• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you smarter than The Obama?

Are you smarter than The Obama?


  • Total voters
    33
Status
Not open for further replies.
why do far lefties try to paint conservatives as racists for telling the truth? The fact is a white male with Obama's academic record would never have been accepted into Harvard Law School and a white male with Obama's credentials would not have been elected president after an adoring press greased his path to the white house

Aside from being a "legacy" of course!
 
You can easily guess at the percentage of liberals here that believe they are smarter than GWB...

Oh I believe I'm smarter than Bush, and I question whether he had the intellectual firepower to be president. But that's not to say he was stupid...I think he was considerably smarter than the average person. I just think that the president should be truly exceptional, rather than merely smart.
 
For everyone who is not a creationist, all the evidence points to this outcome. I'm not a creationist.

So tell me, what invisible force has stopped evolutionary processes from taking place above the neck considering that the human species has occupied many thousands of micro-environments over tens of thousands of years which have produced untold variation on a number of human metrics. What stopped mutation, drift and selection from working?
So I'll take that as a "yes", you do think blacks are genetically predisposed to being less intelligent than whites. That reminds me of racism.

What's weird about your conclusion though is that "race" is a contested concept and races are not accepted to exist by most scientists as unambiguous, biologically distinct groups. Consequently, to say that certain races are more intelligent than others is to make a statement based on a concept that does not exist in any significant form.

That said:

The official position of the American Anthropological Association is that intelligence cannot be biologically determined by race.[2] The American Psychological Association has said that while there are differences in average IQ between racial groups, and there is no conclusive evidence for environmental explanations, there is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation, and no adequate explanation for the racial IQ gap is presently available.[3][4] According to a 1996 statement from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, although heredity influences behavior in individuals, it does not affect the ability of a population to function in any social setting, and all peoples "possess equal biological ability to assimilate any human culture" and "racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations."

Race and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But whatever, it's cool that you think black people are genetically more stupid than whites.
 
President Obama is much more intelligent than the average America. You don't graduate from Harvard Law summa cum laude and be an idiot.

Education and intelligence are two different things.
 
Oh I believe I'm smarter than Bush, and I question whether he had the intellectual firepower to be president. But that's not to say he was stupid...I think he was considerably smarter than the average person. I just think that the president should be truly exceptional, rather than merely smart.

Bush had a truckload of common sense. Something Obama is seriously lacking.
 
2183 Black test takers
31,539 white test takers,
ratio of 14.4475:1

At the 50th white percentile, the ratio was
16,770 white test takers
300 black test takers
ratio of 55.9:1

At the 84th percentile, the ratio was
4,367 white test takers
51 black test takers
ratio of 85.62:1

At the 95th percentile, the ratio was
1,577 white test takers
11 black test takers
ratio of 143.36:1

A ratio of 14.5 to 1 for those sitting for the LSAT ends up growing to 143:1 for those who score in the top 5%.

That's not meaningful to you? A 143 to 1 ratio is just discarded as an Inconvenient Truth.
So I guess the conclusion must be that black people are genetically more dumb than white people - better close down the schools in those colored neighborhoods.
 
Obama is a helluva smart than most of the people in the world.
Thats because "most peop-e in the world" live in grass huts with dirt floors - and, if lucky, are educated to the point where they can hold their own with the average American that made it past 2nd grade.
Thus, your claim here, even if true, means nothing.

How many people can graduate from Harvard Law, become a senator, then a president?
GWB's resume looks pretty good. Are you smarter than him?
 
Last edited:
For everyone who is not a creationist, all the evidence points to this outcome. I'm not a creationist.

So tell me, what invisible force has stopped evolutionary processes from taking place above the neck considering that the human species has occupied many thousands of micro-environments over tens of thousands of years which have produced untold variation on a number of human metrics. What stopped mutation, drift and selection from working?

Not being a creationist doesn't mean the non-creationist has the slightest idea about genetics. Educational statistics don't point towards any genetic predisposition whatsoever because of numerous other variables that come into play.
 
Oh I believe I'm smarter than Bush, and I question whether he had the intellectual firepower to be president. But that's not to say he was stupid...I think he was considerably smarter than the average person. I just think that the president should be truly exceptional, rather than merely smart.
Reagan? Ike? Nixon? GWHB?
FDR? Truman? Lincoln?
Were any of these "truly exceptional", in context?
Just curious.
 
Sure is. Question is, why's it there?

Well, here's one pretty strong contender.
Stereotype threat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for being predictable. I should have stated at the outset that I was expecting someone to lay this mostly debunked turd into this thread.

Stereotype threat works only in a very narrow set of circumstances. This is how it works:

A test is given to a wide range of students.
Some students are given information that other students are not given.
The information given to the chosen students is that this test will measure the notion that they live up to the stereotype that is attached to them.
The introduction of this new information does negatively influence the performance of the student against the performance of the students who were not given the information.

