Why black men have a bigger penis

In truth, the figures are probably caused by both genetic factors and education and socio-economic situations. I think it works in a positive feedback loop. Smart parents create a good nest and environment for their kids. They make plans and think, "We'll wait until we have this much money to have a kid, so we'll be able to afford a crib, diapers, food and be able to handle emergencies, and..." That's what smart people do. Smart people create environments for their children that are conducive to optimal development. You want your kid to be the best it can be, right? You want it to have every advantage possible.

That's how smart parents think, and you can bet it helps their children. The kid is going to be advantaged by those things, and it will also be advantaged by the genes that caused their parents to be so smart.

Both genes and environment have an effect. But genes affect the environment, so the effects of genes are exaggerated because their past effects reverberate into the future, by influencing humans with the ability (or lack of ability) to create good environments for their children.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a weird observation I've had about people talking about something controverisal like intelligence. Suddenly things become black and white for them.
Them: "It's either environment or genetics! There's no middleground! It's one or the other!"
Me: "Why can't it be both?"
Them: "It's one or the other because! Um. Er, because. Your mom is fat!"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have no problem talking about intelligence. But when the difference is less than 2SD and the analysis is faulty, I have issues about reaching conclusions based on uncorrected data.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How does one "correct" data? If a person is poor, do you give him an extra 5 IQ points?

You think differences under 2 standard deviations are insignificant? If you believe that, you're nuts. Especially since we're talking about averages. Averages made from thousands of samples. That's what statistics allow us to do--see things that are hard to see from up close.

 

When the data is uncorrected for confounding variables, then the standard deviation is irrelevant.

I do demographic statistics using thousands of data points in the model. (SAS software)

e.g.

if I have 10 black men and 1000 white men, the standard deviation will represent absolute variation around the mean. Unless corrected for n it is meaningless. Similarly if the model (1)

IQ = race

is used and IQ is affected by other factors, so that the model should be (2)

IQ = race socio-economics education age gender

along with interaction effects between all variables, the results of model (1) are uncorrected data and hence are invalid.

 

You're probably right that if those poor people had better environments, they'd probably have slightly better scores. But I think it's fallacious to think that people are separate from their environments. With humans, it's especially true. We, more than any other animals in the world, manipulate our environments. In fact, how well we can do this, to a large degree determines how fit we are.

Poor people are very frequently that way for a reason.

 

It is because people are NOT separate from their environments that all variables must be considered.

Else, why bother?

That was what the caste system in India said. But secularism reduced poverty, illiteracy and unemployment.

It is fallacious to think that just because a man does not fit a mould, he is incapable of being significant.

 

Absolutely right. That's what I was saying.

It absolutely is fallacious. Well. If a person fits the mold of being a functional retard, then that might make him incapable of being significant.

 

samcdkey is right. There are lots of factors that influence data. Therefore, the data that you get might not be a good representation of reality, if all variables are not carefully controlled. How do you go about controlling variables such as environment, IQ of family members, access to education and wealth?


francois, have you ever heard of the cycle of poverty? Do you think the cycle would influence the results of the studies?

 

You might want to read these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_variance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis

 

It is not impossible to do this.

One can perform a multiple linear regression analysis.

A discrete variable will have a finite value, a continuous variable can be assigned a range.

Qualitative variables can be assigned a class.

All these can then be put into a model and multiple linear regression analysis done. One can write the program so as to obtain significance at all levels and with all variables and interaction effects.

It is very interesting to see how the addition of certain variables can completely change the data analysis.

 

I think we need to back track a little here.

My claims:
Intelligence (as measured by IQ) is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, but primarily genetic. In fact, this is what scientists who study intelligence are led to think.

Your claims:
Intelligence (as measured by IQ) is primarily influenced by poverty cycles?--wait, what exactly is your claim?



Let me briefly summarize why I think those numbers are generally pretty accurate and indicative of the truth of the intelligence differences between races:

- intelligence is largely inherited. The American Psychological Association's 1995 task force on "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" concluded that within the white population the heritability of IQ is "around .75" (p. 85). [2] In children, it's lower--about .50. But genes only express themselves to their fullest with adults. If the heritability is 1, then intelligence is to be accounted for exclusively by genes. So .75 is a high number indeed.
- intelligence is closely related to brain mass. Modern studies using MRI imaging have shown that brain size correlates with IQ by a factor of approximately 0.40 among adults (McDaniel, 2005)
- the brain masses of those 3 groups I mentioned--the blacks, whites, and East Asians correspond in mass very proportionately to their group IQs.

The volume of the brains of blacks average at 1,267cc's with IQs at 85.
The volume of the brains of whites average at 1,347cc's with IQs at 100.
The volume of the brains of Orientals average at 1,364cc's with IQs at 106.

If you look at the brain masses, you see that on average, whites are 80cc's larger in volume than the blacks, and have average 15 points higher than blacks. Whereas the Orientals are 17cc's larger in volume than whites, while averaging 6 IQ points higher. Thus, it would appear that scientists are right when they say intelligence and brain mass are tightly related. Samcdkey, do you think it's a marvelous coincidence that these numbers fall into place the way they do?

 

1. Does this apply to all whites, blacks, orientals equally worldwide?
2. Does the difference attributed to environment cover the distribution equal to the difference in standard deviation?
3. Does IQ change with environmental changes to the the same extent across race?
4. Finally, does distribution of IQ differ when data is sorted by education across race?

 

How the hell would I know any of that?

 

But I want to know your answer to my previous question.

 

Actually, I have a follow up question to go with that.

The brain weighs only 3 lbs and uses about 25% of the body's energy. In other words, it's extremely resource hungry. Do you think races with larger brains would have evolved such large brains if it didn't make them more intelligent?

 

I work with disease paradigms.

I cannot use the data from a sub-sample and extrapolate it to the population unless the data is corrected and the model is valid.

I absolutely cannot extrapolate data across different populations unless they are included to a sufficient strength in the sample (this is determined by calculating the probability of Type II error, also known as the power of the test).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_error

Otherwise there is a high probability of making a Type I error:

i.e. the error of rejecting a null hypothesis when it is the true state of nature. In other words, this is the error of accepting an alternative hypothesis (the real hypothesis of interest) when an observation is due to chance.

Your premise is flawed, hence your conclusions may be invalid. They may be valid but unless the data is correctly interpretated one cannot draw any conclusions.

 

So only intelligent men have large brains?

Does brain size decrease with less intelligence?

Are there different brain sizes in the population reflecting the intelligence of different persons?

If not, can we say with absolute certainty that brain size reflects intelligence? Can there be other factors modulating such effects? Such as genetics, nutrition and education?

What is the average brain body proportion of other species? Do they correlate absolutely with the intelligence seen?

 

Some races are more intelligent than others.

Let me remind you what anyone has to do to support this statement:

1. define races in an acceptable manner to the scientific community.
2. show the existence of races based on this definition.
3. define intelligence in an acceptable manner to the scientific community.
4. show that intelligence differences are due to physiological differences.
5. show that different races have differences in the physiology of the brain.
6. show that these differences are due to genetic traits.

So far the first hurdle hasn't even been taken.

 

I absolutely looooove this shit.
What kind of iq test do you give an uneducated african?
ex1. - If one camel is traveling from here at two long-long ways per day, and an elephant travels from five long-long ways at one third of a long-long way per day, at how many long-long ways from here will they meet?

The iq test is biased enough to easily account for 45 points derivation (of the point spread).

Raise a thousand ashkenazi from different social groups and locales in sub-saharan africa, and then test them with the africans and get back to me with your 45 point spread - hahaha.