PDA

View Full Version : Race and IQ



Pages : [1] 2

edao
08-03-10, 21:37
Do you think there is a difference in IQ between the races?

I know this is a contraversial subject, but an interesting one.

Is IQ a valid measure of intelligence?

Do social and political problems in other parts of the world boil down to a races lower mental capacity?

One clear indication of genetic difference between the larger race groups would be the olympics. People of african heritage out perform all races when it comes to physical prformance, sprinting and boxing are clear examples. So if this can be agreed upon that in a physical sense there is a clear difference is the brain not a physical part of the body? Why then shouldn't the brains performance vary between racial groups?

I've read both sides of the arguement, and I'm still not sure. Western societeis like to pretend all men are equal but we know that doesn't really work in real life, and to acknowledge such a variation would lead to huge rifts in society.

I would make it clear I have no racist agenda here, mearly to open a debate on peoples views on the subject.

LeBrok
08-03-10, 23:01
I agree, the differences between races are undeniable. Everybody agrees about visible external differences, but there is a big rift between two sides of issue when comparing intangibles like intelligence or emotional side.
It's an extremely touchy subject for the reasons you mentioned above. The problem is getting deeper, with our still primitive tests and understanding of what human intelligence is, or many kinds of them. Surely real life confirms these differences and gives some validity to these tests but the error margin can be big.

As Darwinist I'm confident that these differences are related to our separate evolutionary past of last 10-20-50 thousand of years, and possibly intermingling with other hominids spread around the globe.
For example Europeans have a long history of agriculture, congested population, building big cities and many of them, same in Asia. This surely had a huge impact of what we are now, compared to pure hunter-gatherers, like prairie Indians, Australian aborigines or many African tribes.
The western way of life, high tech economies and free market capitalism evolved slowly with people of Europe. There is no surprise to me that it is embraced and works great in East Asia, were people have similar evolutionary past. It also constantly fails in societies with recent hunter-gatherer past.
Surely most of us are afraid that acknowledging the differences will give more ammunition to racists, and will split the global village more than unite. But on other hand without understanding the differences, it won't let us help others in proper way; economical or even medical. Or maybe some people should be left alone to continue in their traditional way of life that worked for them for thousands of years. For some peoples the western ways; democracy, free market, social freedoms, etc won't work, and are more harmful than beneficial.

Woden
09-03-10, 06:37
Sure, why would different racial groups have the same IQs?

It is fantasy to deny racial differences.

Cambrius (The Red)
09-03-10, 07:00
No question there are IQ differences between the races, just as there are obvious differences in genetics. Still, the level of intelligence of any race is substantially influenced by environmental factors and social habitus.

Gwyllgi
09-03-10, 11:00
(Reaches for tin hat!)

But what really is IQ, and is it actually measurable as a universal metric across what are widely differing populations in widely differing environments (in the broadest sense of the word) using a common test battery? In fact is a common test battery even possible to produce?

I say no.

For that matter is a high reasoning ability actually a success factor in a given population in a given environment?

I say no.

There is another factor to consider and that is the bi-directional reinforcing between a population and its society, and what effect that has on genetically imposed success factors over a period of time where many generations are involved.

If you live in a society that is essentially a strictly family focused dog –eat-dog society where the ability to redefine rules so as to remain aloof from prosecution, but at the same time get the better on someone who isn’t able to be so selfish, then those who are will thrive and with their successful presence reinforce that characteristic within a society so making the whole society a dog-eat-dog society.

That would certainly explain the all too often correct racial or even national stereotypes that exist.

(Now don’t any of you lot come up with that old nursery rhyme “Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief, Taffy came to my house and stole a side of beef” at this point!)

So, taking the metric “IQ” as being a measure of the ability of an individual in terms of intellectual capacity between differing races is probably so difficult as to be impossible because of the different form of intellectual ability that is required to thrive and prosper in the natural environment in which each race lives.

However taking the required intellectual skills and mental horsepower within a closed population, even a bunch of tribes, and testing individuals against that might show how an individual measures up against the norm in that closed group.

It might also show how the variation spreads across the group in terms of the “shape” of the distribution, i.e. is there a shallow Bell normal curve or even is there a Bell normal curve at all.

Maybe the issue is that the whole idea that a society can be created in which all races are equal is flawed from day 1.

A society in which individuals are all treated equally, have the same opportunities, and share a common mutual respect is a good thing to aim for, but a society where “affirmative action” is brought in to level the playing field where an absolute set of requirements is required such as abstract reasoning in my opinion is wrong.

It puts square pegs in round holes or even worse, small pegs in big holes with the result that they fall through.

One thing that I do believe is that the US constitution was written by Europeans for Europeans and was addressing the inequalities that the Europeans who had fled Europe had faced because of differing religious beliefs and social structures.

To extend the assertion that “all men are created equal” to cover all races of men as being what was intended is to make a huge mistake.

Why otherwise would those same men who wrote those lines have been slave owners and genocidal criminals against the indigenous population of the lands they invaded and stole.

Doesn’t stack.

Starship
09-03-10, 19:09
Do you think there is a difference in IQ between the races?


One clear indication of genetic difference between the larger race groups would be the olympics. People of african heritage out perform all races when it comes to physical prformance, sprinting and boxing are clear examples. So if this can be agreed upon that in a physical sense there is a clear difference is the brain not a physical part of the body? Why then shouldn't the brains performance vary between racial groups?



Africans have larger muscles so Europeans must have larger brains? Apart from this purely observational evidence have you any more scientifically grounded research to collaborate this view?

Nasturtium
16-03-10, 16:36
I remember in high school History, the teacher alluded that IQ was linked to environment such that those from cold environments were far more industrious and ingenious. It seems intuitive that people from cold environments would have to devote more time planning and devising ways to merely survive harsh conditions than those where food, shelter, and water are readily available year-round with little effort. If true, it would imply there are genetic differences at work though not necessarily along racial lines. Amongst Europeans, Asians, and Africans (harsh desert climates) there are populations that faced serious threats to survival if they did not utilize cleverness and resourcefulness. And amongst Europeans, Asians, and Africans there are populations that have such favorable conditions that the need for such resourcefulness didn't come under genetic positive selection.

Still, I saw a show awhile back which challenged the view of a universal definition of IQ. It showed that there are many forms of IQ: math, social, musical, etc; none, better or worse. I would extrapolate that the populations that faced harsh conditions in the environment tended towards mathematical, engineering, and science based IQ's. Those that had favorable conditions could devote more of their time contemplating philosophy, social institutions, and culture. Music resides between both worlds, science and art, and therefore is the unifier for all.

Cambrius (The Red)
16-03-10, 16:48
Oh yes, didn't the disgraced charlatan "physical anthropologist", Carleton Coon, state that people from colder climates are more industrious and intelligent than people who come from warm climates... :laughing:

LeBrok
16-03-10, 18:35
Pre european Americas are a proof that it's not right, or right all the time. The greatest cultures and cities thrived around tropics and not in North in prairies, arctic or Greenland.

willy
18-03-10, 12:59
Oh yes, didn't the disgraced charlatan "physical anthropologist", Carleton Coon, state that people from colder climates are more industrious and intelligent than people who come from warm climates... :laughing:

That 's not always true but in a very cold climate or hard conditions life you must find some solutions to survive because you have no choice : no fruits ananas bananas etc ... so if people are staying more than 30000 years in hard conditions life and cold climate with rare food etc ... there is a selection and the more industrious people will survive but not necessary the most intelligent people there is also a cultural factor because it must remain attached to survive.

Starship
19-03-10, 12:53
Is it not more likely that where ever the climate and habitat on the planet was conducive to farming that people lost the need to roam after migrating herds. The farming led to surplus supplies of food which could be stored, this led to higher child birth not necessarily timed by the seasons and also led to more children surviving into adulthood. Villages became towns and eventually the first cities. Cities resulted in division of roles and responsibilities (hunter gathers needed to be proficient at multiple tasks) An administrator, soldier, blacksmith could create wealth and pay for services such as clothes food and so on. The development of cities also created wealth, different classes of society and as usual the collection of wealth in the higher echelons of society. This excess wealth could lead to patronage of teachers, philosophers, artists and poets.
So in short is it not more likely that a environment more suitable to farming was likely to lead a population to be more inventive and successful rather than a harsh environment?

Joro
19-03-10, 16:07
I've heard that East Asians have largest IQ.Urban legend or truth?

Gwyllgi
19-03-10, 16:24
I've heard that East Asians have largest IQ.Urban legend or truth?


Define IQ.

And what baseline norms do you want used?


And think carefully about the answers.

The subject is not so simply answered as might at first appear.

LeBrok
19-03-10, 17:40
That 's not always true but in a very cold climate or hard conditions life you must find some solutions to survive because you have no choice : no fruits ananas bananas etc ... so if people are staying more than 30000 years in hard conditions life and cold climate with rare food etc ... there is a selection and the more industrious people will survive but not necessary the most intelligent people there is also a cultural factor because it must remain attached to survive.

Again look at Asia, The biggest centers of civilizations were not at North. The only exceptions are Mongols for few hundreds of years.

Europe though located at North has quite mild climate compared to same latitudes in America or Asia. Probably the most important thing is that European climate is quite stable and same every year, a great base for agriculture. The are no extended droughts, locusts, floods the disasters people experience in Africa.

LeBrok
19-03-10, 20:04
Is it not more likely that where ever the climate and habitat on the planet was conducive to farming that people lost the need to roam after migrating herds. The farming led to surplus supplies of food which could be stored, this led to higher child birth not necessarily timed by the seasons and also led to more children surviving into adulthood. Villages became towns and eventually the first cities. Cities resulted in division of roles and responsibilities (hunter gathers needed to be proficient at multiple tasks) An administrator, soldier, blacksmith could create wealth and pay for services such as clothes food and so on. The development of cities also created wealth, different classes of society and as usual the collection of wealth in the higher echelons of society. This excess wealth could lead to patronage of teachers, philosophers, artists and poets.
So in short is it not more likely that a environment more suitable to farming was likely to lead a population to be more inventive and successful rather than a harsh environment?

Exactly my thoughts.
I think that the biggest change happened ones we embraced agriculture. In hunter-gatherer small tribal populations everything is shared equally. It doesn't matter if you smart or not, physically or weak, all the spoils of hunting and gathering is shared equally among all.
In numerous agricultural societies this concept is impossible and out the window. Every family in this system fends for themselves, mostly in times of food shortage. Smarter, harder working and industrious people and their families will collect more food/resources and will survive in bigger numbers than the once not having these skills. Agriculture promotes intelligence, in meaning of acquiring resources, planning for the future (climate related), entrepreneurship, learning.

Maciamo
19-03-10, 20:28
I've heard that East Asians have largest IQ.Urban legend or truth?

Contrarily to popular belief, IQ test scores can be improved through practice, or an education system that put more emphasis on skills found in typical IQ tests. I am talking about non-verbal crystallised IQ test like Mensa here. It's obvious that verbal IQ is a matter of nurture much more than nature.

However IQ is only one small facet of intelligence. It does not take into account long-term memory, auditive skills, personality (diligence, perseverance, eagerness to learn, open-mindedness), creative skills, imagination, motor skills, musical aptitude, social skills, and many other elements that broadly define intelligence.

willy
19-03-10, 21:34
Exactly my thoughts.
Agriculture promotes intelligence, in meaning of acquiring resources, planning for the future (climate related), entrepreneurship, learning.

Yes I agree : Agriculture : planning fo the future was very important to promote intelligence it's the begining of a civilization an organisation : calculation observation etc ...

LeBrok
19-03-10, 23:05
I'm pretty sure the process was slow in scale of couple of thousands of years, with few bottlenecks to speed up the process, before we started seeing, big populations, building big cities, organized political systems, big variety of specialized trades, growing economies, monetary/exchange systems, and beginning of sciences.

I know it's not very scientific of me to say that, but I wonder sometimes how on scale of today's standardized IQ tests, smart they were on average. I think the bottom must be around 85 or 90, of early Egypt of Babylon and others from that time. I think it's hard to imposible to run a succesful country with population IQ lower than 80, at least for longer time.
I'm really at awe with ancient Greeks. They invented so many things or improved borrowed ideas intensively, and we are talking about populations of no more than one million people, probably less. It's much easier to be born into well running system and learn the ropes, but it's 10 times more difficult to invent and implement new things and ideas. How smart were the Greeks? 110? How about Romans at the height of their empire? I think the Phoenicians belonged to this (ancient hi-tech) group too. It would be interesting to know if average IQ in Europe fluctuated with centuries and if it was related to high and low points in European history.
If in future we'll be able to estimate IQ from genetic material we might find the answers to few mysteries.

Joro
20-03-10, 01:25
Define IQ.

And what baseline norms do you want used?


And think carefully about the answers.

The subject is not so simply answered as might at first appear.
My maths teacher always raved about how far-easterners are by far the the best in international mathemathics competitions...

willy
20-03-10, 03:17
My maths teacher always raved about how far-easterners are by far the the best in international mathemathics competitions...

it's not so simple competitions is one thing but creativity is another You can learn maths and many people can do it this is work lessons exercises and abstraction facilities if you want to be the best !
but creativity is rare it is something you never learned .

willy
20-03-10, 03:19
If in future we'll be able to estimate IQ from genetic material we might find the answers to few mysteries.

It will be

Gwyllgi
20-03-10, 09:26
My maths teacher always raved about how far-easterners are by far the the best in international mathemathics competitions...

And from that you deduce what exactly?

Please don’t tell me that proficiency at resolving mathematical problems is an indication of high mental ability, let alone a metric that can be universally applied to prove racial superiority.

Starship
20-03-10, 15:00
I had this idea when i was younger that genetics was subject to the same trials and errors of natural selection, basically the strongest, most successful or luckyist survived, so over the centuraries, millenia people got smarter. I had this idea that if you had a time machine you could go back say 100,000 years take a baby human (call him b1) bring him back to today and put him with a family and raise him with another baby boy (b2) in a good environment and presumably b1 would be intellectually disadvantaged.

I then watched a programme (Unfortunately cant remember what it was called) but it was said that modern humans came on the scene, (again Im going by memory so im definitely up for correction) about 100,000 years ago and it was claimed they had the same brain size and intelligence as people today. So that blew my theory out the window. So if thats the case would it not suggest that this arguement that different races have different levels of intelligence null and void?

Joro
20-03-10, 15:04
And from that you deduce what exactly?


that they are more intelligent:grin:

Gwyllgi
20-03-10, 15:37
that they are more intelligent:grin:

Then, if by that you mean as an absolute measure of intelectual "horse power", you reach an incorrect conclusion.

Joro
20-03-10, 15:42
Then, if by that you mean as an absolute measure of intelectual "horse power", you reach an incorrect conclusion.
well,there are more types of inteligence IMO.

edao
21-03-10, 23:33
"According to Dr. C. George Boeree of Shippensburg University, intelligence is a person's capacity to

(1) acquire knowledge (i.e. learn and understand)

(2) apply knowledge (solve problems)

(3) engage in abstract reasoning"


Some interesting reading on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

"The Flynn effect describes an increase in the average intelligence quotient (IQ) test scores over generations (IQ gains over time). Similar improvements have been reported for other cognitions such as semanticepisodic memory. The effect has been observed in most parts of the world at different rates."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

"The 1996 Task Force investigation on Intelligence sponsored by the American Psychological Association concluded that there are significant variations in I.Q. across races."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Race

For example, iodine deficiency causes a fall, in average, of 12 IQ points[/URL]. It is expected that average IQ in third world countries will increase dramatically if the deficiencies of iodine and other micronutrients are eradicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Between-group_heritability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#cite_note-51)

Statistical analysis of his findings led Jensen to conclude that Level I abilities were distributed equally among members of all races, but that Level II occurred with significantly greater frequency among whites and Asian-Americans than among African-Americans and Mexican-Americans.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen

willy
23-03-10, 04:02
and about haplogroups ? R1b has a higher Level than a R1a ?

Gwyllgi
28-04-10, 09:43
and about haplogroups ? R1b has a higher Level than a R1a ?

Your question is based on the assumption there is an absolute and universal metric.

There isn’t.

Michael Folkesson
30-04-10, 22:01
I don't buy that africans have larger muscles and superior physique you say due to race. I can only assume one means African Americans who came from West Africas slave coast, cause I guess when one say that, one doesn't think Xhosa or Somali. I am quite sure a black man from any part of Africa can make it through a Masters degree if they have the opportunity.

I think that the docu series "Guns, Germs and steel" gives a hint about why the civilizations developed as they did.

I would be surprised if poor uneducated people of any race didn't score less on an IQ test than wealthy well educated people of that same ethnic group. This could be used as a eugenic darwinistic proof of that poor people are poor because they are less able meaning that they are their own cause of their unfortune, which generally is false. Most people are not all they can be, cause they either don't get the means and opportunity, are in a difficult position or are just not interested and don't need to. Making abilities a race issue, is the same as claiming it to be a gender issue. Left handed people living shorter lives et al. Be wary of eugenic claims. There are differences between races, such as height, skin colors and bone structure. Generalizations and averages carries no weight when judging individuals. I don't see a good reason for that Nobel prize winners from Africa would be unusual in the future. If one want's to understand the mess of sub-saharan Africa, one needs to look at history and culture and not for race qualities.

tosses
30-04-10, 23:54
Here is the answer: East Germany IQ=96 | West Germany IQ = 107

willy
02-05-10, 01:37
Yes you are probably right this is an average you 'r testing a population of 100 people in Africa and in Germany and you take the average that' s not a indidual IQ this is made for people who have not some knowledge of course if you have alcoholism or not nutrition your IQ is going down for sure and another thing IQ is built by an european culture there is lot of kind to be smart not only the european way .

LeBrok
02-05-10, 07:15
Here is the answer: East Germany IQ=96 | West Germany IQ = 107
I dare you linking me to something credible showing East Germany at 96. Where did you get an idea that education in East Germany were on substandard level compared to West. Even though some subject like history was filled with communist propaganda, subjects like math or physics were on same level, or even higher compared to the age/class of students in both countries.

LeBrok
02-05-10, 08:44
I don't buy that africans have larger muscles and superior physique you say due to race. I can only assume one means African Americans who came from West Africas slave coast, cause I guess when one say that, one doesn't think Xhosa or Somali. I am quite sure a black man from any part of Africa can make it through a Masters degree if they have the opportunity.

I think that the docu series "Guns, Germs and steel" gives a hint about why the civilizations developed as they did.

I would be surprised if poor uneducated people of any race didn't score less on an IQ test than wealthy well educated people of that same ethnic group. This could be used as a eugenic darwinistic proof of that poor people are poor because they are less able meaning that they are their own cause of their unfortune, which generally is false. Most people are not all they can be, cause they either don't get the means and opportunity, are in a difficult position or are just not interested and don't need to. Making abilities a race issue, is the same as claiming it to be a gender issue. Left handed people living shorter lives et al. Be wary of eugenic claims. There are differences between races, such as height, skin colors and bone structure. Generalizations and averages carries no weight when judging individuals. I don't see a good reason for that Nobel prize winners from Africa would be unusual in the future. If one want's to understand the mess of sub-saharan Africa, one needs to look at history and culture and not for race qualities.

Michale, these are exactly my thoughts when I was in your age. Well, I'm guessing that you're twenty something. If it comes to individuals I'm still treating everyone equally the same and with respect. After years of observation, analyzing, comparing what's changed in me is the view of races, cultures, nations groups of people in general. I came to the conclusion, in spite of my hopes, that the difference between races is more than skin deep. Actually understanding and recognizing the differences can bring better solutions and avoid misunderstandings. What was invented in Europe works in Europe. It must be a reason that it doesn't work in Africa, in face of trillions of dollars invested, donated, borrowed and knowledge transferred, teachers and doctors sent. Please don't play colonialism card. Far east was colonized to, and look at them now, doing quite well. So far we can't find even one shiny example of thriving country in Africa, at least by European standards.
So what if races are different? It doesn't mean one is better than the other. What is considered beneficial by one doesn't need to be for the other. Democracy and free market capitalism works for Europe, but they don't need to be ideal for Africa, or beneficial by any stretch.
I'd say let them live the way they want to, rule themselves, look for their own solutions to their problems. Still with respect from our side.

Michael Folkesson
02-05-10, 16:40
Well, I agree fully that one can't export democracy and stability. Not one democracy in Europe is the same, and the US is unlike anything we have, and we are still democracies and free, sharing democratic principles. The form and shape of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa cut through and divide peoples and tribes, and the countries themselves are made up by a multitude of tribes, languages and cultures. Kings being still in power as well as the countries are run by corrupt people in pseudo or procedural democracies. Of course colonialism has a part in that, but can't be blamed solely for this. There must be some point when African leaders and administrations will have to take responsibility for their failures. Leaders like N'Kruma in Ghana and Nyerere in Tanzania showed great promise but the greatest problems sub-Saharan African countries have is lack national community, of education, division of wealth, and a democratic culture. Africa doesn't need strong leaders, but strong movements cutting through traditional dividing lines. Socialism was viewed as a great threat in the cold war, but it is socialist and liberal movements that can make a difference in Africa.

Without having a democratic culture it is hard or impossible to run a working democracy other than by name. Nigeria is a good example. It's quite telling that the christian pagan Igbo in Biafra who sit on the greatest oil reserves in Africa get nothing from it, the christian vodun Yoruba regions still are the industrous western part and the Hausa is the islamic northern political part. This country is built with cracks and opposition from start, and it's one of the most important countries in Africa with it's position and some 150 million people. That is not a race issue. It's much more complicated than that.

What we would call democracy - modern democracy - is some 200 years old, Athenian democracy and Roman being the inspiration to the French and English ideas paving the way for the revolution. It took time. Africa has to find it's own way, and own style of democratic government as they have very different cultures and a whole different basket of problems we never had. The concept of the National State has no history in Africa, and only traces it's origin back to 1648 and the end of the big religious war of Europe. The Afican countries in this context never were a national state. With no national culture and no democratic culture, the likelihood of succesful European style democracies taking form is little.

That they will not be able to have functioning democracy and wealth in the future is ludicrous. But I agree that they can't just copy Europe to get there.

Gwyllgi
03-05-10, 08:06
Democracy in terms of where people decide on the laws under which they should live and maintain those laws in line with evolving civilisation is impossible where isalm reigns.

Islam is the very antithesis to democracy.

Michael Folkesson
03-05-10, 10:58
Most of sub-Saharan Africa is Christian. Little of it is Islamic.

Gwyllgi
03-05-10, 12:48
Most of sub-Saharan Africa is Christian. Little of it is Islamic.

Let's start with Nigeria.

LeBrok
03-05-10, 18:59
I think I won't exaggerate too much saying that democracy is not a concept invented recently by Greeks or Romans, they just made it on a grandeur scale. Democracy in some forms always existed on basic level in tribes and villages. Democracy is a basic form of self ruling for small populations. Either everybody in the village, or men, or elders gathered to decide about local affairs, or at least all elected one boss to lead them. I believe that democracy existed in some tribes for thousands of years, and came to spot light together with growth of their civilizations. It might seam new to us Europeans after couple of millenniums of oligarchy and feudalism.
I'm not even sure if democracy in current form is the ultimate answer as a political system. Dictatorships and democracy had their high and low spots throughout history. Democracy seams to working fine when times are good and enemies week. When going gets tough dictatorship seams to have an upper hand for countries survival.
My favorite example of good limited dictatorships is Lee Kuan Yew prime minister of Singapore for good 30 years. He single-handedly transformed third world country into admiration of the world in a very short time. He also convinced Chinese communist leaders to open their economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLyPpUsNkAE

One smart man like him can do more for the country than western style democracy with its squabbling parliament.
After all democracy is mediocricy, you won't get the smartest (rarely) but you are immune from the craziest people, if it happens then it's over after short 4 years. With dictatorship you are way off if Lee Kuan Yew at helm, but sometimes you can get a Hitler.
Is then democracy the answer for Africa? Not necessarily, probably it doesn’t matter too much. They might need to invent something, maybe a combination that works for them.
The difference that I see between Africa and Europe or Asia is that Africa didn't went through intense agriculturalism and history of dens population with many big cities. Nobody is sure why it did the trick for Europe and Asia but it did. These are the places that can implement European economy and political systems and enjoy peaceful and rich life. On other end of the spectrum are nations that are closer to the hunters-gatherers way of life, like sub-Saharan Africa, or even more so American prairie Indians, Inuit, or Australian aborigines. Western economy, ideas, way of life is strange to them and doesn't work at all, for an overwhelming majority of them. The purer the hunter-gatherer the less likely they adopt to the Europeans ways, the longer history of agriculture and big cities the easier it seams. The only explanation to this conundrum is thousands of years of different evolutionary past, and yes it made us different in this aspect too. The funny thing is that I came to this conclusion starting from my idealistic base that all races are the same.
Other examples:
Take Ashkenazi Jews, throw them in any western country, on top of it make it difficult for them too (like for most of their history in Europe), in couple of decades they will be the richest minority in the country. We know they have above average IQ and long history of city dwelling.
Now take prairie Indians in Canada. Decades of free education, no taxes, extra revenue from natural resources, 20 thousand a person per year in government help, casinos, etc. You arrive in most of the reservations and it looks like slams.
On other hand Mexicans with agricultural and cities past of Aztecs and Mayans are doing quite ok and growing fast.

Wilhelm
03-05-10, 20:08
Yes, I do believe different races have different IQ. But this doesn't mean there are superior races, each race is adapted to it's environment. Intelligence is one of this factors of adaptation to environment

edao
03-05-10, 21:03
I'll argue the other side here.

If you look at Brasil it has the largest black population outside of Nigeria.
They have slums called Favelas the majority of people living in these are of indian and black decent. Is this due to racism or an inability to compete with europeans?

If you look at the US again we have the ghettos were so much african american culture has come from, its no secret that the ghettos are a majority of african americans.

In the UK there have been reports about abnormally high rates of young black men commiting crimes, but the mear mention of these facts people are labelled racist.

There are africans all over the world and where ever they go the majority seem to end up on them bottom of the pile.

You have Indian and Pakistani immigrants to the UK who run businesses, I have never seen the chinese forming slums where ever they go in the world? Are people less racist towards the chinese I think not. And i know for fact that alot of British people are fairly racist towards Pakistani immigrants but that never stopped them making the most of the opportunities available to them.

Shasta
03-05-10, 22:47
I'll argue the other side here.

If you look at the US again we have the ghettos were so much african american culture has come from, its no secret that the ghettos are a majority of african americans.


It is a controversial subject, but thought to mention in America poor ghetto black people are thought by some to have inherited their culture during slavery from southern white red necks also known as crackers. When reading history, the two groups have similarities. The problem for America I suppose is that before the freeing of slaves up to 90% of blacks lived in the red neck dominated south. While a much smaller portion of the nation as a whole were white crackers.

Over time little has been done to change the ghetto black culture. Basically white red necks are made fun of. Where as black red necks are left alone and sometimes even celebrated.

LeBrok
03-05-10, 23:44
Well, I agree fully that one can't export democracy and stability. Not one democracy in Europe is the same, and the US is unlike anything we have, and we are still democracies and free, sharing democratic principles. The form and shape of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa cut through and divide peoples and tribes, and the countries themselves are made up by a multitude of tribes, languages and cultures. Kings being still in power as well as the countries are run by corrupt people in pseudo or procedural democracies. Of course colonialism has a part in that, but can't be blamed solely for this. There must be some point when African leaders and administrations will have to take responsibility for their failures. Leaders like N'Kruma in Ghana and Nyerere in Tanzania showed great promise but the greatest problems sub-Saharan African countries have is lack national community, of education, division of wealth, and a democratic culture. Africa doesn't need strong leaders, but strong movements cutting through traditional dividing lines. Socialism was viewed as a great threat in the cold war, but it is socialist and liberal movements that can make a difference in Africa.

I agree Michael, it was a very stupid idea to leave Africa divided into countries based on colonies. It is much harder to run any country when its population consists of different cultures, languages and religions.
Did you notice though that this argument of yours goes against your believe in open, emigrant friendly, multicultural Sweden. You might want to reconsider your optimism in this aspect, and be careful who you take in.

Wilhelm
04-05-10, 00:09
yes, I also noticed a contradiction here with your ideas of a multicultural Sweden and Europe, you just said of african nations "and the countries themselves are made up by a multitude of tribes, languages and cultures."
Isn't just this what is happening in Europe ? Last time I checked Stockholm is 40% foreigner :petrified:

Sirius2b
04-05-10, 06:33
Is there a difference of IQ between the larger race groups?

We should not forget that the "modern classic" for these questions is "The Bell Curve" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve ) of these people: Richard J. Herrnstein (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Richard_Herrnstein) and Charles Murray (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Charles_Murray_(author)).

I think that IQ could be genetic but also environmental... and according to these guys, I should be classified among the "inferior races" :D

I will not say that this idea of trying to prove differences among races through IQ, is "good" or "wrong" from a scientific point of view... But everyone that knows the deep story of this book and its authors knows that they had a political-conservative-racist agenda from the beginning.

If we go further in the past, we could see that there has been always some "racism" everywhere in history of mankind.

However, the attempts to "prove it" scientifically are recent, well entered the XIX Century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Stewart_Chamberlain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_de_Gobineau

I could be satisfied by pointing out, that those concepts were correlated with a dramatic expansion of European Imperialism, that attempted to justify itself intellectually with ideologies like that. It was an idea that was amplified by its correspondence with the larger reallity.

The preferred "inferior other" of the writtings of the first "scientific racist", were the "yellow people" of Asia: Chinese, etcetera.

It is good to attest, that by the writting of the "Bell Curve", the supposed "Master Race", were precisely "people of East-Asian decent".

In reality, most of this writtings, then and now, are only attempts to justify the prejudices and social reality of their times, or some specific political agenda.

Regards.

Shasta
05-05-10, 19:12
Over the past week, we've had a dust up at one of our American Universities concerning IQ. Here is a nice summary of what occurred at Harvard.

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/05/05/campus-thought-police-in-overdrive/

-+
May 5, 2010 11:59 AM UTC by John Stossel
Campus Thought Police in Overdrive
As a matter of science, is it possible that race and IQ are related? A Harvard Law student, Stephanie Grace, raised that question in an e-mail to friends after a dinner conversation. Months later, after a falling-out, one of those friends forwarded the e-mail around and it took off in the liberal blogosphere. Enter the thought police.

A Huffington Post writer opined:

Should the Harvard law student be expelled for her stupid, offensive, and easily refuted views? Certainly.

The Dean of the Harvard Law School put out a public statement:

This sad and unfortunate incident prompts both reflection and reassertion of important community principles and ideals. We seek to encourage freedom of expression, but freedom of speech should be accompanied by responsibility.

The Harvard Law Review, where Grace is an editor, is getting e-mails like:

[It] reflects extremely poorly on the Law Review for one of your editors to be running around unmuzzled and making such ludicrous remarks. … I have also taken care to notify Dean Minow of this transgression. I have faith that the Review will take all necessary and swift action.

So what did the student actually say to spark the furor?

I just hate leaving things where I feel I misstated my position. I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent…

In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true. Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case.

Please don’t pull a Larry Summers on me. [Full e-mail here.]

That referred, of course, to former Harvard President Larry Summers, who was bullied into resigning after suggesting that women might have different science aptitude than men.

First Amendment law professor Eugene Volokh is on the warpath defending the student’s speech.

Indeed, the student’s e-mail acknowledges the possibility that there are genetic differences between the races. But it seems to me that no university department — no department in an institution that is committed to the notion that factual assertions are properly the subject of debate based on evidence, and not on faith — ought to condemn anyone for acknowledging that possibility. There should be “nothing sad and unfortunate” about someone’s saying that she is unwilling to take factual questions as articles of faith to be assumed for moral reasons, and that she instead prefers to treat them as factual questions on which one needs to be open to rival views.

The student has caved to the pressure and publicly apologized. Regarding that, Volokh writes:

I, for one, am disheartened that — for perfectly understandable reasons — a student at a research university feels the need to apologize for having the temerity to be open to scientific evidence on a scientific question, and for deciding to express her openness to her friends.

I agree. Free speech – even about touchy subjects – is important. If scholars fear open debate, how will we know that their conclusions reflect truth and not just political correctness?

watta
27-05-10, 23:22
First: the education is in no thread with intelligence, at all. a literate society doesn´t mean smart society (what was repeatedly proved in human history)
Second: every new genetic analysis confirms more and more, that that´s culture what affects human´s life - customs, his spreading etc., in a crucial way.
an example: we believe (we always just belive :) ) that cro-magnons humbled neandrthals because of they customs, especially food, life-style, movements etc. this were these particuar cultural matters which than manifested themselves in overlaying neandrthal´s domiciles. so their culture than evocate a change also in genes and their´s distribution.
We can easily follow these two main roads:
genetic - extends
and
cultural - narrows - to the one global culture
In historic times, intelligence was definitely genetic thing. But - these intelligent humans were spread out among all races with all genes. So? How could we found them today? By race which doesn´t exist anymore? Which is now spilted in whole world? Or by their culture, which was gone?
There is more important items to think about:
1/ Intelligence is never a case of big group. Tt is a matter of small amount of people. I suppose the big intelligence is not really desired by evolution - we can find evidence for it among many species.
2/ Intelligence doesn´t arise with literacy, with education, nor with new euro-american schools. It is genetic, definitely. You need good surrounding to cultivate it, but if you don´t, the loss is not such a big deal - in the next generations, your genes still can make it. But if there are not, you need to take some of other man/woman´s genes to have intelligent children. Who is not born as an intelligent man, could´n be intelligent. Similarly as with eye-color, for example, it doesn´t work in this simple way, that blue-eyes-mother with hazel-eyes-father will have a blue-hazel-eyes daughter :), of course, so if you have already genes for intelligence, you can´t lose them, or restrict them. They are still the same, you can just well explored them for your life (or you don´t must). The only important thing is how these genes will be spread out in populations. It is possible, that intelligent poeple doesn´t have so many children (today, not in history), as less intelligent people. It can affects whole situation. Also it is possible, that intelligence is less strong genes combination than another which can affect it as well (for example for laziness). So, yes, it is genetic, but not so linear, not so straightforwardly, not so easy.
3/ In history, supreme intelligence wasn´t a thing of a tribe, but of an elite. Only if we leave an elite as an elite, we people would be able to keep the intelligence alive. People who made decisions about essential things in tribes was an elite. Today, the situation is different, the supreme intelligence is not a leading edge. I suppose it kills slowly the people´s tension to intelligence, also pursuable in genes.
PS: I should really apologize for my english, I´ve never took lessons, because I really don´t like to learn by tables, so please, forgive me, thank you.

willy
29-05-10, 03:22
Yes if you want to go on the moon you can built a space ship if you don't that's your idea you stay here . everybody is free to do what they want : Einstein Theory or playing football I am for freedom

watta
29-05-10, 11:10
I am for "freedom" too, in meaning - I would really like everybody could explore his potencial. Freedom is actually not "have possibility to do what you want to do", which is something different, of course, but - anyway, the state of freedom, whereof everybody could explore his potencial, doesn´t exist. Nowadays, you can play football, if you want, but you can´t use your potencial of intelligence, if you want. Not because it is "more difficult" as somebody could claim. Partially because of money, of course - this is mostly the case of major part of world (we in Europe call it "third world"). But mainly because the science is not indepedent, and it concerns all world. The man is never independent, it belongs to people. It would be really nice to have the world, when intelligence would have the same possibility to live as footbal (the used examples are obviously not in opposite :D). It would be not so nice to have plain freedom - everybody speaks lot of freedom, but it means also that somebody can kill you if he wants etc, especially as you draw it in your case - it is really just populistic. But, neither the world of same possibilities, nor the world of freedom doesn´t belong to human culture, and, which is most important, doesn´t belong to evolution. It is not the best solution for evolution, it seems. These are just human criterias. So, the world - and the human world - is not a paradise, but even so it is a nice place to live. It is really the best if each of us is trying. Trying to use his potential.

willy
29-05-10, 15:13
When you say that freedom is not the best solution for evolution and that man is never independent, it belongs to people I don't think

^ lynx ^
04-09-10, 16:25
For example Europeans have a long history of agriculture, congested population, building big cities and many of them, same in Asia. This surely had a huge impact of what we are now, compared to pure hunter-gatherers, like prairie Indians, Australian aborigines or many African tribes.
The western way of life, high tech economies and free market capitalism evolved slowly with people of Europe. There is no surprise to me that it is embraced and works great in East Asia, were people have similar evolutionary past. It also constantly fails in societies with recent hunter-gatherer past.

Well darling, it's not easy to practice agriculture when one
lifes in the most arid/dry zone of the planet.

http://www.simplydifferently.org/Present/Pics/climate-world.gif

Ever heard of the Himalayan mountains system? Make a little research about its impact on the world climate conditions... no big IQ is needed to
understand why the african socities haven't developed at our same level.

Just for the record, which is your racial group? :rolleyes2:

LeBrok
04-09-10, 17:03
Agree, climate was the main cause of lack of agriculture in some world regions, therefore accordingly different evolutionary ways of human populations. I never said one is better, other worse, just that there are differences between populations.
Read carefully next time, don't jump in conclusions, stop thinking that everybody is same like you and thinks like you. Assume that nothing is good, nothing is bad, it means there is no universal good and evil, it is what is, then and only then, you'll have an excellent base to understand nature.

PS By the way great map, just saved it. The department has really good material.

^ lynx ^
04-09-10, 17:53
You have clearly suggested (in this and other thread) that there are indeed different IQ levels among humans due to the racial (genetic) issue and that sub-saharian populations have lower IQ than others due to their genetics. Don't act now like I'm putting that words in your mouth.

You're the only one here projecting your beliefs over others. I've never suggested anything remotely similar, thanks.

Greetings.

LeBrok
04-09-10, 18:26
Every IQ test so far, you can find, tells you that, or academic achievements of different populations. It's not my suggestion nor my believe. Once again, it is what it is, and it should be regarded as such. I'm neither happy nor sad because of it. I'm stating these facts to understand the nature and only in this context. Same way we notice the skin colour difference.
Does this make me a racist?
Do a better job lynx. Find better material, where I abuse, demean, ridicule, call names and hate other races. Basically the way you treat Latin Americans and Arabs.

Carlitos
04-09-10, 18:27
I think the development of intelligence is influenced by social, not genetic.

^ lynx ^
04-09-10, 19:38
Every IQ test so far, you can find, tells you that, or academic achievements of different populations. It's not my suggestion nor my believe. Once again, it is what it is, and it should be regarded as such. I'm neither happy nor sad because of it. I'm stating these facts to understand the nature and only in this context. Same way we notice the skin colour difference.
Does this make me a racist?
Do a better job lynx. Find better material, where I abuse, demean, ridicule, call names and hate other races. Basically the way you treat Latin Americans and Arabs.

OK. So finally you admit (what you were priorly denying) that you believe that there are races more intelligent than others. Thanks.

I've never suggested that Latin Americans or arabs are worse to other populations due to their race or ethnic background. Stop lying, cause you're only embarrasing yourself even more.

Since you can defend your racist behaviour you have to make others look racist... what a pathetic being you are (Yes, I called you pathetic being. I use to judge people by their behaviour, life with it).

Greetings.

^ lynx ^
04-09-10, 19:40
I think the development of intelligence is influenced by social, not genetic.

:good_job:

^ lynx ^
04-09-10, 19:42
Do a better job lynx. Find better material, where I abuse, demean, ridicule, call names and hate other races.

You only have to look at your messages at any thread related to Spain, darling. I'm telling you, seek for proffesional help.

Cambrius (The Red)
04-09-10, 21:23
I'll go 80-20, 80% genetics, 20% social/environmental.


You are way off. Most geneticists, anthropologists and sociologists see it at 50 / 50. Look it up.

Cambrius (The Red)
04-09-10, 21:25
Every IQ test so far, you can find, tells you that, or academic achievements of different populations. It's not my suggestion nor my believe. Once again, it is what it is, and it should be regarded as such. I'm neither happy nor sad because of it. I'm stating these facts to understand the nature and only in this context. Same way we notice the skin colour difference.
Does this make me a racist?
Do a better job lynx. Find better material, where I abuse, demean, ridicule, call names and hate other races. Basically the way you treat Latin Americans and Arabs.

What is you agenda? What area of the world are you REALLY from?

Cambrius (The Red)
04-09-10, 21:26
I'll go 80-20, 80% genetics, 20% social/environmental.
:laughing:

LeBrok
04-09-10, 21:55
OK. So finally you admit (what you were priorly denying) that you believe that there are races more intelligent than others. Thanks.

Greetings.

Now explain to all of us how is this racist, or just wrong???


(what you were priorly denying)
And quote me denying it.

LeBrok
04-09-10, 22:00
You are way off. Most geneticists, anthropologists and sociologists see it at 50 / 50. Look it up.
Can you post the formula they were using to come up to 50/50?
Oh, let me help you, there is none. It's just a guess! Did you know that?
Did you know that in 60s and 70s many same scientists believed that we are born as clean slate? 100% social outcome, 0 for genes.
So what's your guess? Are you brave enough, or prefer hiding behind guessing scientists?

LeBrok
04-09-10, 22:03
Are you guys going to post something related to IQ or intelligent enough, or just bulling and harassing around, hmmm?

^ lynx ^
04-09-10, 22:21
Now explain to all of us how is this racist, or just wrong???

Suggesting that some races are more intelligent than others sounds very much like racial supremacy propaganda to me thus it is racist.


And quote me denying it.

Apparently you're also suffering a first stage of Alzheimer.

Here is the quote:


I never said one is better, other worse, just that there are differences between populations.

Taken from: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=359793&postcount=52

And now don't try to being euphemistic and give me that being more intelligent than other doesn't make one better than other, please. :rolleyes2:

Greetings.

^ lynx ^
04-09-10, 22:24
Are you guys going to post something related to IQ or intelligent enough, or just bulling and harassing around, hmmm?

Awwww, the hunter hunted. :unhappy:

LeBrok
05-09-10, 00:55
Suggesting that some races are more intelligent than others sounds very much like racial supremacy propaganda to me thus it is racist.



Apparently you're also suffering a first stage of Alzheimer.

Here is the quote:



Taken from: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=359793&postcount=52

And now don't try to being euphemistic and give me that being more intelligent than other doesn't make one better than other, please. :rolleyes2:

Greetings.

The set of criteria you have engraved in your brain doesn't let you get out of some sort of brain block, and open to ideas. Not sure if this is a public education, religion, or too counter intuitive, or just purely egocentrism.

If intelligence IQ was, generally speaking, a better thing, all animal species on this planet would be super intelligent/1000IQ after vast 500 million years of evolution, wouldn’t they. You can say 120IQ is better, superior or higher than 100, but you can't say that a man with 120 is better than man with 100, because there is so much more that make us humans than IQ intelligence. Total adaptation to environment and survivability of offsprings counts the most.
In few years this “more” intelligent men can blow the planet apart, just because he can. Wouldn’t it be better to have lesser IQ and be alive, and still hunt in the forest, and make human race survive other millions of years? Which man is better than?

Nature doesn't care; it's just blind evolution and adaptation. For nature nothing's better or worse, it's just is. To fully understand our species and nature, embrace these criteria, or you'll never get it. Don't hang to long in this socio/religious dogma of good and evil, better and worse. These are concepts invented by people and they don’t exist in nature, they don’t exist outside of human brain.
Here is another example that makes many people confused. We have prairie Indians issues in Canada. They are not really adapted to Western/European way of living, and economically speaking they are fending much worse than average citizen.
Many people, like you, would conclude that they are the lesser human beings. But it's not true. They are hunter/gatherers and adapted to their environment, and were completely fine till Europeans changed their environment.
If it was reversed, and Europeans were forced into hunter-gatherer environment they would suck too, and people would conclude that they are lesser humans, right?
I come from Europe with agricultural set of genes developed through 10 thousand years, and I'm doing great in Canada. Even considering the fact that I learned language on a fly, raising 3 kids and running a business. Native people born here, with 20 thousand a year of government subsidy (family of 5 = 100 000, and no taxes), are rarity to be in my position.
Take alcohol for example. I can enjoy it with no adverse effect on my life. Thousand years of evolution with alcohol in Europe did the trick, I can digest it better and I can stop at will. But alcohol is new for Natives, and everyone can see the disasters consequences it brings in their communities. They might need a thousand years to adapt to it, not much else can be done with it.
Yes, I can clearly see the differences between races, but just seeing them doesn’t make one a racist. I can never say that I'm a better or superior human being than average Perrier Indian. All I can say is that I'm better adapted, better fitting the European agricultural and technological way of life. Throw me in hunter-gatherer environment and I'll be dead quickly, lol.
Hopefully this cleared up your thoughts.

I stated it before and I state it now. Yes all races have differences and similarities and it should be acknowledged, but everyone should be equal under the law, should enjoy same freedoms, privileges and responsibilities, we should be all inclusive in our societies, and everybody should feel as an important and a valid member. The only exception in treatment should be for people not accepting these rules. Long live global village.


PS
Also point me to just one statistic showing all races IQ equal!

And I also noticed that some people are whiter than the others, does this make me a racist too?
Would you get an impression that I'm suggesting that the whiter would be a better man, than less white?

Cambrius (The Red)
05-09-10, 01:18
Can you post the formula they were using to come up to 50/50?
Oh, let me help you, there is none. It's just a guess! Did you know that?
Did you know that in 60s and 70s many same scientists believed that we are born as clean slate? 100% social outcome, 0 for genes.
So what's your guess? Are you brave enough, or prefer hiding behind guessing scientists?

Me, hiding? Are you serious? And how did you come up with your absurd 80 / 20 figure? Did you guess? :laughing:

It's pretty cleat that people from a deprived environment have lower IQ's, and that is hardly a guess. There is no guessing as far as geneticists and social scientists go. Scientific journals don't allow guesswork to be published, OK? I'll provide the most recent material I can find...

