Why black men have a bigger penis

I thought it might be more interesting if we actually looked at the scientific data then merely followed your delusional ideas, but if you really want to play this game then it is fine with me.

I already got the impression that you were incapable of understanding basic science and your urge to put all our money on the shit that comes from your mouth, which is no doubt often mistaken for your arse, is revealing. And frankly I am not wearing gloves.

No doubt people often confuse you for a flatworm. One of the few animals that eat and shit with their mouth, or in your case their arse.

Well..toodeloo my good friend. I am going to wait till monday and actually read the real reports.

In the mean time feel free to die.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow. You didn't respond to anything I wrote in your quoted text. That post was a complete ad hom that didn't address anything I wrote. Are you cool skill's sock puppet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i don't know what they call this in Nazi germany, but in the free world it is an ad hom. Dildo boy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What happened to our discussion?

Please stop with the inanities. Is anybody else reading this? Is this how good monkeys behave?

 

Discounting the neanderthal correlations, you are saying that, although giraffes develop their necks, and humans develop large brains, and neanderthals develop even larger brains, all at a high cost, the neanderthals brain was big just because it made his head look cooler?

Please explain why humans develop brains for intelligence, and our almost human predecessors and/or their contemporaries in the evolutionary process did not. While you are at it, please try to explain why our "non-human" predecessors processed most of the development for brain size from primate ancestry just for fun, since you seem to think that "animals" sometimes develop larger brains for a different purpose, as in your proposed case of sapiens neanderthalis.

Don't try to analyze me, just follow the instruction, and analyze your idea, and explain it.

IQ Question - Why did the sapiens neanderthalis develop a larger brain, if large brains come with such a high cost?
a) good looks b) intelligence c) more interesting sex d) I don't understand this question

 

The reason animals which have larger brains than humans aren't as intelligent is because the brains are not the same. They're structured and wired differently. That's why neanderthals, which had larger brains than homo sapiens weren't as intelligent. In this thread, we're interested in correlations of brain and body size ratios among homo sapiens. That's what it was always about. I'll repeat that: when talking about IQ and brain size correlations, I'm talking about homo sapiens.

That said, I'll repost the link to an article about a study in Canada that demonstrates this relationship. All of the subjects are homo sapiens. Neanderthals weren't thrown into the study for good measure. It's only homo sapiens. Homo sapiens only. Only homo sapiens. Okay. Good.news link to study.

This study reveals nothing new to mainstream psychology. It's the same stuff we've known for a long time. It's just confirmation. Tell me what you think about the article and your impressions on the study.

 

That's a news story, not a report. Give the link to the report.

 

How can you relate chronic manmade hammerings on ANS with variations in Cerebral blood flow, brain size & intelligence?

 

nothing new in terms of men's brain sizes -

According to this article, only women had a correlation.
Did you notice that?

 

ok, back to how insane your statements are -

This was posted - a comparison between humans and animals

then you said

You said "why would we have comparatively larger brains", and that your idea was in accord with the nature article, and anything in accord with the nature article is about humans AND animals and the difference, etc.

then you dodged the question about neanderthals by saying this,

when you were above talking about the nature article and how it coincided with your ideas.

AND then you dodged the fact that you said,

when I pointed out that we don't have comparatively larger brains than neanderthals. When I was specifically asking you about that statement.

You need to wake. Up.

P.S. and ad hominem is a put down meant to sway the argument, so stop with the ad hom crybaby stuff. Also, you should say, "ad neanderthalinem".

 

Excessive manmade stress due to excessive "need and greed" may need more brain and more intelligence to deal with these.

"EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE - is it a concept that can be used in Stress Management"

"Stress may also be defined as "the sum of physical and mental responses to an unacceptable disparity between real or imagined personal experience and personal expectations." By this definition, one may appreciate that stress is a response which includes both physical and mental components.

 

It is in accord with the Nature article. Larger brains are expensive and they must have a purpose. Neanderthals had larger brains because the larger brains made them more intelligent. That, however, doesn't mean another species with smaller, yet more efficiently wired brains won't come along and make them extinct with their much higher capacity for intelligence.

I stand by the point that we wouldn't evolve comparatively large brains if they didn't give us some immediate advantage. That point is supported by the Nature article. That doesn't only apply to brains. It also applies to any adaptation that requires sustenance.

Yes, I did. That's only one part of the brain and only one small part of the findings of the study.

Overall, however, the study indicates a definite positive correlation between brain size and intelligence. Otherwise, I don't think the head neurologist of the study would say this:

You still seem to be somewhat dubious that brain size has nothing to do with intelligence among homo sapiens. Do you think the findings of this study are wrong? Keep in mind, there have been a lot of studies conducted that show the same relationship. This study only confirms things we already know.

Can you find a study that shows that there is no relationship between brain size and intelligence? Can you find any reason at all to doubt that the relationship exists?

