, iq WAS inportant 100 years ago when we needed human fucking calculators! I'm an electrical engineer, I've never needed some High-iq chinese bitch to do any of my calculations. I've got a TI-86, BEEYAWWWTCH!!!
What the fuck constitutes an ethnic minority anydamnway?
We're all minotities in terms of the cosmos, fighting over planet earth for dominance. Real fuckin mature!

IQ generally depends on a person's level of education rather he or she attended school or simply educating themselves about the world and the people around them. Anyone can further his so her knowledge if he or she trys.I am going to answer this according to the minority groups that tend to be the most educated or tend to receive the most education. I would say Jews, Japanese people, and Muslims, usually those with Iranian or Turkish decent and of more Middle East origin than North African Origin, etc.According to The American Census these groups tend to attend more higher learning Institutions, thus allowing them to have more prosperous careers than any other minority groups.
Jews have always been seen as being overly intelligent, which is one of the reasons that Jews were seen as a threat throughout history as well as Japanese were seen as smart, which is why the American Government feared Japan so much in WW2 and still somewhat fears her today.This is also why the Government fears Muslims just the same as well as the fact that the Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion globally.
Everything plays a factor in IQ, from what country a person is from to their environmental conditions. For instance Europeans tend to have more knowledge on wordly issues and about various countries, religions and cultures than Americans do, so therefore Americans would be at an advantage, because the same focus on such issues are not as taught in American Schools and America is a more Conservative Society where most people pretty much stick to their own when it comes to people different from then, which would also put Americans at an advantage unless they've travelled or lived in other countries.The same can be said for ethnic groups in general.Blacks and Hispanics are at a disadvantage when it comes to Schooling nowadays, which was the case in the mid 1900s when Italian and Irish Immigrants came to America, they were seen as dumb by other Immigrants to America. Italians were labelled as having the lowest IQ and as being swarthy non-whites who don't know anything unless it involves criminal behavior. The Irish too, because many of them were poor like Italians were also labelled as being dumb and not worthy.Nothing has changed every few decades there is a new group who gets labelled. In Germany people from Poland are seen as being stupid, because most of them are poor and didn't have a good education. In Italy, Chinese people are seen as being only good enough to sell clothes on the street or work in a Restaurant, the same is true for Africans, despite the fact that Africans are more intelligent than people give them credit for. Africans can pick up 3 or four languages faster than anyone I've ever seen and they know a lot more about life and the world aorund them then people think.
Voted : eskimos
They know smow like nobody's business. On the subject of snow, I'm certain they have a 200 IQ. I'm sure Einstein could not have done better. Every person and every group is a genius in at least one category. Sadly, not all categories are spectacular enough to be valued.
Voted : jews
Israel, the only jewish state, has the highest average IQ at 124.




About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | © 2010 BestAndWorst.com All Rights Reserved