LeBrok
05-09-10, 01:50
Oh, keep digging, I'll be waiting a long time......
Yes, it's my guess, and so are the 50/50 ones, and you know why?, because this is the safest guess, lol.

How come we can't hear your educated thoughts on this one, hmmm? Actually I'm yet to read your independent thought on any subject. How come you're not posting your ideas, hypothesis, your independent thinking. Just go on a limb once, and post an idea straight from your head. What are you, some kind of scholar that hinds behind someone else's work all the time?! No independent ideas in your head there, hmmm? Just ones humor me with your educated or not guess, build a concept, make something of your own thinking.
All you can do, with sidekicks linx and Wilhelm, to criticise someone else's posts. And I don't mean in a critique way, just pure obnoctious, abusive, arrogant, ridiculing manner.
So, just once, from yourself only, be brave, post your idea for the discussion, on any subject.

^ lynx ^
05-09-10, 02:12
LeBrok, thanks for making my points about you again with your supremacist statements. Keep talking, please. :good_job:

LeBrok
05-09-10, 02:54
Oh, that's it, curling your tail and running away? No detailed analysis of my "racist" statements?
Just a general lazy statement?
How about answering the questions from PS?

Cambrius (The Red)
05-09-10, 03:55
Oh, keep digging, I'll be waiting a long time......
Yes, it's my guess, and so are the 50/50 ones, and you know why?, because this is the safest guess, lol.

How come we can't hear your educated thoughts on this one, hmmm? Actually I'm yet to read your independent thought on any subject. How come you're not posting your ideas, hypothesis, your independent thinking. Just go on a limb once, and post an idea straight from your head. What are you, some kind of scholar that hinds behind someone else's work all the time?! No independent ideas in your head there, hmmm? Just ones humor me with your educated or not guess, build a concept, make something of your own thinking.
All you can do, with sidekicks linx and Wilhelm, to criticise someone else's posts. And I don't mean in a critique way, just pure obnoctious, abusive, arrogant, ridiculing manner.
So, just once, from yourself only, be brave, post your idea for the discussion, on any subject.

You are rather bizarre. Are you angry at the world? Am I sensing someone who is suffering from extreme delusion?

You have no idea who or what you are dealing with. :laughing:

Aristander
05-09-10, 04:38
I have no idea what is the most important factor in determining intelligence, I am sure that genetics is a large part of it. I also believe that environment and nutrition of the fetus during development is just as important.
However I do feel that that there are some differences in the different racial types that are caused by genetics. Perhaps some of the effects are epigenetic in nature and are caused by environmental stresses.

LeBrok
05-09-10, 07:21
You are rather bizarre. Are you angry at the world? Am I sensing someone who is suffering from extreme delusion?

You have no idea who or what you are dealing with. :laughing:

Is this your original and independent thinking idea???
Are you trying to disappoint me even more?

Keep digging dude, waiting for 50/50 research....

LeBrok
05-09-10, 07:31
Absolutely Aristander, I'm sure with better diet, especially through childhood and pregnancy, the third world can increase so called IQ, possibly by 10%. Also we don't know exactly how strongly proper education from the youngest years can do for intelligence. It's still a new science, with many wholes and fresh methodology, and many more years will pass till we know how many different intelligences we are dealing with and should test.

Wilhelm
05-09-10, 11:45
Is this your original and independent thinking idea???
Are you trying to disappoint me even more?

Keep digging dude, waiting for 50/50 research....
We are still waiting for your 80/20 theory...Almos all psyhcologists agree that it is 50/50. Read any psychology book

^ lynx ^
05-09-10, 12:49
We are still waiting for your 80/20 theory...Almos all psyhcologists agree that it is 50/50. Read any psychology book

Wilhelm, she hasn't posted any source... and she won't post any source. What do you expect? A link to stormfront? :rolleyes2:

And LeBrok, darling, I don't need to analyze your racist garbage. You claim that some races are more intelligent than others which is plain racism.

racism (rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Definition of racism by: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racist

You can explain your theories over and over, you can even write a whole book with your thoughts about it... at the end of the day it's still racism.

Greetings.

bud
05-09-10, 12:58
theres only one answer to this question... The human race has the highest IQ.

LeBrok
05-09-10, 18:32
Wilhelm and linx, if you guys came here to deliberate on the subject and not to bully and ridicule, you would read what I say at first place.
Concentrated on how to degrade other human being you guys missed the content of my posts.
I said that 80/20 is my guess, so what source/link I should post Wilhelm???!!!
Cambria said that 50/50 is scientifically calculated, so I'm waiting for the calculation.

Linx, if for you more intelligent is a superior human being, than this is your problem.
I have another question for you:
If your neighbor is less intelligent from you, and you know it, and he's a different race. Does this make you feel superior and racist at same time?

I'm still waiting for answers form previous posts. Don't be afraid, it can only make you smarter.


Even with definition of racism is not that easy. Every dictionary and philosopher looks at it a different way. Here is some more explanation from Wiki:



Although the term racism usually denotes race-based prejudice (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Prejudice), violence (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Violence), dislike (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Dislike), discrimination (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Discrimination), or oppression (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Oppression), the term can also have varying and contested definitions. Racialism (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Racialism) is a related term, sometimes intended to avoid these negative meanings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary), racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups. [4] (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#cite_note-Minorities.2C_Race.2C_and_Genomics-3)
The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Webster%27s_Dictionary) defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority or inferiority of a particular racial group, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Macquarie_dictionary) defines racism as: "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Culture), usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others."
According to Charles V Hamilton (http://www.eupedia.com/w/index.php?title=Charles_V_Hamilton&action=edit&redlink=1) and Kwame Ture (aka Stokely Carmichael (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Stokely_Carmichael)) it (racism) is the predication of decisions & policies on considerations of race for the purpose of subordinating a racial group (ethnicity) and maintaining control over that group.


Anything else you would like to pick on? Just groundless accusation, and character assassination? What about just pure bulling, name calling, degrading, hmmm? Just to feed your psychopathic personalities, or go with Department instructions.

Carlitos
05-09-10, 18:47
theres only one answer to this question... The human race has the highest IQ.

Sapiens.

:good_job:

^ lynx ^
05-09-10, 21:24
Linx, if for you more intelligent is a superior human being, than this is your problem.

As I predicted you started being pathetically euphemistic. :rolleyes2: Very logic since you have no arguments to excuse your racists ideas. Please, stop embarrasing yourself even more.

Humans are more intelligents than animals... and of course darling, that makes us (humans) superior to animals.

PS: Well said bud, and welcome to the forum. :)

Cambrius (The Red)
05-09-10, 22:02
Nice going, Bud. :good_job:

Cambrius (The Red)
05-09-10, 22:23
Wilhelm and linx, if you guys came here to deliberate on the subject and not to bully and ridicule, you would read what I say at first place.
Concentrated on how to degrade other human being you guys missed the content of my posts.
I said that 80/20 is my guess, so what source/link I should post Wilhelm???!!!
Cambria said that 50/50 is scientifically calculated, so I'm waiting for the calculation.

Linx, if for you more intelligent is a superior human being, than this is your problem.
I have another question for you:
If your neighbor is less intelligent from you, and you know it, and he's a different race. Does this make you feel superior and racist at same time?

I'm still waiting for answers form previous posts. Don't be afraid, it can only make you smarter.


Even with definition of racism is not that easy. Every dictionary and philosopher looks at it a different way. Here is some more explanation from Wiki:



Anything else you would like to pick on? Just groundless accusation, and character assassination? What about just pure bulling, name calling, degrading, hmmm? Just to feed your psychopathic personalities, or go with Department instructions.

Psychopathic? Do you have any certainty about what "psychopathic" really signifies?

LeBrock, what part of the world are you really from? Your rather "choppy" (indeed, sometimes awkward) writing style is suggestive of an individual who is not native to Canada.

The bottom line is really quite simple: If you cease your racist attacks against Spaniards, Portuguese and other Iberians, accept certain realities and act like a rational and civil person, the situation vis-a-vis you and any number of forum members I'm sure would dramatically improve overnight. The first thing you need to do is apologize to ^Lynx^, Wilhelm, myself and all other Iberian contributors on Eupedia.

We are waiting...

LeBrok
05-09-10, 23:57
Any word on the topic, no?
Answering few questions on topic that I posted, no?
Any original thought on other topics, no?
How about digging the 50/50 research, that you're 100% sure about? Not going well?
How about one statistic or other research proving your position that all races have same IQ level? Also unsuccessful? Are you just trying your best guess on this subject?

Oh, that's why you left only with bulling and character assassination!

Cambrius (The Red)
06-09-10, 01:35
Any word on the topic, no?
Answering few questions on topic that I posted, no?
Any original thought on other topics, no?
How about digging the 50/50 research, that you're 100% sure about? Not going well?
How about one statistic or other research proving your position that all races have same IQ level? Also unsuccessful? Are you just trying your best guess on this subject?

Oh, that's why you left only with bulling and character assassination!

Oh my, my, my, you are one off-the-wall character. Very shortly dear Alice, very shortly.

bud
06-09-10, 08:24
thanks for the welcome guys.

LeBrok
06-09-10, 09:32
Oh my, my, my, you are one off-the-wall character. Very shortly dear Alice, very shortly.
Yes, keep digging, and help linx finding equal IQ for all races stats too. His shovel must be broken at the moment, lol, how is yours?

PS. Be creative this time and call me something new, maybe some bad names in Spanish (for my education), or look up your thesaurus or something.

LeBrok
06-09-10, 10:12
Psychopathic? Do you have any certainty about what "psychopathic" really signifies?


The bottom line is really quite simple: If you cease your racist attacks against Spaniards, Portuguese and other Iberians
We are waiting...


100% linx is a psychopath, no doubt. Takes great pleasure abusing others.
You are just confused, still hope for you though. Too cocky with no original thought.
Wilhelm, follow the leader type, over the heals in many subjects, ADD kicking in.

I love Spain, and have couple Portuguese friends too. I despise bullies, psychopaths and arrogant individuals: linx, cambria, wilhelm, and I wouldn't care less from what corner of world you're coming from. Clear!?
Unfortunately for you it can't be a racism, I'm the same race, lol.
But doesn't it make it any better or worse? Pick one...






LeBrock, what part of the world are you really from? Your rather "choppy" (indeed, sometimes awkward) writing style is suggestive of an individual who is not native to Canada.

What native to Canada means??? Native Canadian? lol Who's native in country of immigrants?....(take your time on this one.)

Wilhelm
06-09-10, 12:02
100% linx is a psychopath, no doubt. Takes great pleasure abusing others.
You are just confused, still hope for you though. Too cocky with no original thought.
Wilhelm, follow the leader type, over the heals in many subjects, ADD kicking in.
Stop insulting Iberians. You do owe an apologize to all of us. We are still waiting.


I love Spain, and have couple Portuguese friends too. I despise bullies, psychopaths and arrogant individuals: linx, cambria, wilhelm, and I wouldn't care less from what corner of world you're coming from. No, you better stop insulting iberians, it's pretty evident that something about Iberia bugs you. From the very first moment you entered in this forum it was evident. I still remember that manipulated height list and when we were discussing about the Celticity of Iberia your rage exploded finally. You should have been banned weeks ago. And now back to the topic.

^ lynx ^
06-09-10, 14:28
100% linx is a psychopath, no doubt. Takes great pleasure abusing others.

Look, hypocritical b1tch:

1) It's you who always goes around prosecuting the iberians in every single thread in this forum to troll like a 12-years-old. I'm only here for replying to your disgusting, racist theories.

2) It's you who have been constantly mentioning me in every single thread even while I've have been 1 month on vacations. I've never wanted to talk to you... I've always tried to ignore you but you've finally managed to break my balls. Congratulations.

3) In life, sooner or later you take what you give. Someone have to teach you that lesson.


Yes, keep digging, and help linx finding equal IQ for all races stats too.

I don't need to post any source darling, I already explained you the main reason why Africa is so undeveloped: Its climate conditions (I thought you liked that map and saved it, remember?).

It's you who posted about some races being more intelligent than others due to genetics in the first place, it's you who have to prove your point in the first place and we haven't seen any source so far.

Greetings.

Cambrius (The Red)
06-09-10, 17:42
Yes, keep digging, and help linx finding equal IQ for all races stats too. His shovel must be broken at the moment, lol, how is yours?
PS. Be creative this time and call me something new, maybe some bad names in Spanish (for my education), or look up your thesaurus or something.

Are you so foolish to think that I have nothing better to do than spend any significant portion of my time responding to obsessive people who constantly throw out half-baked ideas?... :rolleyes2:

In any case, we can start with the following research:

To preface things, early studies on IQ were found to be highly questionable methodologically. The experiments concentrated only on middle to upper class white individuals born into well educated families. Hardly what one would call a properly constructed COMPARATIVE participant field. Consequently, the percentages for hereditary determinants registered somewhat higher than environmental factors. Over time, these findings have not held up to scientific scrutiny.

One of the most telling research studies, Turkheimer et al. (2003), concentrated on the heritability (genetically inherited traits) of poverty stricken U.S. family groups. The statistical totals engendered gave clear evidence that, as regards impoverished families, 60% of the influences on childhood IQ variance can be attributed to factors of shared family environment and the genetic contributions were measured at near zero. The results collected from affluent families were almost the opposite.

Devlin et al. (Nature 1997) concluded that shared maternal (in this case fetal) environments actually amounted to 20% of covariance recorded between twins and 5% in comparative studies of siblings. The effects of genes were found to be reduced, with two important heritability measures falling below 50%.

Bouchard and McGue (2003) reviewed a large portion of heritability / environmental IQ literature and stated the following as regards pre and postnatal "nurturing" factors:

"[Some researchers], Chipuer et al. and Loehlin conclude that the postnatal rather than the prenatal environment is most important. The Devlin et al. conclusion that prenatal environment contributes to twin IQ [simply reinforces what has been substantially revealed in studies going back to 1950.]"

A portion of the American Psychological Associations' 1995 task force on "Intelligence and Unknowns" reads as follows:

"A common error is to assume that because something is heritable it is necessarily unchangeable...heritable traits can depend on learning, and they may be subject to other environmental effects as well. The value of heritability can change if the distribution of environments (or of genes) in the population is substantially altered. For example, an impoverished or suppressive environment could fail to support the development of a trait, and hence restrict individual variation. Differences in variation of heritability are found between developed and developing nations..."

There is much more research data buttressing the theory that environment has a highly significant - ~50%, or considerably higher in some cases - impact on IQ. I will post additional material as time permits.

Fundamentally, nowhere in the most recent research literature are the percentages 80% in favor of genetics as a determinant of IQ.

p.s. We are all waiting for your apology with respect to your treatment of Spaniards and other Iberians.

bud
06-09-10, 18:19
If race had anything to do with IQ then surely you wouldn't get a variation in IQ levels in said race!

Cambrius (The Red)
06-09-10, 18:23
If race had anything to do with IQ then surely you wouldn't get a variation in IQ levels in said race!

Indeed! Certainly you would not see major variations.:good_job:

^ lynx ^
06-09-10, 18:30
If race had anything to do with IQ then surely you wouldn't get a variation in IQ levels in said race!

Well said. :great:

Cambrius (The Red)
06-09-10, 23:55
Further research supporting the high importance of environment on IQ.

A psychological study was published in the journal Science (2007)and it came to the conclusion that a child's IQ level depends to a great degree on the quality of his family environment during the first two years of life.

This research was a collaborative effort by Harvard, University of Maryland, Temple University and the Tulane University School of Medicine.

Over several years, the research team tracked abandoned young children resident in Romanian orphanages. The ages of the experiment subjects ranged anywhere from six months to thirty months. The test results revealed that the children who received a reasonable level of care prior to the age of two had much higher Intelligent Quotient scores than those who received less than adequate care.

Ref: Charles A. Nelson and colleagues. 2007. Cognitive Recovery in Socially Deprived Young Children: The Bucharest Early Intervention Project. Science 21 December 2007. Vol. 318. no. 5858. pp. 1937-1940.

Aristander
06-09-10, 23:59
I personally think this whole thread is ridiculous. There are variations and differences between physical morphologies of the different ethnic groups or races. Physically there are differences between basic body types and shapes that include all human types.
These differences and variations run from one end of the spectrum to the other and are too numerous to list here. To deny that differences exist between the different races is to deny your human powers of observations. However just because there are differences does not mean that any of these differences mean that one race is superior to another. Certainly there are physical differences that exist that might make one race better at one sport than another but on the whole these variations can be found in any of the races. All of the differences are just examples of variations within genetic norm for human beings. Just as there are physical variations between the races I am sure that there are mental and neurological variations.
We are all descendants of different groups of people that left Africa over the last 200,000 years. The genetic traits that show up as differences between the races are the results of the environmental forces that shaped each of our ancestors into the physical form that they passed on to us. The biggest differences between us all are cultural or epigenetic in nature and not how we physically look.

LeBrok
07-09-10, 02:31
I agree with last two posts Aristander and Cambria. Now we have a valid discussion.
You surprised me Cambia posting some tidbits of researches. I need time to go over it in the sours, though busy week ahead - the weekend is over. I let you know if you changed my mind,...or not.
Thanks for making an effort.

Was trying quickly find identical, separated at birth, twins good research, but nothing yet, except few interesting readings from this site. Twin research is awesome compering nurture versus nature. There is one caveat though, even identical twins are not 100% identical. To built a trillion cells, the human body is build of, mistakes in coping DNA are inevitable.

http://lornareiko.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/identical-twins-who-were-separated-at-birth-what-are-they-like/

LeBrok
07-09-10, 02:43
Look Wilhelm, we do think the same sometimes:


Yes, I do believe different races have different IQ. But this doesn't mean there are superior races, each race is adapted to it's environment. Intelligence is one of this factors of adaptation to environment
I couldn't agree more.

Cambrius (The Red)
07-09-10, 03:27
I agree with last two posts Aristander and Cambria. Now we have a valid discussion.
You surprised me Cambia posting some tidbits of researches. I need time to go over it in the sours, though busy week ahead - the weekend is over. I let you know if you changed my mind,...or not.
Thanks for making an effort.

Was trying quickly find identical, separated at birth, twins good research, but nothing yet, except few interesting readings from this site. Twin research is awesome compering nurture versus nature. There is one caveat though, even identical twins are not 100% identical. To built a trillion cells, the human body is build of, mistakes in coping DNA are inevitable.

http://lornareiko.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/identical-twins-who-were-separated-at-birth-what-are-they-like/

You shouldn't be surprised in the least... :innocent:

Porphyrogenita
07-09-10, 06:25
I guess I'm joining this one a little late... I'm sure one would find some variation by just comparing averages. If the question is about averages, then there isn't much to discuss. The problem is that some people take that to mean that IQ is really tied to "race." For one, IQ is determined largely by environmental factors, like nutrition and stimulation during development, etc. (Even the presence of a father has been shown to correspond to higher IQ. Would we argue that people raised with a father are necessarily more intelligent? And what does that mean for the "race" argument?)

When we see different averages among "races," we have to be mindful of the fact that race often (sadly) corresponds to different access to resources, socialization, and other significant factors (like parenting practices). For those who would argue that, for eg, "Europeans" are more intelligent than "Africans"... let's hope you've taken the time to consider those environmental differences before making further implications.

Remember, race is NOT a biological category. 80% of the genetic variation found among "racial groups" is also found within those "racial groups." So unless we are talking about something like Sickle Cell Anemia, it doesn't make much sense to say one "race" beats another. Plus, IQ is a very complex issue. (There are problems with the very concept of IQ and the way we test for intelligence.) No serious modern anthropologist or geneticist, etc would make an argument ending in "therefore, some races are more intelligent than others." It is much more nuanced than that. Have you heard of The Bell Curve (1994) and the many responses to it?

bud
07-09-10, 06:34
I agree, IQ is a tough thing to measure to begin with, but i feel that environment and upbringing play a crucial roll in intelligence.

Porphyrogenita
07-09-10, 06:49
Without question, many environmental factors are crucial. What we inherit is more of a range of possibility. Where we end up on that range is brought out by environment. When it comes to IQ, stimulation during early development is critical (among other things). A baby born with a capacity for 140 may not reach it if the baby's family doesn't provide it with sufficient stimulation, for eg. Stimulation during the first three years of life is more important than most people realize. http://www.jsmf.org/about/j/neural_connections.htm

Cambrius (The Red)
07-09-10, 13:56
I guess I'm joining this one a little late... I'm sure one would find some variation by just comparing averages. If the question is about averages, then there isn't much to discuss. The problem is that some people take that to mean that IQ is really tied to "race." For one, IQ is determined largely by environmental factors, like nutrition and stimulation during development, etc. (Even the presence of a father has been shown to correspond to higher IQ. Would we argue that people raised with a father are necessarily more intelligent? And what does that mean for the "race" argument?)

When we see different averages among "races," we have to be mindful of the fact that race often (sadly) corresponds to different access to resources, socialization, and other significant factors (like parenting practices). For those who would argue that, for eg, "Europeans" are more intelligent than "Africans"... let's hope you've taken the time to consider those environmental differences before making further implications.

Remember, race is NOT a biological category. 80% of the genetic variation found among "racial groups" is also found within those "racial groups." So unless we are talking about something like Sickle Cell Anemia, it doesn't make much sense to say one "race" beats another. Plus, IQ is a very complex issue. (There are problems with the very concept of IQ and the way we test for intelligence.) No serious modern anthropologist or geneticist, etc would make an argument ending in "therefore, some races are more intelligent than others." It is much more nuanced than that. Have you heard of The Bell Curve (1994) and the many responses to it?

Good post. :good_job:

Wilhelm
07-09-10, 14:45
Remember, race is NOT a biological category. 80% of the genetic variation found among "racial groups" is also found within those "racial groups." So unless we are talking about something like Sickle Cell Anemia, it doesn't make much sense to say one "race" beats another. Plus, IQ is a very complex issue. (There are problems with the very concept of IQ and the way we test for intelligence.) No serious modern anthropologist or geneticist, etc would make an argument ending in "therefore, some races are more intelligent than others." It is much more nuanced than that. Have you heard of The Bell Curve (1994) and the many responses to it?
How is race not a biological category ? If race is not biological then what it is ?

Porphyrogenita
08-09-10, 09:03
Cambria Red, thanks =)

Wilhelm, race is actually a social construct. There is a whole host of academic articles on the topic. I encourage you to consult them. What I said earlier about the 80% is just one example of the evidence that tells us that our current racial categories are not discrete biological categories.

Human genetic variation is much more gradual. Think of it as a web where some points are more distant than others from each other but all are still connected as one structure. Some populations are more likely than others to exhibit certain features, like blue eyes, but even that isn't totally limited to specific locations. One can argue there are discrete human racial groups only if one chooses extremes from different places on this web and labels them as perfect examples to compare. This argument falls apart when we look at the population and genetic distribution as a whole. It just isn't that simple. There are no clear natural boundaries that warrant further separation within our species. We've tried to label and classify each other throughout our history. We've used this to explain the superficial differences we saw in each other and often, sadly, to cast the groups we imagined as better or worse. Fortunately, we now have scientific knowledge and tools our ancestors didn't have, so we have the chance and responsibility to know better.