Homo sapiens are different animals to homo neanderthalis. I never said brain size is the only thing at work here. Obviously, neanderthals had larger brains than us (or roughly the same size, adjusting for body size) and weren't as intelligent. But they were different animals. I went through this already. They didn't have the same brain as us. Different wiring and structure. Do you think we have the same kind of brain as dolphins? Of course not. They can't be measured in the same way.

Clever.
Are you condoning ad hom?
Do you think ad hom should be a part of normal debate?
Ad hom is used when the opponents have run out of good points and good things to say. But they're too stubborn to admit defeat. I was shocked to see how much spurious regressed at one point. At one point, I thought I was talking to a slightly smarter version of cool skill.

 

did you read this part of the article you posted?

Do you know what that means? The neurologist is saying that the overall size of the brain in men is NOT correlated. OVERALL SIZE= what YOU mean when YOU say "brain size".

what planet are you on?
I have said before, in this thread, explicitly, that brain size does have some correlation. However, each brain is different, and each situation is different - the brain structure and size, may be different between men and women, and according to your ideas this should produce vast differences in overall intelligence averages, but they do not. The differences between racial groups may have some effect, but it has been shown that differences in environmental factors can easily account for any differences shown on IQ testing.
When you use a study, where the head neurologist says there is no correlation between overall brain size and intelligence in men, to prove your idea that black men are genetically inclined to be much less intelligent, as shown by any reference to rushton's charts - YOU ARE TWISTING REALITY.

I have said it multiple times - sapiens neanderthalis had a COMPARATIVELY larger brain. Can you read english? No, not "roughly the same size, adjusting for his body size" as you just said - LARGER adjusting for his body size. That information is in the links you ignored. You watch too many cartoons, and think neanderthals were taller and bigger than humans, and their bigger brains fit their big muscles, they were not. They were shorter than humans.
Admit that your phrase "or roughly the same size" is ignorant. You ignored the information I made available and held on to your preconceptions.
Admit that.

I am not having a debate with you. During this thread you have refused to make a logical connections and have failed to understand basic concepts and lower level reading material.
You actually used an article, posted by spurious, which you barely read, and even more barely could understand - admit it - to show that your ideas about brain size are correct.
can you read?

What does this article say about your theory on brain size in humans?
It says the authors put little emphasis on any brain size correlation, and that these haplotypes more likely have subtler effects. How on earth can you say they agree with you?

If you haven't noticed, I only used personal attacks when people have commited obvious acts of ignorance. I am not having a debate with you. I am teaching a little class for you, and you are a poor student. When you exhibit reading comprehension, and logical function, that is on my level, we may decide then to have a formal debate. For now the loose talk is the only thing that keeps this bearable.

 

Yes.

You are implying that the overall size of the brain in men is NOT correlated with overall intelligence. This is in fact, not what the excerpted material is saying. It is saying that the overall size of the brain in men is NOT correlated with how well men do on, to quote, "all these mazes and three-dimensional perception tests." Mazes and three-dimensional perception tests are only one part of a person's intelligence.

Let me repeat that: the neurologist is saying there is apparently no correlation in brain size in men and their apparent ability to do well on maze and three-dimensional perception tests. Other than that, the brain size correlation with intelligence holds.

What the neurologist said and what you interpreted are quite different.

Perhaps you can show this.

Again, you completely misread (on purpose?) what the neurologist was saying. Remove your filter.

Okay. I got them switched around. The article said their brains are about the same size as homo sapiens, except their bodies were smaller, so adjusting for body size, they're about 10% larger. I switched them by accident by saying that they had larger brains than us, but were larger, so the ratio was about the same. Shoot me.

But it doesn't matter. We're not talking about neanderthals; we're talking about homo sapiens. Neaderthals had different kinds of brains. We might as well be talking about dolphin brains. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I swear man, if you keep talking about neanderthals, I'm going to shit my pants. They have nothing to do with what we're talking about. DIFFERENT BRAINS.

Maybe you should be debating, instead of mudslinging. Isn't that what this place is for? You say I refuse to make logical connections or understand basic concepts, yet you conveniently don't mention any examples. Very cool skill.

How? I've already explained this before, very clearly, but here we go again.

“
Originally Posted by nature article
The most obvious difference between humans and other animals is the relative large size of our brains. Our brains are three times as large as those of other higher primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. In evolutionary terms such 'large features' come at a considerable cost in terms of energy (eg the peacocks' tail, the giraffe's neck) and so must confer a considerable advantage to the species. In humans, the pay-off for this energetic expenditure is our increased cognitive ability, which has led to our adaptability and colonisation of almost all habitats on earth.
”
This is very close to the argument that I've been making throughout the thread. Do you remember me asking the question something along the lines of:
"Considering how expensive large brains are, why would we have comparatively large brains if they didn't make us more intelligent?"
Obviously, my opinion is that we wouldn't develop large brains if they didn't make us more intelligent. This is in accord to what is said in the Nature article.

