[...] Rushton. Jamais ces arguments (tel celui de « l’effet d’expectation » décrit dans ce lien) n’ont réussi à prouver une origine purement environnementale aux différences de QI entre [...]

Here we go. You see why people object to this sort of theorizing? The next step is always the support of discrimination. By the way crime hasn’t increased in South Africa, it’s just that during apartheid the whites were shielded from it. The townships were always very violent. In any case if the whites don’t like living in a country run by the black majority, then they can leave. Or do people with a “lower IQ” not have a right to their own land either?

I would like to direct you all to this site, which is dedicated entirely to refuting the kind of arguments found here about black people, and has lots of scientific information on the matter:
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrcontents.htm

@jixiang: I would not even dare to say that myself, but I am slowly arriving at the same conclusions.

Yes, and this sort of reacial theorizing is exactly what the white minority in South Africa would seaze on to justify apartheid. After all, you wouldn’t want to live in a country with a govenrment elected mainly by blacks with a “lower IQ”, would you?

I believe crime is increasing in South Africa.
Of course it is Apartheid’s fault http://allafrica.com/stories/201011251229.html

http://www.economist.com/node/14564621

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0824/p09s01-coop.html

Yes, and this sort of reacial theorizing is exactly what the white minority in South Africa would seaze on to justify apartheid. After all, you wouldn’t want to live in a country with a govenrment elected mainly by blacks with a “lower IQ”, would you?

If you took the thing to extremes , you could justifiy taking black people’s vote away in Western countries too. After all, they aren’t intelligent enough to know what’s good for them are they?

Is it surprising that people get nervous about this sort of stuff? After all, it was only recently that blacks were genuinely denied rights because they were seen as inferior, and even enslaved. Seeing them as equals has been a great step forward for civilization.

And as for being committed to the scientific truth, differences in racial intelligence are not exactly like quantum mechanics or something. We don’t need to know about it to have a better fundamental understanding of how the world works, and I posit that we had better continue not researching the subject.

By the way, IQ is not at all universally accepted as an objective way to assess intelligence, so here’s another problem with your “scientific evidence” of differences in racial intelligence.

@Jixiang: opting to close one’s eyes and intentionally avoid knowing the truth is an interesting option. Good you honestly state such intent.

Of course, this creates serious problems. Blacks get angry because they believe their lack of academic success is due to discrimination by the evil white man. While it is solely due to the lower IQ.

While white IQ is slightly lower then Asian IQ, black IQ is very significantly lower, about 1-2 Standard Deviations.

And another thing: I think there is a good argument for not doing research on which races are more intelligent, because the results will automatically lead to racism and make it harder for people to be evaluated as individuals.
If black people really do have lower IQ, it is better not to know that.

You seem to me to be sliding more and more into attitudes against blacks which are frankly unacceptable. Even if their average IQ was slightly lower, how does this automatically translate into looting following an earthquake? These are clearly cultural differences, not differences in IQ. Even if there was a slight difference in average intelligence, always expecting the worst from black people in every situation is not right.

My point about Vietnam was trying to show that a country’s level of economic development and its people’s intelligence don’t necessarily correlate, especially since different countries compare differently to each other in different periods of history. China was poorer than Europe for a couple of centuries before “communism”, while it was much richer than Europe during the Middle Ages, even though the people involved still have the same genes.

Vietnam had an enormous war and a communist regime that held back China and Russia in spite of highly inteligent and educated people. Compare this with African war zones, they are doing pretty well. Compare it with Haiti even before the earthquake.

IQ is not all. IQ works together with the environment. From what I understand, Vietnamese immigrants in the US are extremely successful, especially second and third generations. Good IQ with good environment, and still preserving good cultural values from their old cult

Then compare the looting and unrest in the earthquake in Haiti and after flooding in New Orleans (mainly black) with the calm in Japan and other Asian Tsunami victim countries like Indonesia etc.

The fact that medieval China had a well developed infratructure which impressed Marco Polo, while Africa didn’t, does not prove that the Chinese are more intelligent. In his famous book “Guns, germs and stell”, Jared Diamond explains the difference in technology and economic development between different parts of the world as deriving from geographic factors, and not from racial differences.
By the way, you suggest that Vietnamese, being Asians, are very intelligent, but if you go to Vietnam, the country is extremely poor and underdeveloped, as was China a few decades ago. How does this fit in with your views?