The upshot is that the Black-White test gap is still present but when Black students are told that the test is being used to measure how they compare to White students, those Black students who were told this information perform worse than the black students were not told this information. You can substitute any category for black student - women and emotion, women and strength, men and aggression, men and sexism, etc. Where ever there is a stereotype and people are told that a test will measure whether the stereotype is true this puts these students under a greater load of anxiety.

NONE OF THIS has anything to do with the LSAT or other standardized tests.

Testing environments that attempt to erase the stereotype threat see a near-complete closure of testing score gaps.

Bull****. Prove it.

Sacket, et al.


On Interpreting Stereotype Threat as Accounting for African American–White Differences on Cognitive Tests

C. M. Steele and J. Aronson (1995) showed that making race salient when taking a difficult test affected the performance of high-ability African American students, a phenomenon they termed stereotype threat. The authors document that this research is widely misinterpreted in both popular and scholarly publications as showing that eliminating stereotype threat eliminates the African American–White difference in test performance. In fact, scores were statistically adjusted for differences in students’ prior SAT performance, and thus, Steele and Aronson’s findings actually showed that absent stereotype threat, the two groups differ to the degree that would be expected based on differences in prior SAT scores. The authors caution against interpreting the Steele and Aronson experiment as evidence that stereotype threat is the primary cause of African American–White differences in test performance.​
 
Reagan? Ike? Nixon? GWHB?
FDR? Truman? Lincoln?
Were any of these "truly exceptional", in context?
Just curious.

I think most of them were extremely intelligent people, yes.
 
So I guess the conclusion must be that black people are genetically more dumb than white people - better close down the schools in those colored neighborhoods.

Not at all, but thanks for going into hyperbole overdrive when confronted with facts which contradict your creationist worldview.

Loot at the LSAT distribution by race. There were 300 black test takers in the US who scored better than 50% of white students. To the degree that the LSAT is a proxy for intelligence, these test takers were more intelligent than 50% of the white test takers. There were 51 black test takers who were more intelligent than 84% of all the white test takers in that year.

We're dealing with overlapping distributions here, not absolutes. Do you not realize that? Quite clearly those blacks who did well on the LSAT were more intelligent than the whites who didn't score as high as them.
 
That isn't strictly true. There is a stereotype threat present in the way teachers act, and the way students act towards each other. It's an underlying thing. They can exaggerate the results by bringing it to the fore, and minimize them by saying they will only be tested against other black students. But the effect is there regardless.

All you've done is explain the parameters for getting clear results. It doesn't change the fact that when certain suggestions are given, the gap shrinks.

Unfortunately, it can't make up for differences in educational environment and other factors which I also mentioned, and which is the premise on which you supposedly think the stereotype threat is "debunked." Those differences have nothing to do with black peoples' intelligence, but rather their access to education up to that point.
 
right, because there is just NO WAY a black man could earn his way into Harvard.

;)

With his grades there is no way anyone would get into the school without a favor of some sort. Race is the only possibility for him unless he knew people in high places.

...now, was his law degree and graduation with highest honors also a product of affirmative action?

Maybe, people get good grades that go to Harvard that turn around to be complete dipsticks. The truth is to keep up their appearances they give grades to keep an average in school. Recently they try to say that kind of activity is nonexistent but evidence of it continually pops up in the form of confessions by the professors. Its very hard to take any grade or award at Harvard as meaningful with the amount of evidence that exists that say it is actually meaningless.
 
Reading some of these racist comments reminds me of one of the hidden benefits of having Obama in the White House: His mere presence as the Chief Executive Officer of a majority-White nation punishes their egos. Deep down inside, something inside them hurts a little bit more every day because of the mere fact that a Black man has any degree of power over them. And when racists lose, everybody else wins. :)
 
Reading some of these racist comments reminds me of one of the hidden benefits of having Obama in the White House: His mere presence as the Chief Executive Officer of a majority-White nation punishes their egos. Deep down inside, something inside them hurts a little bit more every day because of the mere fact that a Black man has any degree of power over them. And when racists lose, everybody else wins. :)

yes, some people are just infuriated that a black man could lead this great country.

either he faked his records, or he used affirmative action, or he was born in Kenya, or he is part of a Communist conspiracy. either way, his legitimacy as President must be attacked at all costs.



:(
 
Last edited:
Not at all, but thanks for going into hyperbole overdrive when confronted with facts which contradict your creationist worldview.

Loot at the LSAT distribution by race. There were 300 black test takers in the US who scored better than 50% of white students. To the degree that the LSAT is a proxy for intelligence, these test takers were more intelligent than 50% of the white test takers. There were 51 black test takers who were more intelligent than 84% of all the white test takers in that year.

