There is good reason to believe in the, inherent, Intellectual superiority of the Mongoloid 'Race'

Given the nature of my position in this debate; that I'm rejecting your assertion of the existence of an inherent intellectual hierarchy without making an assertion of my own; it would seem that my role is mostly one of attempting to tear down your arguments, and explain why I don't think they're sound. I apologize for monopolizing the fun, but that's what it seems the debate requires --- First to address your responses to my "arguments" 1. On the topic of the identification of "Race Groups" Again I do not wish to make this is an important aspect of our debate; and, I did not make an "argument" on the matter in my first round, as you said I did. This is what I said: "Now to clarify my having put quotations around the word "race" I was doing so not because I am looking to deny that racial groups exist, or make it any kind of a point of contention in the debate, but because naming such race groups is generally considered a subjective and somewhat arbitrary practice, and I wouldn't want to suggest that there is, in fact, such clear distinctions to be observed." I concede the point that various "race" groups are physically disntinguishable, be it by direct appearance, or by particular genetic clusters which happen to have more frequency over one particular "race" than another. 2. I would first say that your presentation of the information for your argument here appears to be rather poor, such that I'm having difficulty understanding what your information is, or how it's particularly relevant and being that the actual article (which contains that table you present) is off limits to me. I'd appreciate it if you could make it clearer what the study's method and results were, and how that supports your case, and/or also try to provide a working link to the actual study such that I can analyze it. I garnered from your presentation that some Koreans were adopted into some white families in Belgium and in The U.S. and that these adopted Koreans generally well on IQ tests. I fail to see how this shows Koreans as being intellectually superior. Also you asserted that the adopted Korean subjects scores were higher than the average White score of 100 (which was not in the abstract which you linked to). This I suppose is supposed to be evidence of Korean's being demonstrably more intelligent than whites. In reality all this would show (if you did substantiate your claim about the average white IQ score) is that Koreans adopted into white families apparently do better on IQ tests. There are many plausible explanations for this apparent trend which do not deal with the inherent characteristics of "races". It could very well be that those "White" families in America and Belgium who sought to not only adopt children, but sought to adopt "Mongoloid" children, were more well off than the average "white" family group. The In fact it seems rather apparent to me that poor whites are more racist than fairly well off ones, and so it would make sense that those whites who do decide to adopt an Asian kid are more likely to be relatively well off compared to average whites. Also, being that adoption is, by it's nature, a fairly long and well thought out process I think we can assume that those people who adopt children are probably at least a little more likely to have the means available to Rear them well then those people who have their own children; a good portion of which were probably "accidents". If those Korean kids were adopted into better than average white households; as I think I showed is likely the case; then it would make perfect sense that they end up getting a better than average IQ on this basis alone. This here New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com...; cites a study in which this reinforcing relationship between the affluency of the adopting household and the adopted child's intelligence is illustrated clearly. Here is a relevant exerpt: "The average I.Q. of children from well-to-do parents who were placed with families from the same social stratum was 119.6. But when such infants were adopted by poor families, their average I.Q. was 107.5 — 12 points lower. The same holds true for children born into impoverished families: youngsters adopted by parents of similarly modest means had average I.Q.'s of 92.4, while the I.Q.'s of those placed with well-off parents averaged 103.6. These studies confirm that environment matters — the only, and crucial, difference between these children is the lives they have led. " Again, those who adopt are likely to have a greater chance of being more financially prepared to provide for children, than those who do not, and if whites seek to adopt Asian Babe's they are likely, on average, less racist, AND more well educated then and financially secure than average white people. As the NYT article points out, the financial security of the family, and their education level, can very much affect the resulting intelligence of the adopted child. So I hope you could agree that, in this light, concluding that the Korean children WERE "inherently" more intelligent than the average white child, rather than just raised in a more financially sound and intellectually stimulating environment, is a rather large leap to take and ignores other VERY plausible reasons. Now to address your new points. 1."The bell curve of IQ for East Asians is situated more to the right (meaning higher average IQ) than whites and blacks." http://www.udel.edu... This document you link to has no information whatsoever on any study that was ever done. It does assert that the IQ for East Asians is ahead of the curve, but doesn't back it up. It's not that I don't believe that the author, and the signatories to her work, have found that to be the case, it's that I'd like to know how they found that to be the case: Which "East Asians"? The one's residing in the U.S.A. (which may, in general, have all sorts of relevant social advantages, and quirks, for one reason or another) The one's in China? Korea? Japan? Where? Perhaps "East Asians" all throughout the world? Your source doesn't provide any such answers. It just offers a bare assertion with no actual material for analysis. How can I argue with an unsupported assertion? 2. "They have the highest graduation rates of all the races: http://www.highbeam.com...... " And yet you also said this: "I agree social factors are an issue and it is a plausible hypothesis that east asian parents push their children to achieve academically and that is why they do well." earlier that post when saying that you can control (as you'd presumably need to) for the mentioned factors in the adoption study you mentioned. You were right to think such things need be controlled for, for they VERY plausibly would affect things like graduation rates. For example: Which East Asians come to America the industrious ones or the lazy ones? The ones who will push their kids or the one's who wont? Further East Asians are more than just biologically similar, they are culturally similar too. The Confucian tradition prizes education, and prizes fulfilling what society and your family expects of you. Also East Asians have long had a tradition of meritocracy. One can easily see how Cultural factors are likely at play in the graduation rates of East Asians. Could it be that inherent intellectual superiority is also at play?... Perhaps, but given the OBVIOUS social factors which could easily explain this phenomenon this example also cannot be taken as Evidence of inherent difference. 3. I too could link to some dude talking about things with no studies cited, no analysis on my part, and no real argument. This video is not evidence. Why don't you cite one of those "160 studies" and come up with some argument rather than link to this dude. 4. Same as 2 5. Quite irrelevant