Wilhelm
08-09-10, 13:25
Cambria Red, thanks =)

Wilhelm, race is actually a social construct. There is a whole host of academic articles on the topic. I encourage you to consult them. What I said earlier about the 80% is just one example of the evidence that tells us that our current racial categories are not discrete biological categories.

Human genetic variation is much more gradual. Think of it as a web where some points are more distant than others from each other but all are still connected as one structure. Some populations are more likely than others to exhibit certain features, like blue eyes, but even that isn't totally limited to specific locations. One can argue there are discrete human racial groups only if one chooses extremes from different places on this web and labels them as perfect examples to compare. This argument falls apart when we look at the population and genetic distribution as a whole. It just isn't that simple. There are no clear natural boundaries that warrant further separation within our species. We've tried to label and classify each other throughout our history. We've used this to explain the superficial differences we saw in each other and often, sadly, to cast the groups we imagined as better or worse. Fortunately, we now have scientific knowledge and tools our ancestors didn't have, so we have the chance and responsibility to know better.
Well yes but the fact that an African person and a European have different physical appearance is entirely biological, not a social construct.

Although the genetic differences among human groups are relatively small, these differences in certain genes such as duffy, ABCC11, SLC24A5, called ancestry-informative markers (AIMs) nevertheless can be used to reliably situate many individuals within broad, geographically based groupings or self-identified race. For example, computer analyses of hundreds of polymorphic loci sampled in globally distributed populations have revealed the existence of genetic clustering that roughly is associated with groups that historically have occupied large continental and subcontinental regions.
Some commentators have argued that these patterns of variation provide a biological justification for the use of traditional racial categories. They argue that the continental clusterings correspond roughly with the division of human beings into sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans, Western Asians, Central Asians, Southern Asians and Northern Africans; Eastern Asians, Southeast Asians, Polynesians and Native Americans; and other inhabitants of Oceania (Melanesians, Micronesians & Australian Aborigines)

LeBrok
19-09-10, 23:11
You shouldn't be surprised in the least... :innocent:

Cambria may friend; I’m surprised by your inadequate effort finding right material and proving you 50/50 case. As I stated before, the subject is so complicated that developing a formula to calculate precisely is far away in future, or maybe never. As much as scientists try, at the end they are left with their best guess. First of all, if you just took a moment to read the material that you posted for us, you would have noticed that they are rich in disclaimers:

“Although the heritability of cognitive ability in childhood is well
established (McGue, Bouchard, Iacono, & Lykken, 1993; Plomin, 1999),
the magnitude, mechanisms, and implications of the heritability of IQ
remain unresolved. Historically, the most controversial question surrounding
the heritability of intelligence is whether genetic effects on IQ
place serious constraints on the effectiveness of efforts to raise IQ, either
by improving impoverished socioeconomic conditions or by exposing
children to remedial educational programs such as Headstart (Herrnstein
& Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1981). Adding to the controversy is an
apparent contradiction between studies using different methodologies
to study the development of cognitive abilities: Studies of correlations
among twins or adoptees and their biological and adoptive parents typically
yield large genetic effects and relatively smaller effects of family
environment, whereas studies that compare the mean IQs of children
rescued from poverty with the IQs of their parents or impoverished siblings
often find large differences that are attributed to the environment
(Turkheimer, 1991).”

“These findings suggest that a model in which variability in intelligence
among children is partitioned into independent components
attributable to genes and environments is too simple for the dynamic
interaction of genes and real-world environments during development.
The relative importance of environmental differences in causing differences
in observed intelligence appears to vary with the SES of the
homes in which children were raised. SES is a complex variable, however,
and the substantive interpretation to be placed on our results depends
on an interpretation of what SES actually measures.”

Farthermore, you posted this study conclusions:
“Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ
variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with
SES. The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance
in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution
of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost
exactly the reverse.

Lol, what the hell does that mean? Genes don’t work at all in poor people? Well if 60% is environment and 0% for DNA, then what happened to remaining 40%?
Just kidding, they didn’t mean that at all. All paper is basically comparing socioeconomic status to variations in IQ, or their version of IQ. I don’t agree with their methodology, and their conclusions are hard to understand without reading the full research, that I don’t have an access to. Besides they only have SES of mothers, and only check kids’ development till age 7, witch always is going to confirm bigger environmental influence on IQ than in adults.
And here is a study article that confirms my last sentence:

http://www.icherney.com/Teaching/Courses/Intelligence/Summaries/Andrea_McGrath.doc (http://www.icherney.com/Teaching/Courses/Intelligence/Summaries/Andrea_McGrath.doc)

Interesting snippets from it:
“. According to Plomin (1999), the heritability of general intelligence is between 40-80%, but usually lies around 50%. Plomin (1999) also asserts that heritability of intelligence increases with age. It is stated that heritability of intelligence is estimated at 20% in infancy, 40% in childhood, and 60% or greater in later life (McGue, as cited in Plomin, 1999)”

Look How important the genes are:
“Intelligence has been found to be more highly correlated between monozygotic twins than between dizygotic twins in a number of studies. For example, in studies of more than 10,000 monozygotic and dizygotic twins, the average monozygotic correlation for intelligence was .86, a high correlation, while the correlation between dizygotic twins was a weaker but still significant .60”


Estimated figures all over the place:
"In addition to general intelligence and its being regarded as mildly to highly heritable, it seems that other measures of intelligence, such as IQ, are also found to be substantially heritable. Herrnstein and Murray (as cited in Devlin, Daniels, & Roeder, 1997) estimate IQ heritability between 60%-80%, whereas Devlin et al. (1997) believe that heritability is lower, from 30%-50%."

From 30 to 80, lol, no precise mathematical formulas invented yet, ha? Your 50% is same valid as my 80% at the moment. You can even say 30 for what I care, but don’t argue that it is proven by research that it is 50-50.

Now about your other posted research. Devlin et al. (Nature 1997) The less than 50% is achieved by subtracting maternal/womb environment effect, which is estimated by this reasercher to be 20%. This is not about playing Beethoven to kids when pregnant. It’s mostly about nutrients, or not killing with alcohol. Well, without food we die, it’s so essential, why don’t we give it 80% for environment?

Below is a very interesting correlations IQ wise, from this study:

“Table 2 Posterior means for IQ correlations by study type
Model
Relationship Raised Type 0 I II III IV
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ......................
Monozygotic twins Together 1 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Monozygotic twins Apart 2 0.74 0.68 0.50 0.68 0.74
Dizygotic twins Together 3 0.59 0.46 0.59 0.59 0.60
Siblings Together 4 0.46 0.46 0.44 0.44 0.44
Siblings Apart 5 0.24 0.28 0.23 0.27 0.28
Midparent/child Together 6 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.51 0.50
Single-parent/child Together 7 0.41 0.43 0.40 0.39 0.40
Single-parent/child Apart 8 0.24 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.21
Adopting parent/child Together 9 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.18
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ......................
Column 0 contains the weighted average of the observed correlations, and columns I–IV
contain the predicted values of these correlations from models I–IV. The predicted correlations
are obtained through a Bayesian simulation procedure that evaluates integrals
numerically14.”

The first two lines about monozygotic twins are very telling. Also the last one about correlation of IQ between adopting parent and adopted kids is too, maybe even more, different genes-different IQ.






Bouchard and McGue (2003) – this was other of your studies “proving” your point. I couldn’t open their paper online, instead here is a quick summary of their work from wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ)

“In 1982, Bouchard and McGue reviewed such correlations reported in 111 original studies in the United States.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#cite_note-pmid7195071-11#cite_note-pmid7195071-11) The mean correlation of IQ scores between monozygotic twins was 0.86, between siblings, 0.47, between half-siblings, 0.31, and between cousins, 0.15. From such data the heritability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability) of IQ was estimated at anywhere between 0.40 and 0.80 in the United States. The reason for this wide margin appeared to be that the heritability of IQ rises through childhood and adolescence, peaking at 0.68 and 0.78 in adults, leaving the overwhelming majority of IQ differences between individuals to be explained genetically.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#cite_note-unknown-12#cite_note-unknown-12)
The finding of rising heritability with age is counter-intuitive; it is reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. According to work by Robert Plomin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Plomin), heritability estimates calculated on infant samples are as low as 20%, rising to around 40% in middle childhood, and ultimately as high as 80% in adult samples in the United States.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#cite_note-13#cite_note-13) This suggests that the underlying genes actually express themselves by affecting a person's predisposition to build, learn, and develop mental abilities throughout the lifespan.”

Your other posted studies:
“A portion of the American Psychological Associations' 1995 task force on "Intelligence and Unknowns" reads as follows:

"A common error is to assume that because something is heritable it is necessarily unchangeable...heritable traits can depend on learning, and they may be subject to other environmental effects as well. The value of heritability can change if the distribution of environments (or of genes) in the population is substantially altered. For example, an impoverished or suppressive environment could fail to support the development of a trait, and hence restrict individual variation. Differences in variation of heritability are found between developed and developing nations..."”

Where is the 50/50 research?
I’ve never argued that environment doesn’t effect the IQ, it really does. Your argument was that research stands firmly and unequivocally on 50/50. Where is it?


You wrote:
“Fundamentally, nowhere in the most recent research literature are the percentages 80% in favor of genetics as a determinant of IQ.”
It’s because you never read these papers, you just printed the conclusions, often not fully understanding what they meant. Read these papers and you'll see 80% mentiond many times. Besides my 80/20 was my guess and I never hid this, it’s just my observations. You are hiding behind easy 50/50, and falsely claiming support of most scientists.

You’re disappointing Cambria, you argue something you don’t read, you never post your own conclusions and ideas for discussion.
I’ll help you with your 50/50 by this example:
Let’s say a normal child is born, but isolated from the world, just fed food and nutrients to live. Child like this would never develop many brain functions together with IQ, and most likely would die quickly without contacts with other people, social stimuli. This case makes environment everything, that’s 100% win for nurture argument.
Now take few kids, throw them in same environment, reach in schooling, food, love, etc, a in very well off good family. By adulthood you would still see the extremes of IQ, and giving enough kids in this experiment you would see IQ variations from moron to genius. Well, that’s pretty much 100% for nature in this example.
With simple creative logic and mathematics, I would say, good point Cambria, I grant you your 50/50. Overall for extreme environments to extreme genetics it is.

My concern is, that we in developed countries don’t live in such extreme environments. Even the kids from poor families can be fat, and 90% enjoys similar public education, internet, mas-media, you name it. Still we see substantial differences between races IQ wise. And this is my base for 80% genetic, 20% environment statement.

Cambrius (The Red)
20-09-10, 00:57
Glad you have so much time on your hands.

It averages out to ~ 50 / 50 if you look at ALL the relevant research. No one in the scientific mainstream of consequence supports the 80 / 20 ratio. There is little in the body of research that buttresses the overwhelming weight you give to genes.

Now, we are still waiting for you to apologize to the Iberians on the forum.

And, please, none of the infantile responses you are infamous for...

LeBrok
20-09-10, 04:07
You're not paying attention, nor read carefully what I post. I said again and again 80/20 is my guess and I don't need a research to prove it. It's a guess, got it finally, it's my guess. If you ask me once again I'll be sure that you have ADHD.
Surprisingly even for me, if you read the research, 80/20 is a high end estimate, but it's there, (scroll up to my previous post) the numbers are there, read carefully next time, and don't make fool of yourself. People on this forum can read too, you know.

Now you want to average all the research to get to around 50/50, sure you can. I don't have a smallest problem with this. If you said in first place that you had averaged all the research that you could find, and you came to 50/50, I wouldn't argue with this, and we wouldn't have this discussion.
Just don't claim that there is the formula that scientists use to come up to that 50/50, every time they measure nurture verses nature, and that they are in agreement with each other. The research is all over the place from 30% to 80% for hereditary of IQ. Therefore they are far away from any agreement. Make your averaging, but don't push the 50/50 into mainstream agreement, it's not there.
Did you read the disclaimers they posted about their science and formulas they were using? Did you read their explanations how hard is to get to true figures? Did you read how complicated different environments and genetics make the subject?
They admit themselves that there are many methods that lead to different conclusions. That's a difficult, new science, with extreme complexity, and they will stay in disagreement for years to come.

Now, do you feel like discussing one of the papers?
How about Swedish adopted twin orphans IQ study? Could be interesting.
How about your independent, creative thought on this subject? After all I think you mentioned somewhere that you are some sort of university material.

Cambrius (The Red)
20-09-10, 14:17
You're not paying attention, nor read carefully what I post. I said again and again 80/20 is my guess and I don't need a research to prove it. It's a guess, got it finally, it's my guess. If you ask me once again I'll be sure that you have ADHD.
Surprisingly even for me, if you read the research, 80/20 is a high end estimate, but it's there, (scroll up to my previous post) the numbers are there, read carefully next time, and don't make fool of yourself. People on this forum can read too, you know.

Now you want to average all the research to get to around 50/50, sure you can. I don't have a smallest problem with this. If you said in first place that you had averaged all the research that you could find, and you came to 50/50, I wouldn't argue with this, and we wouldn't have this discussion.
Just don't claim that there is the formula that scientists use to come up to that 50/50, every time they measure nurture verses nature, and that they are in agreement with each other. The research is all over the place from 30% to 80% for hereditary of IQ. Therefore they are far away from any agreement. Make your averaging, but don't push the 50/50 into mainstream agreement, it's not there.
Did you read the disclaimers they posted about their science and formulas they were using? Did you read their explanations how hard is to get to true figures? Did you read how complicated different environments and genetics make the subject?
They admit themselves that there are many methods that lead to different conclusions. That's a difficult, new science, with extreme complexity, and they will stay in disagreement for years to come.

Now, do you feel like discussing one of the papers?
How about Swedish adopted twin orphans IQ study? Could be interesting.
How about your independent, creative thought on this subject? After all I think you mentioned somewhere that you are some sort of university material.

Conclusions in science are not based on guessing.

We are waiting for your apology.

LeBrok
20-09-10, 17:10
Oh really???!!! So for you IQ-heredity science is conclusive, although researchers say otherwise and numbers are form 30 to 80%???!!! Did we mention complexity of this problem?

You want conclusions in new science?
What about string theory? Is it the real one describing our world? Did they conclude it or just guessing?
What about scientists changing their mind from ice age in 80s to global warming now? Maybe you want to go on a record in front of all, and say that current warming is mostly anthropogenic in nature? So many scientists concluded, dude. Are you brave enough to support them? No? But dude they've concluded!
What about general relativity versus quantum mechanics, which one is right? Both? So, why can't we unite them???
What about researchers flipping their minds on Neanderthal interbreeding, eggs eating and cholesterol, nature versus nurture, etc.
What were these, wrong guesses or wrong conclusions, or maybe just lots of work in progress???!!! I could go on with examples but I hope that by now you grasp the idea.
Your strong assurance, that nurture/nature and IQ research is conclusive, is ....

Aristander
21-09-10, 03:49
I haven't figured out what you are supposed to apologize for but you really should. :innocent:





:laughing:

LeBrok
21-09-10, 06:13
lol, he's trying to annoy me, that's all.

Wilhelm
21-09-10, 13:50
I haven't figured out what you are supposed to apologize for but you really should. :innocent:

He insulted all the iberian members of this forum, here is an example :
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=359876&postcount=89

Cambrius (The Red)
21-09-10, 17:07
lol, he's trying to annoy me, that's all.

Do your insecurities somehow engender delusions of self-importance?

My man, I don't see you as significant enough to annoy.:useless:

The fact is you owe every Iberian on this forum a public apology for any number of things, including slander and egging on brainless racists to attack Spaniards and Portuguese. Do you gain some perverted satisfaction from behaving like a frustrated child? Grow up!

Aristander
21-09-10, 17:58
Cambria Red and Wilhem, it is obivous that neither of you fellows think very much of Le_Brok and he apparently doesn't like either of you, but I think that flinging the charge that he is a racist is a little bit much. I guess he could be a cultural bigot but not a racist against a group of people that are the same race as he.
Personally I think arguing and getting abusive on the internet is a very big waste of time and mental capital. A better tactic would be to state your case, politely disagree and then move on. :good_job:

LeBrok
21-09-10, 18:02
I didn't know 3 of you are ALL the Iberians here. Twist, exaggerate and insult are their typical ways. Later they're surprised that someone stands up and fights back. It is interesting that they have no problem with ridiculing and insulting people all the time, like this quick example of cambria from post above, or lynx post with link.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=359786&postcount=53
Now I should demand apologies for ALL Canadians, lol.

Soooooo, enough talking about science Cambria, right? What's left are the insults.

Cambrius (The Red)
21-09-10, 19:08
I didn't know 3 of you are ALL the Iberians here. Twist, exaggerate and insult are their typical ways. Later they're surprised that someone stands up and fights back. It is interesting that they have no problem with ridiculing and insulting people all the time, like this quick example of cambria from post above, or lynx post with link.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=359786&postcount=53
Now I should demand apologies for ALL Canadians, lol.

Soooooo, enough talking about science Cambria, right? What's left are the insults.

I'm not insulting anyone. I'm just being straight forward with you, fella. "Twist and exaggerate"? I believe you are the expert at that.

You run around saying we are inquisitioners and propagandists (essentially, manipulators of information - given to strategically mendacious actions) and expect us to toss rose petals and shout out what a wonderful person you are?
:laughing:

BTW, your apology should be directed at about 7 or 8 Iberians here, not 3. In fact, I would recommend you apologize individually. We are waiting...

edao
22-09-10, 20:57
A couple of points I'd like to make.

IQ is probably not a terrible accurate measure of more general intelligence ability, but it does indicate differences that go beyond environment.

For example East Asian out perform Europeans, there is a university in America that bases it entry exam based on students scoring the highest IQ (Google it im sure you'lll find it) majority of the student are of East asian extraction.

So here we have an example of the well educated, competitive, stimulated rich kid Europeans being out performed on IQ scores. I'd also point out that the variation in IQ scores puts East asian general above Europeans, so lets not concentrate on Afirca as people get a bit overly emotional about it due to the questionable history involving Europeans in Africa.

The second point would be that there IS undoubtedly a variation in cognitive processing between the races, you canot argue that humans show genetic variation in every part of the body apart from the brain and nervous system. The real question is whether these variations are worth taking note of.

Lastly another area that seems interesting is emotional intelligence and the relationship between our nervous system and brain.

LeBrok
23-09-10, 03:50
Absolutely agreed edao, there is so much more to being human that what we call IQ.
Excellent quote from Darwin in signature place. I hope Lynx reads it and stop concluding that being more intelligent or higher IQ means superior human being. After all bacteria is 3 billion years old, and still dumb as a bag of hummers, lol.

willy
24-09-10, 00:00
the most intelligent is the most adaptive to change

LeBrok
24-09-10, 06:41
hard to argue with that :good_job:

Cambrius (The Red)
26-09-10, 21:28
the most intelligent is the most adaptive to change

Also, how well and how quickly you adapt.

Cambrius (The Red)
26-09-10, 21:30
A couple of points I'd like to make.

IQ is probably not a terrible accurate measure of more general intelligence ability, but it does indicate differences that go beyond environment.

For example East Asian out perform Europeans, there is a university in America that bases it entry exam based on students scoring the highest IQ (Google it im sure you'lll find it) majority of the student are of East asian extraction.

So here we have an example of the well educated, competitive, stimulated rich kid Europeans being out performed on IQ scores. I'd also point out that the variation in IQ scores puts East asian general above Europeans, so lets not concentrate on Afirca as people get a bit overly emotional about it due to the questionable history involving Europeans in Africa.

The second point would be that there IS undoubtedly a variation in cognitive processing between the races, you canot argue that humans show genetic variation in every part of the body apart from the brain and nervous system. The real question is whether these variations are worth taking note of.

Lastly another area that seems interesting is emotional intelligence and the relationship between our nervous system and brain.

Emotional intelligence is quite important and is a measure of how effectively a person adapts and interacts socially.

^ lynx ^
29-09-10, 18:26
LeBrok, stop playing the victims game, you haven been harassing me all the time, you have been harassing and defaming me even when I have been on vacations (see the links below) and without any posibility of defending myself against your accusations of being a racist, that's pretty low... so darling STFU and stop with your victimist cr*p. You are a ridiculous, cynical and sick person.


I hope Lynx reads it and stop concluding that being more intelligent or higher IQ means superior human being.

Suggesting than one race is more intelligent to other for genetical reasons IS racial supremacy propaganda, darling... no matter how many subterfuges or eufemism you write.

Deal with your racist views instead of self-projecting them into other people just for feeling better with yourself. :wavey:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=359655&postcount=19
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=359448&postcount=101
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=359374&postcount=70


Also LOL @ LeBrok for getting excited at getting support from two trolls. :laughing:

^ lynx ^
29-09-10, 19:04
Oh look!!, seems like I'm not the only one who thinks that this theory is actually RACIST / SUPREMACIST propaganda:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488400/DNA-scientist-suspended-lab-claiming-white-people-intelligent-blacks.html

Oh dear, has the world gone completely mad? :confused2: How could a superior being as LeBrok be wrong or supporting an immoral idea? She's the Mother Teresa of Calcuta in the genetic forums, the real defender of the opressed ethnic groups and revealer of evil and racist iberians. :danger:

LeBrok
30-09-10, 06:39
Are you saying that Charles Darwin was/is wrong? I guess that's yes, go argue with him then.
Watch out folks, the Spanish Inquisitor is back!
Poor Darwin is going to get burnt. Geez, what a world...

^ lynx ^
30-09-10, 14:17
Darwin? really? A scientist who lived in the 19th century when the knowledge about DNA and about the brain functions was nowhere near it is today? Are you going to bring Origin of Species into the discussion to support your racist idea that the IQ gap between races are due to genetics?

Just when I think than you can't reach new lows...

PS- Watch out folks, Josef Mengele is back!

LeBrok
30-09-10, 16:56
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” - Charles Darwin
This means intelligence doesn't make species superior. Do you get this now!? You don't need to know about DNA to figure this out.
Go ahead, argue with Darwin.

^ lynx ^
30-09-10, 17:00
Darwin's theories are valid to explain why the homo-sapiens is more intelligent than (for example) the Neanderthal man. If you bring him to explain the IQ differences among the current human races you're basically saying that some races are more evolutioned than others... disgusting. :sick:


It's embarrasing that you are hiding behind Darwin now to support your views, Hitler did something similar: http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hit.htm

Theodisk
30-09-10, 18:06
Do you think there is a difference in IQ between the races?

I know this is a contraversial subject, but an interesting one.

Is IQ a valid measure of intelligence?

Do social and political problems in other parts of the world boil down to a races lower mental capacity?

One clear indication of genetic difference between the larger race groups would be the olympics. People of african heritage out perform all races when it comes to physical prformance, sprinting and boxing are clear examples. So if this can be agreed upon that in a physical sense there is a clear difference is the brain not a physical part of the body? Why then shouldn't the brains performance vary between racial groups?