We're dealing with overlapping distributions here, not absolutes. Do you not realize that? Quite clearly those blacks who did well on the LSAT were more intelligent than the whites who didn't score as high as them.

Hey dude, I'm not in hyperbole overdrive. You said that you think blacks are genetically predisposed to being less intelligent than whites. Don't say it if you don't want it thrown back at you. And you keep equating LSAT scores with intelligence when that's not necessarily a good thing to do since intelligence is subjective and LSAT's do not measure all of it. Moreover, standardized tests measure acquired skills that blacks, who tend to grow up in poorer environments, are less likely to acquire even if they are intelligent.
 
What's weird about your conclusion though is that "race" is a contested concept and races are not accepted to exist by most scientists as unambiguous, biologically distinct groups.

Well, when you engage in fallacy by definition, who can argue with you? That's like arguing that no one recognizes that children exist as a concept when we define children as people who have not yet entered puberty and who are between the ages of 25 and 100. According to that crazy definition there are no such thing as children in the world.

No one who studies population genetics looks at race as "biologically distinct groups." Race is a widely used concept in genetics and even computer programs can parse people into racial groups by analyzing their genetic structure:

"The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That's an error rate of 0.14 percent. . . .

For each person in the study, the researchers examined 326 DNA regions that tend to vary between people. These regions are not necessarily within genes, but are simply genetic signposts on chromosomes that come in a variety of different forms at the same location.

Without knowing how the participants had identified themselves, Risch and his team ran the results through a computer program that grouped individuals according to patterns of the 326 signposts. This analysis could have resulted in any number of different clusters, but only four clear groups turned up. And in each case the individuals within those clusters all fell within the same self-identified racial group."
 
2183 Black test takers
31,539 white test takers,
ratio of 14.4475:1

At the 50th white percentile, the ratio was
16,770 white test takers
300 black test takers
ratio of 55.9:1

At the 84th percentile, the ratio was
4,367 white test takers
51 black test takers
ratio of 85.62:1

At the 95th percentile, the ratio was
1,577 white test takers
11 black test takers
ratio of 143.36:1

A ratio of 14.5 to 1 for those sitting for the LSAT ends up growing to 143:1 for those who score in the top 5%.

That's not meaningful to you? A 143 to 1 ratio is just discarded as an Inconvenient Truth.

Just for the sake of relevance, what is the ratio of whites to blacks in this country?
 
Reading some of these racist comments reminds me of one of the hidden benefits of having Obama in the White House: His mere presence as the Chief Executive Officer of a majority-White nation punishes their egos. Deep down inside, something inside them hurts a little bit more every day because of the mere fact that a Black man has any degree of power over them. And when racists lose, everybody else wins. :)
That's why I can't even get angry about this thread. You've got a Harvard Grad who was president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago for 12 years where he was offered tenure several times and highly respected by students and colleagues - but he didn't get a 4.0 during undergrad so now we're on the subject of how blacks are less intelligent than whites. This thread is so stupid.
 
For everyone who is not a creationist, all the evidence points to this outcome. I'm not a creationist.

So tell me, what invisible force has stopped evolutionary processes from taking place above the neck considering that the human species has occupied many thousands of micro-environments over tens of thousands of years which have produced untold variation on a number of human metrics. What stopped mutation, drift and selection from working?

Turd in the punchbowl, but Chris Rock brought it up so its ok.

400 years of eugenics will do that to people. Professional sports, anyone?

I'm sure its correcting, but I've witnessed breeding of a new breed of cat, and jt doesn't take many generations to select/deselect traits. Slaves were livestock. Size, strength, stamina, complacency are the kind of things they selected for. Intelligence? Certainly not.
 
That's why I can't even get angry about this thread. You've got a Harvard Grad who was president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago for 12 years where he was offered tenure several times and highly respected by students and colleagues - but he didn't get a 4.0 during undergrad so now we're on the subject of how blacks are less intelligent than whites. This thread is so stupid.

To be accurate, I believe the claim was (don't shoot the messenger) that Obama's entrance into Harvard was in part due to affirmative action. I don't know that to be true or not, but it IS and WAS true that Harvard did participate in affirmative action. That doesn't diminish accomplishment made while there by any means. The entire thread is stupid as how can anyone compare their intelligence against another unless the backgrounds, education and subject matter on which it is being judged is the same ... then maybe an apples to apples comparison could be made. But it's been pointed out that first... intelligence is rather subjective and just because someone has graduated from an Ivy League school does not mean they are smart -- it means they are academically intelligent and can do well in academia, it does not by default mean they are smart. I work with a few PhD's who are intelligent but not very smart.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom