Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
How is race not a biological category ? If race is not biological then what it is ?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?
Well yes but the fact that an African person and a European have different physical appearance is entirely biological, not a social construct.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.
You shouldn't be surprised in the least... :innocent:
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.
He insulted all the iberian members of this forum, here is an example :I haven't figured out what you are supposed to apologize for but you really should. :innocent:
lol, he's trying to annoy me, that's all.
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.
This thread has been viewed 129681 times.