• 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.
But even those things are indicative of intelligence. Becoming a good speaker and surrounding oneself with intelligent people indicate a degree of intelligence...not to mention the ability to determine WHICH intelligent people to listen to, when they disagree. Additionally, presidents usually have had a solid resume prior to taking office (usually as a goveror/senator/VP, and with an advanced degree from a prestigious school) where they would have had plenty of opportunity to falter if they were lacking in intellect.

Could you be talking about what I refer to as "cunning"? A non intellectual kind of smart, seen in people who are successful while not manifesting anything that one would identify as "intellect". Kind of like the opposite of the genius with no common sense. The "average guy" with charisma or some other quality that enables them to compete with those with more raw intellect.

That's my take on Bush was that the was more cunning than intelligent.
 
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.

Let's unpack your argument. All human beings are born with equal intelligence and racist teachers are primarily responsible for the black-white IQ gap.

The trouble with your argument is that the black-white IQ gap is already fully established by the age of 3, which is long before young children are exposed to environmental influences in school and in broader society.

How can teachers be the cause of a phenomenon which is already well established before kids start school? I'm dying to read the explanation for this.

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."

I could swat these away all day. A report published at NBER addresses the influence of educational environment on student education outcomes:

Families originally living in public housing were assigned housing vouchers by lottery, encouraging moves to neighborhoods with lower poverty rates. Although we had hypothesized that reading and math test scores would be higher among children in families offered vouchers (with larger effects among younger children), the results show no significant effects on test scores for any age group among over 5000 children ages 6 to 20 in 2002 who were assessed four to seven years after randomization. Program impacts on school environments were considerably smaller than impacts on neighborhoods, suggesting that achievement-related benefits from improved neighborhood environments are alone small.​

Taking poor kids and their families and putting them in wealthier environments and having the children attend schools which were not resource deficient in any manner, yield squat in terms of student improvement.
 
Let's unpack your argument. All human beings are born with equal intelligence and racist teachers are primarily responsible for the black-white IQ gap.

The trouble with your argument is that the black-white IQ gap is already fully established by the age of 3,...

according to who..The Bell Curve?
 
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. :)

Could you point out some of these racist comments for I haven't seen one yet. All I see are comments which violate the liberal creationist ethos and they upset some people who are quite wed to a view of reality that is divergent with evidence and science.
 
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.

I agree with the majority of what you said. However, while you're right that some have claimed Obama was let in by affirmative action, RiverDad has made it clear that he thinks blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites.
 
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. :)

Is this the first cry of racism by a Liberal in this thread?
 
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.

Well that certainly doesn't qualify as a creationist viewpoint. OK, now we're acknowledging that genetics is pertinent to the issue. What's the next step. At least the facade of pretending is now dispensed with.

As to the question of black population in the US, they comprise 13% or so of the population, or 1 of 7.5 people.
 
Is this the first cry of racism by a Liberal in this thread?
Well TD was the first one to bring race into the discussion, so I would say it was him although the "racist cry" in his argument would be for the white men who didn't get in because of Obama.
 
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.



:(

I wouldn't be the least bit infuriated, if we had a black man that could lead this country. Unfortunately, we don't have one that can do that.
 
Well TD was the first one to bring race into the discussion, so I would say it was him although the "racist cry" in his argument would be for the white men who didn't get in because of Obama.

Do I need to repeat the question?
 
I wouldn't be the least bit infuriated, if we had a black man that could lead this country. Unfortunately, we don't have one that can do that.
Well, we actually don't have a white man, a woman, an Asian or a member of the human species who can lead this country, so...
 
here's one:

How is that racist? if it is fact?

I don't know if it is fact or not, but i wouldn't discount it as racist until you know the IQ score distribution of 3 year old's.
I would ask him to show his source.
 
Well, we actually don't have a white man, a woman, an Asian or a member of the human species who can lead this country, so...

Therein lies the whole problem with the Left: You all think we need a, "leader".
 
Here's one:

aka "Yes."

That's really stretching the definition of racism beyond all significance. A few years ago a number of studies were published in genetic journals which looked at the issue of Ashkenazim Jewish Intelligence and why these Jews, as a group, score so exceptionally high, why they are disproportionately winners of Nobel Prizes in science, etc and detailed some mutations which disproportionate affect the Ashkenazim and hardly anyone said boo about racism.

It's logically impossible for a group to be more intelligent than the mean for a population and not have it be possible for a group to be less intelligent than the mean for a population. Why do liberal creationists claim that one side of this coin is racism and the other side of the coin is just science?
 
Well that certainly doesn't qualify as a creationist viewpoint. OK, now we're acknowledging that genetics is pertinent to the issue. What's the next step. At least the facade of pretending is now dispensed with.

As to the question of black population in the US, they comprise 13% or so of the population, or 1 of 7.5 people.

Just to be clear, what I am referring to is descendents of slaves. And lingering effects of selective breeding from that period.

Globally, as far as I know, genetic differences are environmentally explainable and statistically neutral.

The only actual genetic factor that I think is statistically relevant is intellect. The difference between the very smart and the least smart is FAR more significant than any racial variance.And I think geniuses pop up pretty evenly dispersed amongst the various racial subsets, allowing for external factors (inbreeding for instance).
 
That's really stretching the definition of racism beyond all significance. A few years ago a number of studies were published in genetic journals which looked at the issue of Ashkenazim Jewish Intelligence and why these Jews, as a group, score so exceptionally high, why they are disproportionately winners of Nobel Prizes in science, etc and detailed some mutations which disproportionate affect the Ashkenazim and hardly anyone said boo about racism.

It's logically impossible for a group to be more intelligent than the mean for a population and not have it be possible for a group to be less intelligent than the mean for a population. Why do liberal creationists claim that one side of this coin is racism and the other side of the coin is just science?

Partly because rightly or wrongly, the clarion call of racism undermines anything else that's said. It's as much a tactic as it is a reality.
 
That's really stretching the definition of racism beyond all significance. A few years ago a number of studies were published in genetic journals which looked at the issue of Ashkenazim Jewish Intelligence and why these Jews, as a group, score so exceptionally high, why they are disproportionately winners of Nobel Prizes in science, etc and detailed some mutations which disproportionate affect the Ashkenazim and hardly anyone said boo about racism.

It's logically impossible for a group to be more intelligent than the mean for a population and not have it be possible for a group to be less intelligent than the mean for a population. Why do liberal creationists claim that one side of this coin is racism and the other side of the coin is just science?
Considering that race is not a distinct biological category, intelligence is subjective and scientists generally hold that genetics don't significantly affect intelligence, I think that racism is a good explanation for why you think that blacks are inherently more stupid than whites.

I don't think most liberals would disagree that blacks tend to do worse academically than whites, but the leap from societal factors to "inherently less intelligent" suggests racism. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom