Race and IQ

[edao]

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]

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]

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]

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 etrified:

 

[Sirius2b]

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 and Charles Murray.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ). 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]

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 ^]

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.

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?

 

[LeBrok]

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 ^]

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]

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]

I think the development of intelligence is influenced by social, not genetic.

 

[^ lynx ^]

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 ^]

I think the development of intelligence is influenced by social, not genetic.

 

[^ lynx ^]

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)]

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)]

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?