I've read both sides of the arguement, and I'm still not sure. Western societeis like to pretend all men are equal but we know that doesn't really work in real life, and to acknowledge such a variation would lead to huge rifts in society.

This hole thread is "bull-shit".

There are no human races, theres only one the homo sapiens sapiens. To bring the word "races" in connection to the humans, is biological absolutly false.

All you human on earth have the same DNA of 99,9%. The STRs and SNPs definate the last 0,01% of DNA. This 0,01% DNA (without STRs and SNPs) are also responsible for the look of a human. This 0,01% part dont defined "races" of humans, ask a biologist or geneticist!

The intelligence is a part of the individual and his personal evolution of learning. And also the health is an factor. That have nothing to do with ethnic ancestry.


I would make it clear I have no racist agenda here, mearly to open a debate on peoples views on the subject.
If you talk about "races" in connection with humans, then you are an racist. Its hard to say, buts the truth.

edao
30-09-10, 21:05
This hole thread is "bull-shit".

There are no human races, theres only one the homo sapiens sapiens. To bring the word "races" in connection to the humans, is biological absolutly false.

All you human on earth have the same DNA of 99,9%. The STRs and SNPs definate the last 0,01% of DNA. This 0,01% DNA (without STRs and SNPs) are also responsible for the look of a human. This 0,01% part dont defined "races" of humans, ask a biologist or geneticist!

The intelligence is a part of the individual and his personal evolution of learning. And also the health is an factor. That have nothing to do with ethnic ancestry.


If you talk about "races" in connection with humans, then you are an racist. Its hard to say, buts the truth.

OK forget about race, for now.
Answer two questions.

1. Do you believe all men are born equal?
2. Do you believe in the concept of talent?

Talent
Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality.

Talent is a commonly agreed concept in most societies of the varying ability of individuals in relation to others. For example Roger Federer is a talented tennis player, Jimi Hendrix was a talented guitar player.

Now if one person is not the same as another and has varying abilites, lets call it talent (its an easy to grasp concept). Are you saying I could beat Roger Federer if I played enough tennis are you saying I could break the world swimming record if I trained enough, probably not. What if remarkable ability is built through training, hard work and a genetic advantage then the 0.01% variation in DNA surely is enough to make a difference.

If you claim all men are equal and that social and environmental factors are to explain variation of ability then you have a problem with equating that theory with the real world.

Now if you agree with me that one to one people show a variation of ability that goes beyond nurture, then what if a concentration of "talented" people formed a community then surely they would exhibit those traits over another group who lack their genetic variables.

Forget race for now just answer the questions.

Theodisk
30-09-10, 22:10
OK forget about race, for now.
Answer two questions.

1. Do you believe all men are born equal?
2. Do you believe in the concept of talent?
Are you saying I could beat Roger Federer if I played enough tennis are you saying I could break the world swimming record if I trained enough, probably not. What if remarkable ability is built through training, hard work and a genetic advantage then the 0.01% variation in DNA surely is enough to make a difference.

If you claim all men are equal and that social and environmental factors are to explain variation of ability then you have a problem with equating that theory with the real world.

Now if you agree with me that one to one people show a variation of ability that goes beyond nurture, then what if a concentration of "talented" people formed a community then surely they would exhibit those traits over another group who lack their genetic variables.

Forget race for now just answer the questions.
1. No, each men learn other things and is better in individual things.

2. Many "talents" (not all or the most) based on "motorized" processes, which learn the body with training. Its also an personal psychological adjustment, its connected with motivation and motivation bring you to feel good and this have influence of something to make it good. The "i like it" factor is important.

This part of DNA (0,01%) have nothing to do with intelligence and talent is not depends of this. Many segments of this 0,01% DNA are nearly functionless for the physical body.

Its possible to inherit actual character properties of e.g. the grandpa, that you like this or this more and this can cause you to have a special talent e.g. drawing.

So the actual character properties can bring you to a positive psychological adjustment to a special hobby. In the most cases you will better and become talented.

Thats my statement.

edao
30-09-10, 23:21
Its possible to inherit actual character properties of e.g. the grandpa, that you like this or this more and this can cause you to have a special talent e.g. drawing.

So the actual character properties can bring you to a positive psychological adjustment to a special hobby. In the most cases you will better and become talented.

My understanding of what you have said here is that you can inherit through genetics the characteristic of your ancestors. So effectively their attributes in part are directly linked to our genetic make up.

This could only be noticable event in humans if the behaviour where distinct eg were different from others. So if a family displayed certain "talents" why then wouldnt the larger genetic family(genetic group within a city, country, island) also to some extent share those talents?

I see what your saying about character influecing the mentality of an individual hence creating a variation in performance. If this is a genetic factor is it still not significant to note that genetics is determining the behaviour(intellectual ability, physical, social) of people depending on their genetic variation?

Aristander
01-10-10, 01:02
Darwin's theories are valid to explain why the homo-sapiens is more intelligent than (for example) the Neanderthal man. If you bring him to explain the IQ differences among the current human races you're basically saying that some races are more evolutioned than others... disgusting. :sick:


It's embarrasing that you are hiding behind Darwin now to support your views, Hitler did something similar: http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hit.htm

There is no proof that Homo Sapiens Sapiens was more intelligent than Home Sapiens Neandertalis, in fact the Neanderthal man had a larger brain than Cro-Magnon Man. The Neanderthal was very, very well adapted for the Ice Age conditions in which he lived. Recent discoveries have found that the Neanderthals that lived at the same time period as so called modern human beings were at an equal technological development.

^ lynx ^
01-10-10, 01:23
My bad. You're totally right Aristander.

I'll say Homo Ergaster instead of Nenaderthalis to develop my point, LeBrok.

Greetings.

Carlitos
01-10-10, 01:52
Many factors play in the development of intelligence, believe that race is less important and even errors brain, psychic and so are considered exceptional virtues.

Aristander
01-10-10, 02:11
My bad. You're totally right Aristander.

I'll say Homo Ergaster instead of Nenaderthalis to develop my point, LeBrok.

Greetings.

I personally think that the success of modern humans over the Neanderthal came from the modern human's sex drive. I think we out sexed them! :laughing:

LeBrok
01-10-10, 05:04
1. No, each men learn other things and is better in individual things.

2. Many "talents" (not all or the most) based on "motorized" processes, which learn the body with training. Its also an personal psychological adjustment, its connected with motivation and motivation bring you to feel good and this have influence of something to make it good. The "i like it" factor is important.

This part of DNA (0,01%) have nothing to do with intelligence and talent is not depends of this. Many segments of this 0,01% DNA are nearly functionless for the physical body.

Its possible to inherit actual character properties of e.g. the grandpa, that you like this or this more and this can cause you to have a special talent e.g. drawing.

So the actual character properties can bring you to a positive psychological adjustment to a special hobby. In the most cases you will better and become talented.

Thats my statement.

Theodisk, you obviously didn't have many children or many siblings. You would notice right away how different kids can be from the moment of birth. They could grow up in same environment, same parents, same teachers, same water, food, air, family. At the end of the day you you'll have different people with different interests, personalities and talents.
Interestingly the differences are bigger when parents are of contrasting personalities, intellect, etc.
On other hand go to Amish or hutterites closed colonies and you see how similar people in colony are. They mingled long time together in these closed communities, and you'll have almost same mold, DNA.
Observe little newborn kids, or early weeks, and you'll see immediately differences in personalities, characters, physical development, motor control and coordination, attention and interests what they love to watch or listen .
No, we are not born same, clean slate.

LeBrok
01-10-10, 05:09
I personally think that the success of modern humans over the Neanderthal came from the modern human's sex drive. I think we out sexed them! :laughing:
Lol, probably first on my list too. There could be other even minute differences, like being more efficient with burning fewer calories, or being more spiritual and eager to fallow the shaman in united stronger group.

Theodisk
01-10-10, 08:01
Theodisk, you obviously didn't have many children or many siblings. You would notice right away how different kids can be from the moment of birth. They could grow up in same environment, same parents, same teachers, same water, food, air, family. At the end of the day you you'll have different people with different interests, personalities and talents.
Interestingly the differences are bigger when parents are of contrasting personalities, intellect, etc.
On other hand go to Amish or hutterites closed colonies and you see how similar people in colony are. They mingled long time together in these closed communities, and you'll have almost same mold, DNA.
Observe little newborn kids, or early weeks, and you'll see immediately differences in personalities, characters, physical development, motor control and coordination, attention and interests what they love to watch or listen .
No, we are not born same, clean slate.
Where i had sad we are "all born same"!? You didnt read exactly what i had written. Im one of three siblings, and i know that we are individual personals. The mental evolution begins with the womb and there develop their own personalities already. Some parts of the development based on genetic attributes from the parents.

Theodisk
01-10-10, 08:14
My understanding of what you have said here is that you can inherit through genetics the characteristic of your ancestors. So effectively their attributes in part are directly linked to our genetic make up. Yes, but you cant categorized people with this. Each human on this earth is unique.



This could only be noticable event in humans if the behaviour where distinct eg were different from others. So if a family displayed certain "talents" why then wouldnt the larger genetic family(genetic group within a city, country, island) also to some extent share those talents?
Some of this people already. But you dont inherite all from your ancestors, many is individual of the own personality. How i sad that each human on earth is unique.



I see what your saying about character influecing the mentality of an individual hence creating a variation in performance. If this is a genetic factor is it still not significant to note that genetics is determining the behaviour(intellectual ability, physical, social) of people depending on their genetic variation?
Yes, some points are inheritable. But what do you realy want from me?

LeBrok
01-10-10, 09:01
Hell yes, that's how I understood you. In all your post you're proving how genetically identical we are, therefor we have started same. It doesn't mater if it's at birth or conception. At one point we were same,...maybe with minute differences of 0.1% .
Don't give too much credit to the womb shaping your mind. There are no mental stimuli in a womb. Womb is about nutrients, not about education.
I have twins, not identical, and they were born different in looks, character and learning skills. How do you explain this if they shared same womb, at same time and ate same nutrients from same mother?

Also, even though we have same genes at 99.9%, it doesn't mean that all the genes are expressed same way in all of us. Read about this here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genetic-breakthrough-that-reveals-the-differences-between-humans-425432.html

LeBrok
01-10-10, 09:20
To celebrate our differences, genetic or environmental, whatever, have a good lough with Russell Peters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYiteaPBlz0&feature=related

Theodisk
01-10-10, 10:21
Hell yes, that's how I understood you. In all your post you're proving how genetically identical we are, therefor we have started same. It doesn't mater if it's at birth or conception. At one point we were same,...maybe with minute differences of 0.1% .
Don't give too much credit to the womb shaping your mind. There are no mental stimuli in a womb. Womb is about nutrients, not about education.
I have twins, not identical, and they were born different in looks, character and learning skills. How do you explain this if they shared same womb, at same time and ate same nutrients from same mother?

Also, even though we have same genes at 99.9%, it doesn't mean that all the genes are expressed same way in all of us. Read about this here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genetic-breakthrough-that-reveals-the-differences-between-humans-425432.html
1. Keep cool. Take it easy and relax.
2. My english is not very good and its very difficult for me to describe how i think about this complex thematic.
3. I know that each human developed different.
4. What do you want from me?

LeBrok
01-10-10, 16:27
Nothing much, just discussing an issue. It's cool, I just really like good discussions, that's all. :)

1. Don't start your thread input saying that what we wrote here is a bull-shit.
2. Make sure that if you state something, you can defend it.
3. Your english is quite good, I can understand your point. If not sorry for jumping to conclusions.
Later ;)

Aristander
02-10-10, 03:06
I believe our genetics set a set of boundaries in which our bodies can operate. These boundaries can be fairly wide and be reflected in a number of ways. For an example when speaking of identical twins, I once new 2 sisters who were mirror identical twins. In appearance they appeared quite perfectly identical. All through their childhood and until young adulthood they had basically identical lives. At 14 one of them had to have an emergency appendectomy, 3 weeks later the second twin had to have her appendix removed.
They both married at about the same age and had 3 children each over a period of 10 years. Up until this time they lived what looked like identical lives then a great deal of stress was visited upon one of the twins. This stress lasted for a number of years over this period of time her health progressively got worse. By the time she was 43 years old she suffered her first heart attack. Her health continued to falter and she suffered a stroke which left her partially paralyzed and finally her heart was so damaged that she died at age 56.
Her identical twin during this time had absolutely no health problems, after her sister's health began to fail she began to check on her health. Her doctors found absolutely nothing wrong with her. Her heart was perfect. She is now 62 years old and is in perfect health.
The only difference in their lives was the amount of stress that one twin suffered from because of problems with her children. They were raised by the same parents, lived in the same town, lived nearly identical lifestyles, yet one twin's body crumbled. They had the same genes yet one suffered from a physical breakdown and the other is still living a full life.

LeBrok
02-10-10, 04:33
Interesting how big stress can bring people down. There are instances of people going grey (hair) in mater of days under huge stress.
Maybe stress is similar to depression, and we know how "healthy" depressed people look...

Aristander
02-10-10, 05:47
I think that we have only scratched the surface about how much control our genes have on our lives. I think that we will discover that epigenetic forces are more important than we realize and we will learn that an identical genome does not mean an identical outcome.
I know how far this discussion has strayed from our original question does race have anything to do with how intelligent we are, but I think that too many things go into how intelligence is formed to ever come to any sort of meaningful answer.
It is my belief that genetics has an effect, environment has an effect but the whole question is just too nebulous and twisted to quantify with a test. I cannot think of a way to determine how much each element has on the IQ of a subject.

John Harvey
26-10-10, 20:18
Since we now know that many physical differences have evolved over evolutionary time between the various races of mankind, what is the reason that some contributors to this debate insist racial IQs are immune to this process? Is it that human mental activities are somehow protected from natural selection - in which case why are we brighter than chimps? Alternatively, is it simply that a racial identicality of all IQs would be emotionally satisfying, morally comforting and properly PC, so nothing else matters?

LeBrok
27-10-10, 05:23
Very logical argument John.
Welcome to the Eupedia.

Sybilla
25-01-11, 21:52
Yes, there is. Look the world avarage IQ map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequ ality.png

how yes no 2
25-01-11, 22:10
Yes, there is. Look the world avarage IQ map:

brain is like muscles...if environment does not provide enough stimulants, it will not develop... imagine what would be your IQ if you did grow up in tribal society and would it be fair to measure it in way it is measured for people who did grow up in cultures with different priorities and with different information available... not to mention that many questions in such tests rely on assumptions that some notions are well known while this is largely culturally specific issue...

only comparison you can do in countries that have ethnically mixed population and long enough period of living in same conditions... which is still not long enough for USA where till 60s black people had no rights....

Marianne
25-01-11, 23:15
brain is like muscles...if environment does not provide enough stimulants, it will not develop... imagine what would be your IQ if you did grow up in tribal society and would it be fair to measure it in way it is measured for people who did grow up in cultures with different priorities and with different information available... not to mention that many questions in such tests rely on assumptions that some notions are well known while this is largely culturally specific issue...

only comparison you can do in countries that have ethnically mixed population and long enough period of living in same conditions... which is still not long enough for USA where till 60s black people had no rights....

I agree with this. We can't just measure the IQ in Africans and Europeans and conclude.

I also see this within my country when I happen to read studies about IQ differences within the country. People who live in villages don't care about school. They just finish the compulsory 9 years of education and then start working in the fields. They seem to have low IQ, while people living in big cities have a lot higher. But 80% of people living in big cities have parents who come from various Greek villages where the IQ seems to be low. So in this case it is not genetic, it's just that in big cities the majority of kids have 12 years of school and then continue to university.

It can't be that people with the same DNA (within Greece I mean) just happen to become smarter after they move to big cities... They just receive better education than those living in villages who only want to finish school to be able to work at their farms.

I don't know how they conclude the average IQ of each country but if they measure the IQ of people all over Greece for example the average will be lower for the reasons I said above, but this doesn't really reflect how much the IQ of Greeks is.

Same in USA. If they want to compare the IQ of white Americans and black Americans they shouldn't take samples from the ones living in ghettos because the majority is not educated. That is the only way to really see if race and IQ are related...

Mzungu mchagga
26-01-11, 00:21
@Marianne and how yes no

I have to agree with both of you. It seems that most people here have never heard about the thingy which is called the 'Flynn-Effect'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

How does one explain that people in all Western Countries are getting smarter from generation to generation, and that all people in this forum would out-perform their grandparents in IQ-tests when tested at the same age? I'm really sick of hearing 'natural selection' as an argument. Within one or two generations? This would mean people must have had an awful lot of dumber siblings that got killed! :rolleyes2:

Marianne
26-01-11, 00:36
I agree.

I am one of the 2 people who voted "not sure" in this poll, because I haven't seen so far data that support that race and IQ are linked or the opposite. I believe that good education is one of the main reasons that affect someone's IQ. Maybe cold/warm climate also affects it, or the quality of the mother's life while being pregnant, playing with lego toys as a kid or watching cartoons, or maybe there are 1000 more reasons.

In order to really say if IQ is race-related the study should only include people living in the same area, with the same living standards and education that belong to different races. Then after years of studying them we may be able to tell the answer to the question

LeBrok
26-01-11, 04:52
Oh, you are killing me guys. There is no argument, except from Reinaert, that there are differences between races in colour of skin, facial features and other easy to spot physical attributes. But somehow it cannot effect the structure of the brain?!
There is also no argument that there are differences in structure of brain between man and woman, and yet we can be equal. Now when it comes to structure of brain between races, then we have a big no no. Because what? It would effect equality between race? Is this the only reason?

Surely the external stimuli are very important to fully develop brain. Close a child in a room with no brain stimulation, just feed it. The final effect will be always a moron, no matter what genetic predisposition the child would have.
Compare apples to apples, yes. But don't jump into conclusions that all people are born clean slate with same abilities.
You all went to schools and you noticed that even though you were from same city district or village, you progressed in school differently. How come? You probably noticed that generally kids of successful, well off parents, were doing much better than kids of parents from so called margins of life. Food was mostly the same for all kids from Europe and North America, air the same, teachers the same, roughly the same environment. But somehow the product was so different. The only logical explanation was the genetics. The smarter kids inherited the better predisposition to do better in school. Mostly a better memory, logical thinking, maybe working harder gens.
Now when it comes to races, of course there is no difference, right?

If you want a real life experiment. Adopt a child from mothers known to belong to poor, disadvantaged families. Raise it and try to mold it the way you are, give it all the advantages. Good luck, you are going to need tons of it!

Once again I have to stress that I believe that all people should be equal, and treated alike. I just can't deny that there are differences among races, that's all.

Marianne
26-01-11, 13:55
Neither me nor Mzungu mchagga said that race and IQ are not related. We just said that currently the data we have cannot support it 100%. I have also seen studies in which black kids have lower scores in IQ tests in American schools and asian kids have the highest. This is an indication of course that IQ differs between races but it is not 100% conclusive since we all know that black kids in America do not have the same opportunities in education, at least the majority of them. We need extensive research to be able to prove 100% that race and IQ are related.

Of course if we only compare whites and asians then we can pretty much say that IQ and race are related since they tend to score higher than us.

My instinct tells me that the races must have IQ differences, but I would like to see conclusive research to be able to tell for sure, since I like to consider all the facts before I make a decision.

LeBrok
26-01-11, 18:04
Fair enough. :)

Melusine
26-01-11, 18:14
Why not read up on genetics by geneticists. The URl that I am referring you to is not available, however, for anyone interested it can be found via Google: did the neolithic age start in the middle east, and go to the article The history and geopgrapy of human genes by Luigi Luca Cavalli- Sforza eta ll. There are genetic tables that clearing show that no matter what the color our our skin on the outside we are all "the same". Genetically we are all out of AFRICA.

10,000 years ago at the beginning of the neolithic age and the end of the last ice age, it is estimated that there were about 5 million humans on earth. We all descend from one of those "couples".

IQ is not a racical outcome, it has a simple explanation: Reading , Writing and Arithmatic. The more a human has "this knowledge, the higher the IQ. And the "means to aquire it.

As for physical prowess, all humans when they "train" their bodies are exactly alike. That is what was happening in Rome 2,000 years with the gladiators/slaves of all "colors"

Melusine

Mzungu mchagga
26-01-11, 20:25
Oh, you are killing me guys. There is no argument, except from Reinaert, that there are differences between races in colour of skin, facial features and other easy to spot physical attributes. But somehow it cannot effect the structure of the brain?!
There is also no argument that there are differences in structure of brain between man and woman, and yet we can be equal. Now when it comes to structure of brain between races, then we have a big no no. Because what? It would effect equality between race? Is this the only reason?

Surely the external stimuli are very important to fully develop brain. Close a child in a room with no brain stimulation, just feed it. The final effect will be always a moron, no matter what genetic predisposition the child would have.
Compare apples to apples, yes. But don't jump into conclusions that all people are born clean slate with same abilities.
You all went to schools and you noticed that even though you were from same city district or village, you progressed in school differently. How come? You probably noticed that generally kids of successful, well off parents, were doing much better than kids of parents from so called margins of life. Food was mostly the same for all kids from Europe and North America, air the same, teachers the same, roughly the same environment. But somehow the product was so different. The only logical explanation was the genetics. The smarter kids inherited the better predisposition to do better in school. Mostly a better memory, logical thinking, maybe working harder gens.
Now when it comes to races, of course there is no difference, right?

If you want a real life experiment. Adopt a child from mothers known to belong to poor, disadvantaged families. Raise it and try to mold it the way you are, give it all the advantages. Good luck, you are going to need tons of it!

Once again I have to stress that I believe that all people should be equal, and treated alike. I just can't deny that there are differences among races, that's all.

I'm following what Marianne said, nothing to add!
What makes comparisons between brains of people so difficult is the following: When you are born with a certain skin color you'll keep it all life through, you have no influence on it. When you were born with a long nose, you'll keep it all life through, influence is impossible (never mind surgery...). But with your mind, IQ and emotions, they can change. Actually they can change all the time due to environment and experience of life. Of course there is a certain genetical predetermination in what range the IQ will sway, but the exact point is hard to tell due to merely infinite possibilties that can occur in a life.
And as it is impossible to observe all people in the world under excactly the same living conditions -and the differences in cultures are partly imense- I think it is a little early to present differences in IQs between races as a scientific fact.

Mzungu mchagga
26-01-11, 20:26
I agree.

I am one of the 2 people who voted "not sure" in this poll
[...]


I am the other one :laughing:

Sybilla
27-01-11, 11:29
I agree with this. We can't just measure the IQ in Africans and Europeans and conclude.

I also see this within my country when I happen to read studies about IQ differences within the country. People who live in villages don't care about school. They just finish the compulsory 9 years of education and then start working in the fields. They seem to have low IQ, while people living in big cities have a lot higher. But 80% of people living in big cities have parents who come from various Greek villages where the IQ seems to be low. So in this case it is not genetic, it's just that in big cities the majority of kids have 12 years of school and then continue to university.