Maybe what you consider "obvious acts of ignorance" are different from another person would, thus, it might be prudent to not attack at all. Perhaps other people, such as me, consider many of the things you say VERY ignorant, but obviously you don't consider the things you say as such.

I come here to communicate and learn. When people attack each other, it puts up barriers, which prevents communication from being as good as it can be. So by attacking, communication is distorted and communication is one of the main reasons I come here. So it's really quite pointless, unless you're losing an argument, of course.

 

We are going in circles over the same concept. What is the point?
My stance, at all times, has been that nothing has been shown about black men and their intelligence, that is all. Putting together one study which shows a correlation in 100 subjects, and an unreferencable (so far) chart about brain sizes of blacks, to extrapolate racial iq differences which are easily explained by socio-economic causes, is not ok.
Also, why do you keep insisting that we have "comparatively larger brains" to species with lower intelligence, when we don't? Species other than neanderthals have comparatively large brains.
Dolphins -

If there is this much confusion over the potential intelligence of an animal that we cannot communicate with, why are you so sure about black intelligence?
Also,

so perhaps the brain size development has more to do with societies than anything else, and it is merely about the poulation density.

Anyway, brain size cannot be said to, as a rule, account for intelligence when there are many examples of highly intelligent people with comparatively smaller brains than the average. That is undeniable.

P.S. I will look up the data regarding socio-economic causes for iq test differences for you.

 

In regards to socio-economic variables and the cultural bias of IQ tests.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001132.html

6. Richard Lynn’s and Michael Levin’s articles on the Scarr-Weinberg cross-racial adoption study in the March 1994 American Renaissance settled these questions for me. The adoption study, which followed until adulthood black children adopted as babies by college educated whites, showed that even with a totally "white" upper middle-class environment and upbringing, the large black-white IQ gap remained; at best it was slightly narrowed. As Levin pointed out, this was a definitive demonstration of a hereditary racial difference in IQ.

7. Then there was the assertion of cultural bias in mental tests, meaning that blacks did worse on IQ tests because the tests emphasized "white" cultural knowledge. Jared Taylor’s interview with Arthur Jensen, published in the August and September 1992 American Renaissance (and even more, the unabridged, 36-page typescript of this interview) blew that notion out of the water. Jensen made the point that in test questions that involved no cultural background at all, such as the ability to see similarities in geometric shapes, blacks actually did worse than in questions that used "white" cultural references.

 

I'm trying to get you to understand that among homo sapiens, brain size is important. You're not budging your position, despite the evidence that shows I'm right.

That study about the 100 subjects who had extensive IQ testing and had their brains examined was a study I used because it was recent and supported my argument. I could find another study that would show the same thing. The point is, it's not controversial stuff I'm trying to get you to accept. This is psychology. This is stuff we know, and you're plugging your ears like a child, screaming, "I don't believe you!" Well, believe it. You've failed to disprove it, not because you suck, but because you can't disprove the relationship between brain size and intelligence among humans, because your notions are incorrect.

If you have a problem with my figures for average brain sizes for the different races, find some of your own. Disprove it. If my figures are wrong, it should be easy to prove me wrong. Again, you probably won't, because my figures are correct and held to be true by mainstream biology/psychology.

The points I've been making have been made before. Here's Richard Lynn's site. He's a scientist/psychologist who has studied intelligence for most of his life. If you want to learn about what a professional has to say, about the subject, read this. I'm just making these points, which are easily looked up and observable, to show that it's very unlikely that the differences in IQ between different races are probably not only due to culture/environment.

Dude, I told you I was going to shit my pants if you uttered the word neanderthal again. STOP! I don't recall every having said humans have larger brains than neanderthals or dolphins. But don't answer to that. I don't want to hear anything about other animals. We're interested in homo sapiens.

Because it's easier to measure intelligence in humans.

Brain size has to do with the complexity and demands of the society in which a particular organism's genome evolves. If you take a sub-Saharan African infant and raise him in a 1st world country, his brain isn't magically going to be bigger, compared to his siblings in Africa. Brain size controls are genetic.

I already said this before. The fact that there are exceptions to the rule only serves to show that there is a rule. Using the same logic of your above statement, you could say that you can't make it a general rule that men are stronger that women, because there are some examples of women who are stronger than men. That's an absolutely ridiculous argument. Again, the article shows that brain size is important. Show that it doesn't. No, show something, anything that indicates that brain size isn't important.

 

How?

 

IQ tests... SATs, ACTs, ASVABs, etc. They're not perfect intelligence indicators, but overall, they are very good. There's a lot of evidence that IQ tests measure something very real in humans.

 

Black men have bigger penises because they're more primitive.
Clearly.

Now please, can we just all agree that white people are obviously way better than black people? This racist crap is getting annoying.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!