Race and IQ

[willy]

the most intelligent is the most adaptive to change

 

[LeBrok]

hard to argue with that

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

the most intelligent is the most adaptive to change

Also, how well and how quickly you adapt.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

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 ^]

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.

 

[^ lynx ^]

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/art...claiming-white-people-intelligent-blacks.html

Oh dear, has the world gone completely mad? 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]

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 ^]

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]

“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 ^]

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.


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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.


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 ^]

My bad. You're totally right Aristander.

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

Greetings.

 

[Carlitos]

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]

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!

 

[LeBrok]

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]

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!

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.