It can't be that people with the same DNA (within Greece I mean) just happen to become smarter after they move to big cities... They just receive better education than those living in villages who only want to finish school to be able to work at their farms.

I don't know how they conclude the average IQ of each country but if they measure the IQ of people all over Greece for example the average will be lower for the reasons I said above, but this doesn't really reflect how much the IQ of Greeks is.

Same in USA. If they want to compare the IQ of white Americans and black Americans they shouldn't take samples from the ones living in ghettos because the majority is not educated. That is the only way to really see if race and IQ are related...

I also thought that the enviroment can have a big part on it, but then why Mongolians, for exemple, who live in a no-rich country, have one of the highest IQ in the world, even higher than Australians and Irish have one of the lowest of Europe?
Italy has one of the highest IQ in Europe but school here is not that great compared to Germany or France or the USA and many people live in villages also here. Neverthless, Italians are intelligent and when they move abroad they usually are able to open a business with success.
I am not giving conclusions, I am just exposing facts. I'd like to hear your opinions to understand the cause of this difference better.

Sybilla
27-01-11, 11:41
@Marianne and how yes no

I have to agree with both of you. It seems that most people here have never heard about the thingy which is called the 'Flynn-Effect'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect



I have read the Italian version of it (thank you :satisfied:), but it seems that the problem is still open becouse:
1) the last tests have demonstered than in some countries the tendence is inverting and that the national IQ is diminishing;
2) it says that the intelligence increases in every country/culture, but does not explain why Asians and Europeans have arrived to have the highest IQ in the world;
3) if a better nutrition were the main cause of the dislivel, I don't understand how countries like Mongolia, Guyana and Uruguay have an high IQ.

Marianne
27-01-11, 21:55
I also thought that the enviroment can have a big part on it, but then why Mongolians, for exemple, who live in a no-rich country, have one of the highest IQ in the world, even higher than Australians and Irish have one of the lowest of Europe?
Italy has one of the highest IQ in Europe but school here is not that great compared to Germany or France or the USA and many people live in villages also here. Neverthless, Italians are intelligent and when they move abroad they usually are able to open a business with success.
I am not giving conclusions, I am just exposing facts. I'd like to hear your opinions to understand the cause of this difference better.

These facts make me tend towards the idea that IQ is related to race. But I haven't seen any conclusive research, so I tend to not be 100% sure. I'm fairly certain though that environment can significantly affect IQ.

Mzungu mchagga
27-01-11, 21:56
I have read the Italian version of it (thank you :satisfied:), but it seems that the problem is still open becouse:
1) the last tests have demonstered than in some countries the tendence is inverting and that the national IQ is diminishing;
2) it says that the intelligence increases in every country/culture, but does not explain why Asians and Europeans have arrived to have the highest IQ in the world;
3) if a better nutrition were the main cause of the dislivel, I don't understand how countries like Mongolia, Guyana and Uruguay have an high IQ.

I just wanted to point out that even average IQs of populations are not consistently, as shown in Richard Lynn's studies 'IQ and Global Inequality' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality ]. That's where your map is from. In fact, according to these studies, the IQ of many developed countries has decreased the last few years. For example the Germans have gotten three IQ points dumber within four years (I can already feel it on myself! :confused2:). But this already shows how difficult it is to make a permanent record of IQs. I can hardly believe the skin of the Germans has got lighter or darker within the same range of time for example.

Marianne
27-01-11, 22:34
I am the other one :laughing:

It seems we are the only ones, cause this thread has been here for quite some time...

For a while my vote was the only one :grin:

Michael Folkesson
27-01-11, 23:19
I think that we all - in most discussions - try to make any issue at hand simple, and the answer even simpler. We like shortcuts and need simplicity to create a sensible ordered rational and manageable world. But there is also a high level of convenience in the use of simplicity; the KISS approach of projects, or the use of what we call the Occam's razor paradigm. It is a way to get to the bone of things, and a way to put you in the right direction but not how we always want to get to our answers. That is not what our justice system is built on and it is not how we run a country, at least not in a democracy. I think that there is a great level of fallacy in trying to make things simple as it depends on that we have all the facts, but also heavily on our preconceptions and the facts and sources we chose to support our conclusions. It is not necessarily the fat kid who took your candy bar.

I think that research has shown that the history of evolution is quite complex, and when it comes to human development, it is hard to assume our way to our answers. I think that this is a case where we should not keep it simple.

I am not convinced that Africans scores lower in IQ tests because of ethnicity, due to the massive amount of common sub-Saharan environmental factors that may contribute, concerning the correlation between IQ, political unrest, levels of literacy, education and class and non the least, nutrition during the maturation of the brains from newborn to young adult.

But I agree that the scoring of the Chinese is intriguing. They have a very high level of literacy in China though. Can language, culture and the glyhp writing system contribute to a certain way of thinking giving an edge in IQ tests? Is there any substance in the hypothesis that language makes a deep impact in human thinking and a difference regarding the success of a society? Would the Romans have built that long lasting empire and civilization with another language?

The documentary "Guns, germs and steel" claims that geography and disease gave Europe the edge over other people, leading to world domination. Not by our own accords as an ethnic group but because of where we lived.

There are many hypothesis, and I think that there are probably varying amounts of truth to them, or so to speak, most things seem true depending on perspective. Our preconceptions risks contaminating our findings and limit our research area wrongly.

Concerning ethnic diversity, I agree that it is fair to assume that the whole body including the capacity of the brain has been under evolutionary pressure, which was what gave us our mental abilities in the first place. It doesn't necessarily mean that what we popularly call race is what is behind the difference of results. It can be so, but I think we should be wary of making a simple correlation between IQ and physical attributes.

It might be presumptuous, but I think that if one would test the average physical abilities of people in every country, short and long distance running, strength, hearing, eye sight, liver- heart- kidney capacities etc. and compare the results, I think we will likely see differences here and there that one might want to attribute to race or ethnicity.

Dr. Bruce Charlton in the UK claims that poor working class have lower IQ than people from a privileged background. I can't tell if that is true or if it has been replicated, but it seems to fit with the findings of Richard Wilkinson regarding that "Relative Inequality" in a society lies behind much of the representation of criminality and illness in the society; meaning that the level of criminality and illness rises in the bottom layers of society - even if poor people have their basic needs met - if there are great class differences. The bigger the differences, the sicker the society. It seems that there is of great importance for our IQ test results what expectations there is of a person in order to succeed; the environments and our own. The findings seem to give scientific credence or support to classic socialist ideals, that it is not only fair to be express solidarity with the weak but it is in everyones interest - including the wealthy and privileged - to fight class division.

As it seems that all of us with the exception of sub-Saharan Africans, have varied amounts of Neanderthal genes, I think that this can also possibly manifest itself in physical differences between us and those without it; including the brain. As the Neanderthal is truly considered another race, I am not sure how this affects the view of mankind. Some may want to use that fact to divide the world into two quasi races based on genes. I think that this would be a mistake.

I am not definitely saying that any correlation between IQ and race might not be true, but I am saying that I think there are too many environmental factors possibly partly responsible to consider, rendering a race factor as a sole reason in doubt. There are also a couple of world IQ charts, and they seem to differ when compared.

I also think that the importance of IQ seem a bit overrated. A persons IQ level doesn't say anything about that persons level of ambition, self confidence, hopes and dreams. It doesn't say how well they are doing their jobs, how well they get along with people and how they will excel in a certain area. It doesn't show if that person can make a reliable decision during stress, or make a million euro hit song. It only shows that for one reason or another, that person is good at pattern recognition and certain logical conclusions in a written test.

@Sybilla
What is the basis of your assumption that they don't get enough nutrition in Uruguay, Mongolia and Guyana?

LeBrok
28-01-11, 04:40
[QUOTE=Michael Folkesson;364315]
I also think that the importance of IQ seem a bit overrated. A persons IQ level doesn't say anything about that persons level of ambition, self confidence, hopes and dreams. It doesn't say how well they are doing their jobs, how well they get along with people and how they will excel in a certain area. It doesn't show if that person can make a reliable decision during stress, or make a million euro hit song. It only shows that for one reason or another, that person is good at pattern recognition and certain logical conclusions in a written test.
QUOTE]

I totally agree with this, and we all should keep it in mind discussing issues in this tread.

What are your guys opinion on nurture versus nature regarding very high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews? It's been reported in many papers that their IQ might be as high as 115 on average.

Antigone
19-02-11, 08:19
I also think that the importance of IQ seem a bit overrated. A persons IQ level doesn't say anything about that persons level of ambition, self confidence, hopes and dreams. It doesn't say how well they are doing their jobs, how well they get along with people and how they will excel in a certain area. It doesn't show if that person can make a reliable decision during stress, or make a million euro hit song. It only shows that for one reason or another, that person is good at pattern recognition and certain logical conclusions in a written test.

Yes excellently put, I think that "written test" is important as not everyone tested is literate or only partly literate at best. IQ tests are only a test of a persons education and not a test of intelligence and shouldn't be relied on as an indication of anything else. Education and intelligence are not the same thing.

Gungnir
10-03-11, 05:51
I voted yes. I think when people say that race and intelligence are not related they are being purposely dishonest in an attempt to promote their socio-political agenda. It reminds me of the whole race does not exist crowd.

carlos monzon
26-04-11, 23:56
there is no difference
I am a psychology student and have discussed and studied this topic with me peers and lecturers. At the end of the day scientists dont agree on what intelligence is and intelligence can be mean something different in different cultures; also the environmental factors are huge; you got things like socioeconomic status, power, nutrition, stereotypes and test bias all playing major roles.
Race itself is a social construct and people need it to classify themselves, classifying someone based on skin colour isn't gonna make a difference on intelligent, you can classify people as tall and short, or fat and skinny, it doesn't mean that there races;
Also to look further on the matter i suggest some literature such moore (1986), Witty and jenkins 1936 and scarr 1976; also look up Tizard (1972) adn even elfyrth (1967)

LeBrok
27-04-11, 05:27
Welcome to eupedia Carlos. Young, romantic and true citizen of the world, aren't you?
What you wrote is exactly what my friend psychiatrist was saying when she finished here schooling. You should listen to her now, after 20 more years looking at the world, lol.
As for me, I'm still shaking my head learning how god screwed up his creation, humans. If I was god I would create people as clean slate, and equal abilities, unfortunately for our kind I'm not. ;)

Ask your professors, how come there are no physical or cognitive differences if for last 100 thousand years races went through different evolutionary paths? Some stayed hunter-gatherers, some became agriculturalists. Some mixed with other hominids like Neanderthals and various derivatives of Homo Erectus, some didn't. Some still hunt in forests, some invent new machines and particle physics.

You see, there shouldn't be a conflict between believing in equality of all humans, and knowing that we are different.

You might ignore it or believe that this way of thinking is stupid, harmful or even racist. Real life proves us otherwise though. Google or listen to info about Inuits or other natives in Canada. You'll find horror stories how bad the situation is in their communities. Lost way of life, traditions, rampant alcoholism and diabetes, just to name few problems. With best effort of western teachers only some can finish high schools, not mentioning universities. And this is after about 100 years of resettlements, western education, teaching the "better" way of life, introduced and implemented by white men on native "primitive" peoples of Canada. Believing that what is good for white man, and was invented in name of progress, is good for all people on this planet. This turned to be a really dumb idea, and natives of Canada are paying a high price now. They are lost in new world, they don't like it, they are unhappy and angry at white man.
Their tragedy is exactly caused by way of thinking of your professors, blindly believing that people are born the same with same cognitive and physical abilities, and like same environmental settings, same way of life. Your professors can be kindest human beings, but they are naive, and this naive romantic kindness harms and kills.

Wilhelm
27-04-11, 15:02
There have been experiments with adopted african (or afro-caribbean) children by White parents, in a upper-middle class environment with a good education, and their IQ's came up to be below-average, and similar to their ethnic counterparts, but without ever seting a foot in their ancestor's land. So yes, genetics play a big factor in the IQ of person, not everything is eduaction or environment. Someone also mentioned poor countries like Mongolia, or North-Korea, whith top high IQ's in the world. China is also a poor country, taking in account the per-capita.

Riccardo
27-04-11, 15:13
Yes, there is. Look the world avarage IQ map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequ ality.png

There isn't the legend. Why is Italy darker than the rest of Europe?

It means more average IQ or less average IQ? In both cases I don't believe it so much. :thinking:

Drac
27-04-11, 20:25
There isn't the legend. Why is Italy darker than the rest of Europe?

It means more average IQ or less average IQ? In both cases I don't believe it so much. :thinking:

Even without the legend you can deduce what the colors mean by looking at published average IQ tables. The more blue/violet means the higher the average IQ, the more red the lower the average IQ.

I also don't believe it. Italy has similar average IQ as Germany, Austria and the Netherlands:

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp

So all those countries should be in the same shade as Italy.

LeBrok
28-04-11, 03:39
Yes, take these tests/maps as rough approximation.

Antigone
28-04-11, 07:44
The colours of the map merely correlate with those countries who have good and not so good educational systems in place, it is in no way an indication of IQ differences. Once again the varying standards in education are being confused with intelligence, the two are not the same.

edao
28-04-11, 10:32
The colours of the map merely correlate with those countries who have good and not so good educational systems in place, it is in no way an indication of IQ differences. Once again the varying standards in education are being confused with intelligence, the two are not the same.

The educational standards in South Africa are completely different from say the Ivory coast or Kenya. Yet the colour range for IQ scores for Africa are in the same ball park. How do you explain that?:thinking:

Cultural differences between each country shows variance of IQ scores but the larger racial groups show general IQ score consistency.

Riccardo
29-04-11, 14:56
Even if it's true I think it's really dangerous to generalize...In this way "anybody" can give excuses for discriminations and other dangerous things. And for what I know IQ doesn't say everything about intelligence. So...

Antigone
29-04-11, 15:39
Cultural differences between each country shows variance of IQ scores but the larger racial groups show general IQ score consistency.

Nah, the map is Eurocentric in the extreme, Riccardo is correct in his generalisation comment.

How can Argentinians have higher IQs than their South American neighbours?

India and Egypt is on a par with Madagascar and New Guinea?

The Irish have lower IQs than the English and Scottish?

Canada shows a darker colour than the US, when they are on a par genetically?

Italy has a higher IQ than anyone else in Europe?

Sorry but I don't agree with the map, the only thing that it shows is possibly a variance in educational standards, certainly not a variance in intelligence.

Heathen
29-04-11, 18:01
How can Argentinians have higher IQs than their South American neighbours?
Argentinians are predominantly white European compared to their neighbours. I am not saying that this is the reason but it could be considering that Europeans score relatively higher in comparison.

Reinaert
29-04-11, 18:24
This is the origin of the map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality



IQ and Global Inequality is a controversial 2006 book by psychologist Richard Lynn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn) and political scientist Tatu Vanhanen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatu_Vanhanen).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality#cite_note-IQGI-0) IQ and Global Inequality is follow-up to their 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality#cite_note-IQWN-1), an expansion of the argument that international differences in current economic development are due in part to differences in average national intelligence as indicated by national IQ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ) estimates, and a response to critics. The book was published by the controversial Washington Summit Publishers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Summit_Publishers).


In other words... Utter crap!

IQ tests are controversial themselves.

Please define IQ!!!

Angela
29-04-11, 19:03
I think that all of the twin studies that have been conducted by far more reputable scientists than Richard Lynn show that there is definitely some genetic component to IQ. I just don't know that anyone has quantified exactly how much is genetic, and how much is environmental.

Add to that that these tests don't measure things like creativity, determination, imagination, artistic ability, manual dexterity, emotional and social intelligence etc. etc., and it's clear that these tests don't measure all the qualities that would determine a person's ability to contribute to a society.

They certainly are good at predicting certain things of course, such as performance at university level, although people could say that just means the high scoring person had a better education at the outset.

On the other hand, this particular study by Lynn also contains performance testing by country scores where students take standardized tests. Interestingly, the Finns performed very well on those tests, (a credit to their universally acclaimed educational system) and yet performed less well on the intelligence tests.

From my experience, whatever scores the Italians receive can not be credited to their education system, which is by no means the best in Europe.

I've always believed that Lynn has an agenda, and so I've never bothered to actually look at his methodology, or in other words, whether he uses the standard written IQ tests commonly administered in the U.S. for example.

As a general proposition, the only way, in my opinion, to get even close to measuring someone's ability to learn, and that person's speed of learning, is to give the laborious, blocks and shapes, repeating digits kind of test that takes hours to administer, and must be done one on one. Even then I have a problem with the fact that the visual/math abilities are weighted higher than the verbal ones.

At the end of all that effort, as I said above, you still haven't measured other qualities that are as, if not more important, so why don't educators start implementing the tried and true methods that reach the most children in the quickest amount of time and take it from there?

Riccardo
29-04-11, 23:52
It could be really discriminatory...

Angela, they are destroying our education system...Once it was one of the bests! :)

MarTyro
08-08-11, 18:05
What is IQ? Go deep in to the Amazon Jungle and try to survive only with the tools of an indigenous people - you will fail; same in the Arctis. Most IQ-Tests are made by Western-educated people and have many questions that are easier to know with "normal school education".

Knovas
21-08-11, 23:22
I agree that IQ tests are a bit controversial, although some of them perhaps show aproximate results. For example, Asimov participated in several IQ tests and he was quite critic with the exercises (even when he got high scores in all).

ultralars
22-08-11, 14:25
Good IQ test measure intelligence optimally, EQ is just personality and doesn't count as far as intelligence goes.

MarTyro
23-08-11, 22:09
Yes, there is. Look the world avarage IQ map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequ ality.pngI also think this could be a climate map ;-) Is there a study of the IQ of white people in the Ecquator-Zone?

Antigone
24-08-11, 06:24
If a definition of what exactly is "intelligence" is yet to be agreed upon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence then it stands to reason that a test of that which is not yet defined is rather meaningless.

An IQ (originally designed to test the capabilities of the mentally disabled anyway, not how intellegent a person is) test is western designed and based on western style education. It is impossible to apply it to the entire world and expect accurate and unbiased results.

LeBrok
24-08-11, 07:16
Hi MarTyro, with your post you have hit a very deep subject. I'm not even sure if you should compare two so different civilizations. One in XXI century cities the other in a jungle. The environments are so different that either people transplanted mid life to other civilization would fail miserably. I think in this case what's most important is a knowledge one can get through childhood to learn in certain environment, either it's a city or a jungle.
Generally speaking IQ test measures pattern recognition and associations between objects, either in pictures, written words or numbers, plus understanding a logic of a written language, and also understanding few concepts.
On other hand knowledge is just memorizing and remembering things, words, numbers, actions, plus one can also memorize concepts and their outcomes without understanding exactly how they work.

The greater your knowledge, the higher will be your score on IQ test with intelligence being constant. Without any knowledge you wouldn't even understand the questions, even if you were potentially super smart. The standardize IQ test best works in one education system in one country. At age, let's say, 16 everybody got same education, got chance to memorize same material, therefore in a big degree we can measure logical thinking, pattern recognition and understanding written language. It's not perfect and never will be, but statistically speaking it's a pretty good indicator in figuring out your socioeconomic status in life.
In some future we should have similar tests for social intelligence, economic/entrepreneurial intelligence, creative intelligence, and who knows what.

I'm not an expert so I can't say how valid are tests compared on international scale, and between continents. You have to take it with a big margin for mistakes, especially if from some countries we have only one or handful tests with small base, and who knows how they were constructed or translated from English.

LeBrok
24-08-11, 07:35
The closest comparison between races regarding IQ tests are from USA.

To my understanding peoples with long tradition of intense agriculturalism are doing better on IQ tests than peoples with recent hunter-gatherer traditions.
And yes, climate played a huge role in everybody's evolutionary past. We are products of way of life of our ancestors. How they lived, what they ate, what they did during days or seasons. Natural selection did the rest, selecting the fittest for local environments.

Bodin
30-08-11, 08:21
Yes but if this map reflects only aquiered knowledge tru educational sisem , and not real brain capacity , why China is darkest ( highest IQ ) and they have bad onesided ( comunistic) school sistem ? About theory about food and IQ , if nations that adopted agriculture previous then other would have higher IQ , then the nations in fertile crescent would have highest IQ , and that is clearly not the case.

LeBrok
30-08-11, 17:52
Agriculture in Europe and in fertile lands of china and Japan were more intense by few factors and on much bigger area. Area of fertile crescent is surrounded by semi-deserts and deserts, and it is not that big. Most of original farmers there might have been killed few times over by sweeping armies.

About Education. Even though socialistic system was one sided in few subjects, the education there was public, accessible to all, and it contained more material to memorize than in Western coutries,...and six days a week. Intensity of education in socialist countries was highest in the world.

Bodin
31-08-11, 15:57
Japan is not at all land suitable for agriculture . Sweeping armies were more present in Europe and China , then in fertile crescent , carriers of agriculture were E1b1b , J and G haplogroups and they are most numerous in fertile crescent
Aout education . Yes it contain more material to memorize , but it lack practical usage , and in that is the real knowledge . They do not develop critical oppinion which is esential for any real knowledge . Intensity of education is highest because it is widespread , not because it is quality . Man that memorize full truck of books , without understanding it , do not become any smarter , he become truck ( carry that books in his head )
Most of populations of Subsaharan Africa practising agriculture and catle briding as long as Europeans , except San ( Bushman ) nations and some nations in South Africa , that practised hunting and gathering up to today .
Thanks for answering.

ultralars
31-08-11, 17:08
I think race matters more to potential than to instinctive IQ, like if you read books and educate yourself, as well as eating nutrients that help the brain like DHA, one with the right race will score higher. But if you eat unhealthy, don't educate yourself on any area, you probably will score a mediocre score even if your from a family inclining towards higher than average IQ.

If it werent like this, the fact that brothers and sisters can have big differences in IQ makes little sense.

I doubt Chinese people have the highest average IQ of all people in the world, Either the IQ tests from those areas stink or they tested to few people. It makes more sense that Germans and Brits have the potentially highest average IQ.


To Explain myself why i think that race only matters to the potential of your IQ:

Today Arab countries aren't exactly at their golden age, but it weren't always like that. If we look at the history of Arabian countries, we see impressive architecture, impressive military tactics, impressive technology and a highly developed culture for it's time. What influenced the Arabs to be so intelligent at that time must be their culture and maybe what they eat. It allowed them to reach their potential.

Same with Germanic countries, today we are great, but only 2000 years ago we where simple brutes, while the Romans and Greeks had reached a high level of culture and built impressive buildings.

sparkey
31-08-11, 17:25
I doubt Chinese people have the highest average IQ of all people in the world, Either the IQ tests from those areas stink or they tested to few people. It makes more sense that Germans and Brits have the potentially highest average IQ.

Why? I've never seen a race-based IQ study where East Asians (or their diaspora) didn't top Europeans (or their diaspora), at least where we limit "East Asians" to the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans.

