Why black men have a bigger penis

You ignored both of my questions, Samcdkey.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually I answered them.

Look again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course not. That's like saying, "So only strong men have large muscles?"

I lift weights and I see that it's definitely not true. I've seen my share of freakishly strong ectomorphs. But, by god, you can bet that there's definitely a strong tendency for strong people to have large muscles. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes! There is! Have you been reading the stuff I've been writing? I'm not making up random stuff you know? I'm not a racist either. Of course, I'm not saying you ever implied it either. Actually so far, you've been very calm and good. Thanks

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway, let me repeat. Correlation between brain size and intelligence is actually quite strong. If you doubt this, read the stuff I've been writing and check it out on the Internet for verification.

Don't get me wrong. It's not a perfect correlation. For example, I've read that Einstein's brain brain was actually substantially smaller than the average brain. But he was a weird exception. He was an awesome thinking machine, sure, but he couldn't even take care of himself. He never would have been able to live in the real world like a normal person.

However, the correlation is still strong and evident. In fact 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). If you don't believe it, disprove it. The fact that it doesn't feel good doesn't make it untrue!

I'm not sure what kind of IQ test ones gives an African. It's a very valid point. Indeed, it has been shown that the higher or lower one scores on the IQ score spectrum, that the more deviation and error occurs. In other words, if you have an IQ of 160, the next time you test, you might get 180, or 140. Or vice versa. If you have an IQ of 70, you might get 50 or 90. (Random arbitrary figures obviously) The more extreme the IQ, the more error involved. An IQ of 70, being so bad, couldn't possibly be hurt by some education.

That kind of reminds me of when I was watching Chris Rock doing standup on HBO. He was talking about the slave times. He made a really kind of funny analogy about being black in America. He said, "If you're black, America is like your uncle who took you in his home, paid for your school, tuition and everything--but who also molested you." And he was talking about reasons by blacks are so underachieving in some areas, like education and intelligence, and do so well in others, like sports.

What irritated me was the fact that he literally attributed everything to the white man. He said it all goes back to the slave days. Because white masters would kill slaves who seemed intelligent or conspiratorial and breed the dumb and strong ones--ones who would make good slaves. And then he said, "No wonder then, blacks do so well in sports and are so uneducated and intellectually underachieved!" But that's only what he wants to think. Because the real facts don't support it. If black people in America are dumb because of white slave masters generations ago, why are black people smarter and more intellectually achieved here in America than anywhere else in the world? What about the marathon runners from Kenya that consistently win? Is that because white people bred those Kenyans to be good slaves? Come on. It doesn't make sense.

I haven't read this in its entirety, but it aims to answer all of those questions. It's by Philippe Rushton--something like "Is Race a Valid Taxonomic Construct?"
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no1/jpr-taxonomic.html
Check it out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are at least two reasons why measures such as brain weight or cranial capacity are not easily interpretable indices of intelligence, even though small observed differences may be statistically valid. First is the obvious difficulty of defining and accurately measuring intelligence among animals, particularly among humans with different educational and cultural backgrounds. Second is the functional diversity and connectional complexity of the brain. Imagine assessing the relationship between body size and athletic ability, which might be considered the somatic analogue of intelligence. Body weight, or any other global measure of somatic phenotype, would be a woefully inadequate index of athletic ability. Although the evidence would presumably indicate that bigger is better in the context of sumo wrestling or basketball, more subtle somatic features would no doubt be correlated with extraordinary ability in Ping Pong, gymnastics, or figure skating. The diversity of somatic function vis-à-vis athletic ability confounds the interpretation of any simple measure such as body size.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=neurosci.box.1833

 

One of the questions you answered with more questions. You didn't give me your opinion. All you did was speculate other things that could account for IQ. But I'm asking you if you think it's a coincidence that brain size correlates so strongly with intelligence. I'll concede that other things likely do influence intelligence. But like I said, the brain is extremely power hungry. We wouldn't have extra brain mass if it wasn't useful. We wouldn't have it if it didn't make us more intelligent. Don't you agree?

And the other question I asked, you just completely ignored. That's alright. But please don't ignore it again, because it's important.

I'll reiterate those questions:
1.

This is in reference to the brain volume and IQ figures given for each race, which I gave in an eariler post.
2.

