Race and IQ

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.

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.

Sure, why would different racial groups have the same IQs?

It is fantasy to deny racial differences.

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.

(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.

edao said:

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?

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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...

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.

Cambria Red said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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?

I've heard that East Asians have largest IQ.Urban legend or truth?

Joro said:

I've heard that East Asians have largest IQ.Urban legend or truth?

Click to expand...

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.

willy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Starship said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Joro said:

I've heard that East Asians have largest IQ.Urban legend or truth?

Click to expand...

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.

LeBrok said:

Exactly my thoughts.
Agriculture promotes intelligence, in meaning of acquiring resources, planning for the future (climate related), entrepreneurship, learning.

Click to expand...

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 ...

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.

Gwyllgi said:

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.

Click to expand...

My maths teacher always raved about how far-easterners are by far the the best in international mathemathics competitions...

Joro said:

My maths teacher always raved about how far-easterners are by far the the best in international mathemathics competitions...

Click to expand...

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 .