Bodin
31-08-11, 19:22
I think race matters more to potential than to instinctive IQ, like if you read books and educate yourself, as well as eating nutrients that help the brain like DHA, one with the right race will score higher. But if you eat unhealthy, don't educate yourself on any area, you probably will score a mediocre score even if your from a family inclining towards higher than average IQ.

If it werent like this, the fact that brothers and sisters can have big differences in IQ makes little sense.

I doubt Chinese people have the highest average IQ of all people in the world, Either the IQ tests from those areas stink or they tested to few people. It makes more sense that Germans and Brits have the potentially highest average IQ.


To Explain myself why i think that race only matters to the potential of your IQ:

Today Arab countries aren't exactly at their golden age, but it weren't always like that. If we look at the history of Arabian countries, we see impressive architecture, impressive military tactics, impressive technology and a highly developed culture for it's time. What influenced the Arabs to be so intelligent at that time must be their culture and maybe what they eat. It allowed them to reach their potential.

Same with Germanic countries, today we are great, but only 2000 years ago we where simple brutes, while the Romans and Greeks had reached a high level of culture and built impressive buildings.
I agre with first part , but about other you should remember Chineses are the ones that invented black powder , one of the first writing sistems , compas , silk , among many other useful things.Chines civilisation was on constantly high level for long time .
Yes Arab culture was amazing , maybe we should also look at enviromental conditions when we think about IQ , maybe hard conditions make IQ to grow ? Like northern cold climate , Arabian desert and Japanies islands? ( just a tought , not necesary truth).
Well Germans were not realy that much more brut than Romans , only Romans took Greek xenophobic view of the world , calling everybody else Barbaric ( "one that sound like sheap") and every stranger not god enough . Yes they bild great stone buildings , but just because they didnt have enough trees ( it was rear -expensive ) , we would never know about German buildings -they were wooden and roten away . Greatest stone buildings were made by Egyptians , but they never get out of Stone Age - never make Iron.
Romans never made golden coins before they conquered Gaul - Celts were richer then them and probably with higher culture , but they stil called them Barbarians .
Roman and Greek literature and science is preserved by Arabs ( we wouldnt know that Aristotelus , Sophocles, Herodothus, Xenophont , ... ever existed if Arabs havent preserved them- Christian church forbiden them ), and we do not know nothing about German culture , science , or literature because it has not preserved , except very late Edas .Maybe they didnt have scripture , maybe they did but it was lost , because they write it on material that easily decomposes . Who know , we could only guess.

LeBrok
01-09-11, 08:46
Japan is not at all land suitable for agriculture . Sweeping armies were more present in Europe and China , then in fertile crescent , carriers of agriculture were E1b1b , J and G haplogroups and they are most numerous in fertile crescent


Bodin, keep in mind that fertile crescent was most fertile between 5000 to 1000 BC. Then the climate shifted and crescent became dryer than before producing fewer crops. The crescent become less agricultural with times. It was reversed in Europe where last 3000 years are most agricultural ever. Europe became extremely intense agriculturally in last 3000 years, and crescent become less. Basically it is the point in time when "glory" and history of Europe starts, and Babylon, Assyria, Egypt fade away.
If you can, find some statistics of agricultural production of Europe and Fertile Crescent, even from 100 or 200 years ago and you'll see what is intense agriculturalisem in Europe compared to crescent. Probably the population count will do the trick. There were always as many people in countries as they could feed. So you can compare number of cities or big cities in both areas.
Europe is roughly 10 times bigger than fertile crescent, therefore even in big disasters or wars, there are more pockets for farmers to survive and rebuild. There was no one ruler or army that conquered whole Europe ever, unlike Crescent which was under one ruler many times.
Europe is in very blessed position for agriculture. You can plan your crops year after year and expect similar weather conditions, and same results. There are rarely big droughts or locust killing your crops. Climate stability is the trick.
Now look at Africa. The only part of Africa with fairly stable climate is Zimbabwe, the former food basket of this continent. The rest can experience weather extremes that can last for decades, like droughts. Even in good years your good crops can be eaten away by locust or 10 000 strong flock of antelopes. You have desert in 1/3 of Africa, 1/3 a jungle and 1/3 not bad for crops, but everything alive wants to eat it too. That's why agriculture was always very sparse and in between in Africa. It is there but it is a far cry from intense European agriculture. There is a reason why Europe and East Asia are the most populated places on Earth. It is a food production. If not anti-conception, and population control, there would be twice as many, or more, Europeans and East Asians now.
There are always few phenomenons in the world, but this shows a general trend.
Greeks invented theater and actors, but who makes more money on it now? Who feeds millions from this invention at the moment? California. Can you say "intensity"?




Japan is not at all land suitable for agriculture .

Agriculturalisem gives people who embraced it a huge advantage in survival. There is no way people will missed or avoid this opportunity. If there are no agriculturalists in some regions of this planet, is just because the conditions are not suitable to lead this lifestyle. It is simple like this. If Japanese do agriculturalisem then it means that it works there, period. If Eskimos don't do it, we know they are not able. Heck, the Vikings tried it on Greenland, and we know the results. This is not a matter of free choice, this is a matter of surviving and natural selection, surviving of most adopted to the environment.



Aout education . Yes it contain more material to memorize , but it lack practical usage , and in that is the real knowledge . They do not develop critical oppinion which is esential for any real knowledge . Intensity of education is highest because it is widespread , not because it is quality . Man that memorize full truck of books , without understanding it , do not become any smarter , he become truck ( carry that books in his head )

I wasn't arguing about how useful the knowledge was in communist schools. Even the pure memorization of useless material trains the brain and improves memory. It makes easier to memorize useful material in future when time comes. Same as training your muscles.
Also IQ tests don't test real world knowledge or skills. Mainly IQ tests logic with numbers, words and associations. In this regard socialistic schools were pretty good preparing pupils for IQ test.

edao
01-09-11, 08:49
"The Neolithic Revolution is the first agricultural revolution—the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture and settlement. Archaeological data indicate that various forms of domestication of plants and animals arose independently in six separate locales worldwide ca. 10,000–7000 years" source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution)

"Fifteenth Century Portugal, especially under Henry the Navigator probed along the West African coast." source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_exploration_of_Africa)

Lets look at those dates, so roughly agriculture 10,000 years ago, then 500 years ago Europeans start exploring Africa to find people living as hunter gatherers a way their ancestor left 9,500 years ago.

Are we expected to believe that societies that occupied themselves with hunting and acquiring food as the primary function are in no way different from a society that spent 9,500 years creating cities and developing ideas? That this opposite ways of surviving and thriving have not had major impact on who we are today.

No one can argue that Africa has struggled to come to terms with western ideas and culture. I think fear of being termed a racist stops people from viewing this subject objectively.


"This is a "Persistence Hunt" of a Male Kudu by tribesman of the San on the Kalahari Desert of Africa from one of BBC's specials.

Running on two feet over long distances is more efficient than four. Man's extra limbs can be used to carry water, the Kudu cannot."
watch video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUpo_mA5RP8)

Do you think a average European could chase the Kudu for 8 hours, I think not. The african hunter has changed his body over centuries to adapt to his approach to survival.
The physical approach vs the ideas approach.

Goga
01-09-11, 09:21
There're genius & very gifted Africans and there're very stupid Africans. Like everywhere else, also in Europe. If you think that stupid & retarded European folks don't exist, take a look at stormfront!!

It's part of their African culture the way they live. Do you really think that in all this time there was never an African as smart as Einstein who could tell his people how to live?

Jews and Arabs have same roots. But at this moment Jews are achieving MUCH more than Arabs.

It's all about culture, education and your parents.

Goga
01-09-11, 09:32
Most folks are stupid sheep. All they need is a good shepherd to be guided to the right direction.

ultralars
01-09-11, 12:17
Edao Thats not the reason we abandoned that way of living.

The africans has a non changing temperature, That means that once they have developed enough technology,culture, etc to survive there is never going to be a need for change cause you can just do the same thing all trough the year, which of course became tradition.

In europe and asia it's a little different. There is constant need for change and adaption to survive. You need to plan ahead to survive the winter, you need to organize to do things effectively, etc,etc. This of course resulted in the formation of big cities and countries. Which revolutionised the way ideas a spread, again accelerating the rate that new technology is created. Constant wars also ensured there always was a need for new technology, even when we had developed a good enough culture so survive winter and such.

Also Goga, there probably haven't been a pure african( except from egypt and those areas) that was as smart as einstein. Why has jews achieved much more than Arabs? also Judaism is a religion which involves studying.You need to look at arabian history.

Goga
01-09-11, 14:50
Also Goga, there probably haven't been a pure african( except from egypt and those areas) that was as smart as einstein. Why has jews achieved much more than Arabs? also Judaism is a religion which involves studying.You need to look at arabian history.
?

Of course I'm sure there are nowadays many 'pure' Africans that are smarter than Einstein.

And I'm not talking about the Arabic history. Arabic history is great. Those folks achieved much things in the past. There was a time when Arabs were years ahead to Europeans in science, knowledge and technology. The Europeans learned a lot of things from Arabs on the medical field. But somehow their development has been stagnated in the recent times. I don't think this does mean that they're more stupid than in the past.

I'm talking about now. Jews are the regional 'superpower'. They have democracy, they are more powerful and have more influence on the world, while most peoples in the Arabic countries are very poor. How is it possible.
They were something but nowadays they're almost nothing. Somehow they're now the slaves of the modern western world. They're now the puppets of the western world.

It's not going well in the Arabistan. Does this mean they are now more stupid than the Europeans? Are modern Turks more stupid than their Ottoman ancestors? I don't think so.

But I do really think that people in Africa are somehow more lazy, and laziness is very bad for the development of humans and their country. Maybe because of it is so warm in Africa. I believe that laziness is somehow correlated with the mindset and the culture of that country. That's why I believe that culture is one of the biggest factors in the human evolution. If you work and perform you evolve and perform even more!

Dorianfinder
01-09-11, 16:23
?

Of course I'm sure there are nowadays many 'pure' Africans that are smarter than Einstein.

And I'm not talking about the Arabic history. Arabic history is great. Those folks achieved much things in the past. There was a time when Arabs were years ahead to Europeans in science, knowledge and technology. The Europeans learned a lot of things from Arabs on the medical field. But somehow their development has been stagnated in the recent times. I don't think this does mean that they're more stupid than in the past.

I'm talking about now. Jews are the regional 'superpower'. They have democracy, they are more powerful and have more influence on the world, while most peoples in the Arabic countries are very poor. How is it possible.
They were something but nowadays they're almost nothing. Somehow they're now the slaves of the modern western world. They're now the puppets of the western world.

It's not going well in the Arabistan. Does this mean they are now more stupid than the Europeans? Are modern Turks more stupid than their Ottoman ancestors? I don't think so.

But I do really think that people in Africa are somehow more lazy, and laziness is very bad for the development of humans and their country. Maybe because of it is so warm in Africa. I believe that laziness is somehow correlated with the mindset and the culture of that country. That's why I believe that culture is one of the biggest factors in the human evolution. If you work and perform you evolve and perform even more!

Education and childhood development are related to things like stimulation, dietary requirements, education and economic prosperity.

To make the leap from IQ to race one would have to bring Africa to the socio-economic level of developed countries first, and possibly wait a few thousand years for natural development to take hold as an institution uniquely African. Only then can we compare IQ of Africa and developed countries.

The problem in Africa is poor governance. Africa has the resources and the land, it doesn't have the leaders to take it forward.

Antigone
01-09-11, 17:23
?But I do really think that people in Africa are somehow more lazy, and laziness is very bad for the development of humans and their country. Maybe because of it is so warm in Africa. I believe that laziness is somehow correlated with the mindset and the culture of that country. That's why I believe that culture is one of the biggest factors in the human evolution. If you work and perform you evolve and perform even more!

Woah, hang on a minute.

In the majority of African cultures it is traditionally the females who own and take care of the livestock, plant and take care of the crops, build the houses, weave the cloth and baskets, make all the pottery, care for and raise the children, cook and prepare all the food, care for the sick and keep everyone and everything as clean as possible. The male section made war and hunted, full stop.

So no, Africans are not lazy. The African males who still follow traditional ways possibly, but African females? Never.

I agree with you re African IQ though. The only difference between Africa and Europe is purely cultural, educational and enviromental.

Goga
01-09-11, 18:06
So no, Africans are not lazy. The African males who still follow traditional ways possibly, but African females? Never.
Lol, my perception of Africans is that they're lazy. I don't like to generalize, but I think it's (lazinees, unemployment etc.) more allowed and accepted in African and Middle Eastern cultures.

Why do you think people in the Western world and Japan are more developed? Discipline has been programmed into their minds.

I was born and raised in the USSR. If you was unemployed in the USSR you could go to jail. It is big contrast between USSR on one side and Africa or Middle East on the other.

Not IQ, but discipline is the magic word!

LeBrok
01-09-11, 18:43
A very interesting study about heritability of IQ.

Score of 1.00 would show full heritability of IQ in monozigotal twins. In theory, because in real life even same person doesn't get 1.00, it is closer to 0.95. I guess, we have bad days and good days.

Well, we have 0.76 for identical twins reared apart, compared with 0.86 when living together. That's damn close when you compare to unrelated people score of 0.19.


Another summary:

Same person (tested twice) .95
Identical twins—Reared together .86
Identical twins—Reared apart .76
Fraternal twins—Reared together .55
Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
Biological siblings—Reared together .47
Biological siblings—Reared apart .24
Unrelated children—Reared together .30
Parent-child—Living together .42
Parent-child—Living apart .22
Adoptive parent–child—Living together .19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Dorianfinder
01-09-11, 19:58
Woah, hang on a minute.

In the majority of African cultures it is traditionally the females who own and take care of the livestock, plant and take care of the crops, build the houses, weave the cloth and baskets, make all the pottery, care for and raise the children, cook and prepare all the food, care for the sick and keep everyone and everything as clean as possible. The male section made war and hunted, full stop.

So no, Africans are not lazy. The African males who still follow traditional ways possibly, but African females? Never.

I agree with you re African IQ though. The only difference between Africa and Europe is purely cultural, educational and enviromental.

African women do not own much, especially valued livestock. The elder of the village provides the land to men not women. Africa is still a traditional patriarchal society where the men have to pay the bridal fee to the bride's father. Cattle are very valuable in African tribal culture. The hunter-gatherer tribes are very few and can be found in isolated spots such as the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert and the San or Khoi-Khoi.

Antigone
01-09-11, 20:16
In some African tribes it is indeed the women who own the cattle and not the men as do the Maasai, for example.

But I think we are all guilty here of massive generalisations. Africa is a massive continent and is as diverse linguistically and culturally as Europe, if not more so, and to lump everyone together as "Africans" is rather counter-productive.

Here is a list of the ethnic groups inside Africa, I counted 86.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Tribes

LeBrok
01-09-11, 21:04
Lol, my perception of Africans is that they're lazy. I don't like to generalize, but I think it's (lazinees, unemployment etc.) more allowed and accepted in African and Middle Eastern cultures.

Why do you think people in the Western world and Japan are more developed? Discipline has been programmed into their minds.

I was born and raised in the USSR. If you was unemployed in the USSR you could go to jail. It is big contrast between USSR on one side and Africa or Middle East on the other.

Not IQ, but discipline is the magic word!

If you label people with words with socio-emotional context you will fail to understand how world really works. Word "Lazy" have a bad connotation, but it shouldn't. In nature there is no bad things or good things. They are just are different things. All things can be beneficial under right circumstances. For example "lazy", or rather energy conserving trait, can be a beneficial for individual or a group of people in certain environments. If you in Africa and work like workaholic in a middle of the day in +40C it can be fatal. Your workaholic genes are finished and not carried over to next generation.
Same thing in times of food scarcity. Running around like crazy looking for food that is not there will exhaust you and kill, together with your kids. Sitting around, conserving energy, often is more beneficial and lets you survive till next rain, or till next successful hunting. This is typical for Prairie Indians or Australia Aboriginies. Pure hunter-gatherers.
Most of Europeans will label them lazy, as per their mind set of Western hard working/production oriented philosophy of life.
Yes, it's true they are not adopted to western way of life. They are excellently adopted to their hunter-gatherer ways, and survived in local environments for tens of thousands of years. Now this their big success.

Now, before you start comparing others to western, as you put "developed" (most likely meaning "superior") ways of life, keep in mind that we are only "developed" for last couple of hundreds of years. It is a damn short time to decide if the new ways (superior ways) are good, meaning beneficial for our groups. If we survive ten of thousands of years, preferably a million, in this developed stage, then you can claim that.
Unfortunately, we got so developed that population of western countries are falling down in numbers. Japan from 120 million people in 80s, is down to 110 or 105 now. Europe is following this trend too. With this speed our developed civilization will vanish in couple of hundred of years.
Now tell me, is being developed a good thing or a bad one for our species?

As hunter-gatherers we existed for millions of years, as agriculturalists for 10 thousand, as technological society for couple of hundreds (and maybe near the end?). How do we measure success and superiority?
Keep in mind that life on earth is always about next generation. It's not about your happiness, or your culture, or language. It's about your genes, and your genes being carried over to next generation. If this principle is not fulfilled, your line is dead. If group fails, then your species can be wiped out too from this planet.
Life on earth is about next generation. Judging by this definition of life on earth and history of humans, we can conclude that so far we were the most successful when we were hunter-gatherers. We had more generations than agriculturalists and "developed" westerners combined.

Goga
01-09-11, 21:37
Thank you for your essay, I like your way of thinking.

But I do really think you made 1 mistake. In evolution is development / progression crucial. If you want that your species evolve you must be productive. If you aiming the creation of new values being lazy is forbidden.

I think that Nietsche was right when he defended the principles of the Zoroastrian religion.

Mzungu mchagga
01-09-11, 21:52
Woah, hang on a minute.

In the majority of African cultures it is traditionally the females who own and take care of the livestock, plant and take care of the crops, build the houses, weave the cloth and baskets, make all the pottery, care for and raise the children, cook and prepare all the food, care for the sick and keep everyone and everything as clean as possible. The male section made war and hunted, full stop.

So no, Africans are not lazy. The African males who still follow traditional ways possibly, but African females? Never.

I agree with you re African IQ though. The only difference between Africa and Europe is purely cultural, educational and enviromental.

That is very true! While many African males traditionally were hunters, warriors and herders (if they owned cattle), the women were responsible for the field work, children and preparation of food. Now that hunters, warriors and herders are not longer needed, and the unemployment rate is high, many men do... nothing! They meet their pals and if money is available, many also drink a lot. On the other hand, the tasks for women have been extended to a lot of household business, work on the market etc...

Basically I do think that a different perception of time and a highly relaxed mentality does have a limiting factor on a country's economy (among other things). Last year I gave a longer explanation to that circumstance in this thread:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26016-African-Culture-compared-to-European

LeBrok
02-09-11, 03:21
Thank you for your essay, I like your way of thinking.

But I do really think you made 1 mistake. In evolution is development / progression crucial. If you want that your species evolve you must be productive. If you aiming the creation of new values being lazy is forbidden.

I think that Nietsche was right when he defended the principles of the Zoroastrian religion.

Look at bacteria. On Earth for good 3 billion years (multi-cellular organisms date back 700 million years), and in quite unchanged form. Survived big disasters, climate changes, dinosaurs, etc, and it doesn't care if it's developed/progressed at all. I think this is the biggest success story of life on Earth. It can even survive in space without space suit for some time. Who knows, maybe it flew here on meteorite from Mars?
Regardless if it did or not, the simple bacteria shows us that development is not crucial for successful life at all. The advantage it has is in mutations (the way it fights antibiotics). When climate/environment changes there are always few bacterias that are ready for it in any time. Most likely dinosaurs didn't have this ability and when climate changed drastically 70 million years ago, they were not ready and died out.

I agree that in western, production oriented, technological society the energy conserving mode (laziness) is considered a bad thing. We shouldn't use it though as derogatory term describing people living in different environments and coming from different evolutionary backgrounds. ................geez, it sound freakishly politically correct, lol. (From now on there are no races, there are just different evolutionary backgrounds :).

Imagine developed world 100 or 1000 years from now. We have robots all over the place, working for us, slaving for us, cleaning for us. What people will do to fill a day? If you are genetically work oriented person, workaholic, you will be doomed. No productive work for you. Maybe a hobby, so these kind of people will have a hard time to live and enjoy life.
On other hand, lazy people will enjoy new life. They will be in heaven!
Depending on circumstances and environment, the lazy people can save our civilization, they will give it a purpose. They will be ready to fill new world, with perfect adaptation, like ever-ready ubiquitous bacteria. ;)

Antigone
02-09-11, 07:15
Imagine developed world 100 or 1000 years from now. We have robots all over the place, working for us, slaving for us, cleaning for us. What people will do to fill a day? If you are genetically work oriented person, workaholic, you will be doomed. No productive work for you. Maybe a hobby, so these kind of people will have a hard time to live and enjoy life.
On other hand, lazy people will enjoy new life. They will be in heaven!;)

I suppose we could say that man is still making tools, and has been busily doing it since someone first used a rock to crack open a nut. But we have gone from using tools to assist us in our survival to developing and using tools that do the work for us thus enabling us to do practically nothing.

So on some level, I'd contend that all humans are basically lazy. And we have taken the tool making to such an extreme that not only are our tools now designed to do the work for us but in developing robots, we have even made tools to make the tools!

LeBrok
02-09-11, 08:50
Exactly Antigone.
I would like to add that this is a back door to communism. Robots will produce goods that people will consume, but how do we divide them among citizens if nobody works for money? Maybe governments will give us points for good behavior, so we trade them for products?
The only just method will be to give goods equally to all. Money for free and goods for free, no one should complain to laud.
Funny thing is that communism only works if people don't have to work. If people work, sweat and suffer for money they don't want to share them too much.

LeBrok
02-09-11, 08:59
[QUOTE=Antigone;379191]Woah, hang on a minute.

In the majority of African cultures it is traditionally the females who own and take care of the livestock, plant and take care of the crops, build the houses, weave the cloth and baskets, make all the pottery, care for and raise the children, cook and prepare all the food, care for the sick and keep everyone and everything as clean as possible. The male section made war and hunted, full stop.

QUOTE]

Right on. I think that women were the first farmers, not men. They were the first to tend to gardens, seed and harvest wheats, serials and vegetables in fields around houses.

Mzungu mchagga
02-09-11, 12:37
I agree that in western, production oriented, technological society the energy conserving mode (laziness) is considered a bad thing. We shouldn't use it though as derogatory term describing people living in different environments and coming from different evolutionary backgrounds. ................geez, it sound freakishly politically correct, lol. (From now on there are no races, there are just different evolutionary backgrounds :).


:laughing: I will have to remember that one: DEB (different evolutionary background) in energy conserving mode

Antigone
02-09-11, 17:01
Does he come with a green label too, because energy conservation is enviromentally friendly?

Sorry, couldn't resist the joke!