 

what are you trying to say here francois? that there is such a thing as inferior races?

when you mention IQ tests are they the same for each race mentioned?

 

Those questions were to tell you that you are jumping the gun with a logical fallacy.

Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:

1. A and B regularly occur together.
2. Therefore A is the cause of B.

Until you can adequately prove that A and B occuring together is not a coincidence (by using normalised, corrected data to reach a logical conclusion), your premise is false.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html

See above.

 

What I'm saying is that different groups of people evolved to be effective in different environments. Whether or not a race can be considered "inferior" depends completely on whatever environment they're in, in which they are considered inferior.

samcdkey,

Where am I confusing cause and effect? The questions are actually very simple and straight-forward. I do not see where I am confusing cause and effect.

 

1. brain size correlates so strongly with intelligence.

2. the brain volume and IQ figures given for each race.

These are correlations, not causations.

You are confusing correlations for cause and effect.

 

Well, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that high intelligence doesn't cause larger brains, don't you? Don't you think it's more likely that large brains cause higher intelligence?

After all, there must be a justification for all of the extra brain tissue as it is very highly resource intensive.

If you accept that brain size causes higher intelligence, then doesn't it follow that it also accounts for different intelligence levels in different races? You know, seeing as how their brain sizes are different?

 

Specious argument; does a larger penis equal more children?

And brain size and intelligence is correlated, it is not cause and effect.

edit: an ant can lift 20 to 50 times its own weight.

Can you? And if you cannot does that mean that you are lacking something?

After all, does it not follow that muscle size and strength is correlated?

 

Larger genitals can make you more equipped to have more children, if you're a male. How true this is depends on the environment. But I explain how this generally works in the second page. Of course, the explanations I use aren't my own--thank God!!! It's actually pretty mainstream stuff in evolutionary biology. You can read about it. In fact, I have a link to an article about the different reproductive strategies of bats that are represented by different configurations of brain/genital size ratios. Just read my original post on the 2nd page of this thread.

 

My dear francois, the larger the animal, the lesser the reproduction.

Else we'd be outnumbered by elephants!!

You do agree that elephants have bigger penises than say, rats?

 

That's a bad analogy because ants don't even use muscles. I think they use hydraulics or something gay. And besides, the scale screws things up.

And yes, muscle size and strength do correlate. But isn't it obvious that generally, large muscles cause higher strength?

 

Yes but only because you know that ants use hydraulics.

Incomplete information can lead to faulty analysis and specious conclusions.

Size and function are not always directly related.

Nope strength training and muscle hypertrophy can be correlated, but it is possible to strength train in ways that increase the power and force of muscle without hypertrophy.

 

Ugh!! I was talking about penis size in terms of HUMANS, not all animals... I think you're getting the wrong idea about me--that I'm spewing random nonsense.

In fact, I read about this stuff, as I find it interesting. Please take me seriously.

You should seriously read the 2nd page where I write about the relationship between intelligence brain size and penis size. It makes sense, and it's consistent with the findings in evolutionary biology.

What I meant by the fact that a larger penis enables more potential progeny is that, the larger your nads, the more sperm you can create. The more sperm you make, the bigger and more potent your armies are. And the better they can invade and overtake sperm that are already in a woman's vagina. It's really elaborate how it all works. There are different classes of sperm with different roles. The sperm treat it as actual warfare. They will rub up against other sperm in the vagina--and if its not on the same team, they will attack each other with chemicals inside the head of the sperm. It's friggin' crazy. Larger penises have advantages, otherwise, large penises wouldn't exist. The same with large brains. If large brains didn't make people more intelligent, they wouldnt' exist.

If you find this stuff at all interesting, I can recommend that you read "Sperm Wars" by Robin Baker.

 

We're getting off track here. I don't know how you can think large brains don't cause higher intelligence within our conversational context, considering how expensive it is to have a large brain.

Anyway, it was fun. But I have to do some homework.

Tschuess.

 

Sub-Saharan africans generally have tiny ears though....and what about the women? Do they dissipate heat through their clitores?

 

this is wrong, absolutely false.
if you are male the only thing that detirmines how many children you help create is how much pussy you get and the amount of sperm you produce. neither of which is related to penis size.

 

but what isn't obvious is higher strength does not equal a better athlete.