Race and IQ

[willy]

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]

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]

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]

And from that you deduce what exactly?

that they are more intelligent:grin:

 

[Gwyllgi]

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]

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]

"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 pointshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#cite_note-51. 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

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.

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

 

[willy]

and about haplogroups ? R1b has a higher Level than a R1a ?

 

[Gwyllgi]

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]

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]

Here is the answer: East Germany IQ=96 | West Germany IQ = 107

 

[willy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Most of sub-Saharan Africa is Christian. Little of it is Islamic.

 

[Gwyllgi]

Most of sub-Saharan Africa is Christian. Little of it is Islamic.

Let's start with Nigeria.

 

[LeBrok]

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]

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