But yes Lebrok, I think women were the first farmers too. If men were the protectors and hunters, I don't see how it could have been otherwise.

ultralars
02-09-11, 17:13
Haha good one antigone xD

Bodin
02-09-11, 18:50
Bodin, keep in mind that fertile crescent was most fertile between 5000 to 1000 BC. Then the climate shifted and crescent became dryer than before producing fewer crops. The crescent become less agricultural with times. It was reversed in Europe where last 3000 years are most agricultural ever. Europe became extremely intense agriculturally in last 3000 years, and crescent become less. Basically it is the point in time when "glory" and history of Europe starts, and Babylon, Assyria, Egypt fade away.
If you can, find some statistics of agricultural production of Europe and Fertile Crescent, even from 100 or 200 years ago and you'll see what is intense agriculturalisem in Europe compared to crescent. Probably the population count will do the trick. There were always as many people in countries as they could feed. So you can compare number of cities or big cities in both areas.
Europe is roughly 10 times bigger than fertile crescent, therefore even in big disasters or wars, there are more pockets for farmers to survive and rebuild. There was no one ruler or army that conquered whole Europe ever, unlike Crescent which was under one ruler many times.
Europe is in very blessed position for agriculture. You can plan your crops year after year and expect similar weather conditions, and same results. There are rarely big droughts or locust killing your crops. Climate stability is the trick.
Now look at Africa. The only part of Africa with fairly stable climate is Zimbabwe, the former food basket of this continent. The rest can experience weather extremes that can last for decades, like droughts. Even in good years your good crops can be eaten away by locust or 10 000 strong flock of antelopes. You have desert in 1/3 of Africa, 1/3 a jungle and 1/3 not bad for crops, but everything alive wants to eat it too. That's why agriculture was always very sparse and in between in Africa. It is there but it is a far cry from intense European agriculture. There is a reason why Europe and East Asia are the most populated places on Earth. It is a food production. If not anti-conception, and population control, there would be twice as many, or more, Europeans and East Asians now.
There are always few phenomenons in the world, but this shows a general trend.
Greeks invented theater and actors, but who makes more money on it now? Who feeds millions from this invention at the moment? California. Can you say "intensity"?



Agriculturalisem gives people who embraced it a huge advantage in survival. There is no way people will missed or avoid this opportunity. If there are no agriculturalists in some regions of this planet, is just because the conditions are not suitable to lead this lifestyle. It is simple like this. If Japanese do agriculturalisem then it means that it works there, period. If Eskimos don't do it, we know they are not able. Heck, the Vikings tried it on Greenland, and we know the results. This is not a matter of free choice, this is a matter of surviving and natural selection, surviving of most adopted to the environment.



I wasn't arguing about how useful the knowledge was in communist schools. Even the pure memorization of useless material trains the brain and improves memory. It makes easier to memorize useful material in future when time comes. Same as training your muscles.
Also IQ tests don't test real world knowledge or skills. Mainly IQ tests logic with numbers, words and associations. In this regard socialistic schools were pretty good preparing pupils for IQ test.
What I tried to say is that Fertile Crescent peoples eat cerials allready over 10.000 years and most of Europeans not more than 4000 years (IE) .Still today Asians use more cerials in diet then Europeans
Egypt faded away because he have never left Stone Age . And Assyria and Babylon were conquered by newcoming IE nations-Medes and Persians.
What about India which is equaly fertile like Europe and had smaller IQ, Japanes eat less cerials then both Europeans and Indians and they have higher IQ, they diet is mostly sea food , why Scandianavians and Irish had such big IQ when there was never high scale agriculture , up to XX century there was comon hungers.
No you cant train your brain especialy by memorizing that concept is left by Pedagogy and Sociology in XIX century
Thanks for answering

ultralars
02-09-11, 19:03
Of course you can " train " your brain, why do you think you get better at typing at a computer by doing it often?

Also, you will get quicker at arithmetic if you do it often, It's adaption. It's the end result of millions of years of evolution.

Saying that the brain wont adapt to challenge and is set from birth is ridiculous.

Bodin
02-09-11, 19:36
If you label people with words with socio-emotional context you will fail to understand how world really works. Word "Lazy" have a bad connotation, but it shouldn't. In nature there is no bad things or good things. They are just are different things. All things can be beneficial under right circumstances. For example "lazy", or rather energy conserving trait, can be a beneficial for individual or a group of people in certain environments. If you in Africa and work like workaholic in a middle of the day in +40C it can be fatal. Your workaholic genes are finished and not carried over to next generation.
Same thing in times of food scarcity. Running around like crazy looking for food that is not there will exhaust you and kill, together with your kids. Sitting around, conserving energy, often is more beneficial and lets you survive till next rain, or till next successful hunting. This is typical for Prairie Indians or Australia Aboriginies. Pure hunter-gatherers.
Most of Europeans will label them lazy, as per their mind set of Western hard working/production oriented philosophy of life.
Yes, it's true they are not adopted to western way of life. They are excellently adopted to their hunter-gatherer ways, and survived in local environments for tens of thousands of years. Now this their big success.

Now, before you start comparing others to western, as you put "developed" (most likely meaning "superior") ways of life, keep in mind that we are only "developed" for last couple of hundreds of years. It is a damn short time to decide if the new ways (superior ways) are good, meaning beneficial for our groups. If we survive ten of thousands of years, preferably a million, in this developed stage, then you can claim that.
Unfortunately, we got so developed that population of western countries are falling down in numbers. Japan from 120 million people in 80s, is down to 110 or 105 now. Europe is following this trend too. With this speed our developed civilization will vanish in couple of hundred of years.
Now tell me, is being developed a good thing or a bad one for our species?

As hunter-gatherers we existed for millions of years, as agriculturalists for 10 thousand, as technological society for couple of hundreds (and maybe near the end?). How do we measure success and superiority?
Keep in mind that life on earth is always about next generation. It's not about your happiness, or your culture, or language. It's about your genes, and your genes being carried over to next generation. If this principle is not fulfilled, your line is dead. If group fails, then your species can be wiped out too from this planet.
Life on earth is about next generation. Judging by this definition of life on earth and history of humans, we can conclude that so far we were the most successful when we were hunter-gatherers. We had more generations than agriculturalists and "developed" westerners combined.
No we are not , Europe in age of hunter-gatherers had about million inhabitants , only after industrial revolution population boom has hapened.TThere is also many of nonreproductive population -over 50 in Europe , Australia and North America than in rest of the world- result of inproved medicine . Aldo I agreed with you European countries need to give more attention to renewing generations ( taxes for mans and womans who do not have childs after 23 , and using that money for helping parents ; forbiding of abortions unless it is for helt , and forming state institutions that would take care of such childrens - simillar to lebensborn in Nazi Germany ; Also there is another god idea from Nazi Germany and Faschist Italy - medals for mothers that born 3 or more childs and what is more important state penzions with medals (they can work receiving these pensions) ; ...)
5097
Cross of Mothers

Mzungu mchagga
02-09-11, 19:56
IQ is not static but changes all the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

We can't measure an average IQ of a population and expect the same result like 50 years later or earlier. Even within just four years you can measure differences (according to the results of Richard Lynn). It is all about nutrition an environmental input.

Bodin
02-09-11, 21:31
Sorry I expresed myself badly , yes you can train your brain , but in sence of knowledge and skils not in sence of smarts , otherwise mental deficiency would be curable.And memorising -repeating of dry facts wont develope any skill or knowledge unless it is conected with practical use.
Someone mention something about bacterias not changing , bacterias changing every day , thats the reason are medicaments dont work so good anymore , bacterias geting imune on them.
Thanks for answering

himagain
08-01-12, 03:59
There are statistics that say Negroid races do not attain quite the same scores as Caucasians.
This is statistics and statistics are open to manipulation and mistakes. I can assure you that
there are blacks in Mensa and they are intellectually the same as white Ms. One of them
has been editor of the Southeast Michigan Mensa group newsletter for many years. We just
see her as one of us. I wonder why it needs to be discussed?

hope
14-04-12, 18:54
If you label people with words with socio-emotional context you will fail to understand how world really works. Word "Lazy" have a bad connotation, but it shouldn't. In nature there is no bad things or good things. They are just are different things. All things can be beneficial under right circumstances. For example "lazy", or rather energy conserving trait, can be a beneficial for individual or a group of people in certain environments. If you in Africa and work like workaholic in a middle of the day in +40C it can be fatal. Your workaholic genes are finished and not carried over to next generation.
Same thing in times of food scarcity. Running around like crazy looking for food that is not there will exhaust you and kill, together with your kids. Sitting around, conserving energy, often is more beneficial and lets you survive till next rain, or till next successful hunting. This is typical for Prairie Indians or Australia Aboriginies. Pure hunter-gatherers.
Most of Europeans will label them lazy, as per their mind set of Western hard working/production oriented philosophy of life.
Yes, it's true they are not adopted to western way of life. They are excellently adopted to their hunter-gatherer ways, and survived in local environments for tens of thousands of years. Now this their big success.

Now, before you start comparing others to western, as you put "developed" (most likely meaning "superior") ways of life, keep in mind that we are only "developed" for last couple of hundreds of years. It is a damn short time to decide if the new ways (superior ways) are good, meaning beneficial for our groups. If we survive ten of thousands of years, preferably a million, in this developed stage, then you can claim that.
Unfortunately, we got so developed that population of western countries are falling down in numbers. Japan from 120 million people in 80s, is down to 110 or 105 now. Europe is following this trend too. With this speed our developed civilization will vanish in couple of hundred of years.
Now tell me, is being developed a good thing or a bad one for our species?

As hunter-gatherers we existed for millions of years, as agriculturalists for 10 thousand, as technological society for couple of hundreds (and maybe near the end?). How do we measure success and superiority?
Keep in mind that life on earth is always about next generation. It's not about your happiness, or your culture, or language. It's about your genes, and your genes being carried over to next generation. If this principle is not fulfilled, your line is dead. If group fails, then your species can be wiped out too from this planet.
Life on earth is about next generation. Judging by this definition of life on earth and history of humans, we can conclude that so far we were the most successful when we were hunter-gatherers. We had more generations than agriculturalists and "developed" westerners combined.

As one who believes in "conserving" energy as often as possible, it is good to know how much I am doing for the future of man-kind!
On a more serious note however, I do worry where our "development" as humans is taking us .
Whilst the advances made in medicine, technology and science are indeed wonderful, I worry that we are maybe overstepping ourselves, becoming detached from consequences of such "development" We have polluted the sea and air (not to mention the space junk now floating around) We are depleting earths resources at a shocking rate and planting some trees or using energy saving devices may not be enough to balance this now.
No, I would not wish us back to the dark ages and yes, I have benefited from technological and scientific progress but I wonder if our development is not leading to our downfall as a species.

wormhole
10-08-12, 01:23
Yes, of course there is. It's been well documented numerous amounts of times as well. The pecking order for intelligence in relation to brain size have Asians on top by a bit, Caucasoids, and then Negroes coming in last. It's not racist, it's just fact.

Knovas
10-08-12, 14:29
Yes, of course there is. It's been well documented numerous amounts of times as well. The pecking order for intelligence in relation to brain size have Asians on top by a bit, Caucasoids, and then Negroes coming in last. It's not racist, it's just fact.
:D

Now seriosly, ¿what else is required to ban this guy? There are no facts concerning people's intelligence, since IQ tests are made by Westerners most times and, hence, they'll favor White Americans, Europeans, etc. Asimov was so critic with this kind of tests, even when he got very high scores in all of them. No, it's not fact, just a point of view.

sparkey
10-08-12, 17:23
Yes, of course there is. It's been well documented numerous amounts of times as well. The pecking order for intelligence in relation to brain size have Asians on top by a bit, Caucasoids, and then Negroes coming in last. It's not racist, it's just fact.

Show us the proof, then. Where's the study that demonstrates this "pecking order," which eliminates all other possible variables?

To be clear, I don't doubt that intelligence is largely genetic, in the same way that, say, strength is... it can be conditioned, but there must be a predisposition based on genes. The trouble is, it's extremely difficult to eliminate environmental variables in studies. Even in those that have taken children of different races raised by the same parents, you're not eliminating how children of different races will be treated differently by the same parents, or at school.

oriental
11-09-12, 00:29
"...there was never an African as smart as Einstein..."

Albert Einstein is Hg E1b1b1 so he is of African descent as well Napolean Bonaparte, Wright Brothers, Adolf Hitler and former President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

MOESAN
11-09-12, 13:14
"...there was never an African as smart as Einstein..."

Albert Einstein is Hg E1b1b1 so he is of African descent as well Napolean Bonaparte, Wright Brothers, Adolf Hitler and former President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

1- the poeple you refer to was not "african" and lesser "negroid" - stop all that nonsense : if intelligence is under genetic hereditage control for a part, it depends surely on a lot of interactions between autosomals and not only on a Y-DNA unique influence
2- I think intelligence is for a part depending on genetic heritage, for an other part on environment, cultural and everyday life background, climate and so on... all that modifying slowly genetic heritage in ancient times
3- "intelligence" is multiform and very uneasy to determine, the most of previous criteria for IQ was cultural biased even if they can reveal some skills on some directions
4- yes, COON was right when he said cold climate SELECTED people are as a whole more active than warm people SELECTED people; more intelligent? maybe, but it is still to be proved...
5- is hyper-industrial-activity a proof of intelligence? I'm not sure at all...
6- the improvment in human society seams to me linked better to moderate climates than to true cold (harsh) climates: it is evident enough - but when we compare civilisations births and places of birth, let's not forget that climate changed more than a time in regions of our earth! I think some problems send ameliorations by reaction, too much problems don't: it is like sport and too hard competition...
to conclude because I find this thread very sliding: I personally prefer honest sincere "middle" intelligent people to materialist egoistic ice-heartened genial people (a lot of adjectives: my curious english!)

good appetite

joeyc
23-10-14, 09:09
E* is west eursian. Modern West Africans rich in E* are half way between West Eurasians and Pigmy rich in A* and B*. East Africans are intermediate between West Africans and West Eurasians. Arabs and North Africans are intermediate between Europeans and East Africans. Also some East Eurasians have some West Eurasian ancestry because of ANE and R-Q-O haplotypes.

http://i.imgur.com/dGuHIrX.png

oreo_cookie
29-10-14, 23:42
For IQ and race to be proven to be correlated, you'd have to hold every other variable constant, in a controlled study. Unless this has happened, I am skeptical of the idea that there is any direct correlation.

LeBrok
30-10-14, 00:37
For IQ and race to be proven to be correlated, you'd have to hold every other variable constant, in a controlled study. Unless this has happened, I am skeptical of the idea that there is any direct correlation.
I know you indulge in phenotypical differences among people. You should agree with me that these differences are caused by genetic inheritance from parents, races, different populations, ethnicities, etc. In this case, if you believe that genes are behind phenotypical differences of races in colours, shapes of head, nose, hair, etc, why would you think that all races have exactly same brains? If anything genetics tells us otherwise, and it would be quite big coincidence if all races had similar IQ to couple of points. I'm hoping for this coincidence, but so far many things point that my hopes are misplaced.

oreo_cookie
30-10-14, 01:34
I am not a cultural relativist but I have to say that since the IQ test is a western construct, it seems unlikely that you could administer it to people from places where the styles of learning have always been very different (often oral rather than written) and expect them to do well.

arvistro
30-10-14, 08:45
I know you indulge in phenotypical differences among people. You should agree with me that these differences are caused by genetic inheritance from parents, races, different populations, ethnicities, etc. In this case, if you believe that genes are behind phenotypical differences of races in colours, shapes of head, nose, hair, etc, why would you think that all races have exactly same brains?
This is the main point. There are differences. It is perfectly logical. Even if IQ tests suck to find that out or variables cant be controlled for.

However we don't go any further because whilst it would work statistically it would discriminate individually. Because inter race variance might be much higher than one between the races.

oreo_cookie
22-11-14, 04:34
However we don't go any further because whilst it would work statistically it would discriminate individually. Because inter race variance might be much higher than one between the races.

Most definitely. IQ tests are easier for people who have been educated in a certain fashion, consistent with high-quality Western education. The issue is, since those in the US with higher access to education tend to be whites, particularly those whose families have more money, this might skew group statistics.

laetoli
14-04-16, 15:03
IQ is the measure of ability to do IQ tests. E.G.Boring
The Flynn Effect (where IQ is seen to rise with each successive generation) implies that whatever IQ tests actually measure is a cultural artifact and can be learned. Clearly, environmental factors influence the variety of differing "intelligences" observed across the world.

laetoli
14-04-16, 15:11
The lowest achieving group in British schools is white working class. The highest achieving group in the Catholic girls' school, at which my wife teaches, is Nigerian and the lowest, the traveller community.

Angela
14-04-16, 15:42
The only kind of "intelligence testing" that should be used is the kind done by educational psychologists in schools, i.e. one to one, taking a couple of hours, measuring things like digit recall, visual spatial reasoning, and on and on. The reason "paper and pen" or now, computer testing is used is because the former is impractical on the scale which would be necessary.

As for your British school results example, I think what happens with immigration is that if there are controls in place the people who migrate are often among the best and brightest from their home countries. That's the case here with Indian immigration, for example, where their educational achievements and financial success are higher than the norm for "white" Americans. The same is true with Jamaicans, who do much better than African-Americans. However, that says nothing about the intellectual superiority of Indians as a whole, as all the immigrants are from higher castes and arrive with a certain level of education. Mexican Americans score much lower, but we get huge numbers of very poor, unskilled people from Mexico as there are no controls, most of them arriving illegally.

Garrick
28-04-16, 00:08
The lowest achieving group in British schools is white working class. The highest achieving group in the Catholic girls' school, at which my wife teaches, is Nigerian and the lowest, the traveller community.

If it is true (but it must be proved, which source?) it means that societal environment affects intelligence.

And Indians told me that in India there is difference in intelligence between casts (I don't know which scientific source they used).

White British working class and middle class and capitalist class (honestly I don't like to use term "class") have similar genetics and haplogroups (or maybe it is not true) and what makes a difference is social position, please give us source, research, study, it is very interesting.

Tomenable
28-04-16, 00:32
However, that says nothing about the intellectual superiority of Indians as a whole

In India itself there are stark contrasts between IQ scores of various caste groups.

It's a country of both Brahmins and Gypsies. Actually Gypsies came from Pakistan:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(12)01260-2

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048477

Note that average Gypsy IQ is 70, one SD below African-American (which is 85):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001097

And this is despite the fact that Gypsies are also heavily European-admixed.

But they probably mixed only with with low-intelligence European individuals.

==========================

Detroit is a really luxurious high class urban metropoly compared to Roma towns:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUh-WY98jeU

But remember that the Roma / Gypsies used to be nomadic people until very recently:

So this kind of modern sedentary lifestyle is not something that they are used to:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUh-WY98jeU

Tomenable
28-04-16, 00:40
BTW - I voted "Not sure" in the poll.

I think that IQ is not inherently related to race, but to bio-cultural evolution in more recent times (i.e. after major races emerged).

Civilization accelerated evolution, etc.

LeBrok
28-04-16, 05:22
In India itself there are stark contrasts between IQ scores of various caste groups.

It's a country of both Brahmins and Gypsies. Actually Gypsies came from Pakistan:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(12)01260-2

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048477

Note that average Gypsy IQ is 70, one SD below African-American (which is 85):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001097

And this is despite the fact that Gypsies are also heavily European-admixed.

But they probably mixed only with with low-intelligence European individuals.

==========================

Detroit is a really luxurious high class urban metropoly compared to Roma towns:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUh-WY98jeU

But remember that the Roma / Gypsies used to be nomadic people until very recently:

So this kind of modern sedentary lifestyle is not something that they are used to:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUh-WY98jeU
Perhaps the 70 IQ means state of brain without proper education? It is also possible that smarter Gypsies got assimilated and not so smart are stuck in old ways of life. Who knows. However they always existed in the bottom economic margin of society, in every country.

halfalp
13-01-17, 22:59
Actually Fennoscandinavians and East Asians ( Koreans, Japaneses ) have the highest IQ on earth, so it's possible, that " mongoloïds ? " have a substantial more intellectual brain than other humans, it can be, because paleo-siberians with cold climate has to be more inovative for survivance than other tribes. But if you see amerindians, who had amazing pre-colombian civilizations and mongoloid origin, are somewhat reduced, intellectualy, but in a social context ( very low way of life, compare to europe or far east ). The best exemple stay Africans, the fusion between low inovation of hunter-gatherers with " segregation ? " over the years can have reduced africans to be very naturalistic. If you look about african apport in the world ( without egyptians ) you see, that they are more naturalists than intellectual. We know them for dance, music, charisma, singing, etc all naturalistic behavior, i'm personnally not very receptive to this, but a lot of woman of different origin are. So conclusion, intellect stricto sensus, seems to be more like a multi reasons reality ( social environnement, life level, interest of discoveries, good spacial perception, general cultural traits ). Im often that a civilization with Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite gonna be less intellectual, than a society like china or india, where Honnor and Shame, against the family or the clan, is an total insult.

MarkoZ
14-01-17, 08:21
Raw IQ (i. e. IQ sans educational achievement) scores don't usually show Fennoscandians come out on top. Even the obviously biased Lynn & Vanhannen have North Italians as the 'smartest' Europeans. Now I don't believe that the IQ is set in stone, but we should at least be consistent when discussing these things.

firetown
14-01-17, 12:02
I forgot when it was and who did it, but someone shared a map with me once that indicated IQ by nation. I would be more interested in the following:
EQ by country
I have lived in several countries and the common sense level seems to variate. And I have to tell you that some of the nations scoring high in IQ according to the map ... well, i would list them not on top for anything related to EQ.
EQ in my opinion shows when presented with a situation you are not prepared for or trained in.
Also it would be great to be able to measure a few ways regarding accomplishment vs. obstacles. It is quite different to have a regular career in let's say northern Europe where the government more or less sets the track for anyone able to pass the educational hurdles to let's say a nation where you first have to hustle up the cash to even afford to be able to get such an opportunity.
It would be great to measure something like a PQ. Potential Quotient. :)
Because then we would have something really worth looking at in term of who for example we should really pay attention to when it comes to hiring new people and wanting the type that gets things done ... not just those who are good at what they are trained in but might be completely unable when it comes to implementing their knowledge into a business environment and applying it to unexpected situations.

halfalp
14-01-17, 20:35
In video game buisness, we always say " run when you see koreans or finnish ". Simple joke, yes, fennoscandinavians, have a very good social and educational system, so in this case, the IQ can be biased, by social advance, but in any case, there is some strange issues along mongoloid people ( High IQ, High suicial incidence. )

Angela
14-01-17, 21:44
Raw IQ (i. e. IQ sans educational achievement) scores don't usually show Fennoscandians come out on top. Even the obviously biased Lynn & Vanhannen have North Italians as the 'smartest' Europeans. Now I don't believe that the IQ is set in stone, but we should at least be consistent when discussing these things.

Indeed, and I don't think they have much "Mongoloid" ancestry. (Italians in general also have pretty low suicide rates.)

Also, just as people don't understand or acknowledge the difference between scores on educational achievement tests versus IQ tests, they also don't understand that there could be a difference in IQ between mass administered standardized IQ tests and a full battery of tests one on one with an educational psychiatrist.