|
Post by Graeme on Feb 16, 2004 8:15:40 GMT -5
We are concerned with IQ not physical abilities to run fast or throw javelins. Intelligence as measured by various tests, most of which have a cultural, educational and age bias, do have a spread of results known as the Bell graph or normal distribution. Different age groups, nationalities, ethnic groups and residents of different parts of the country will display slightly different results for the same tests. The main thing is that most groups overlap in their distribution, with most people occupying the same area irregardless of their race or other factors.
From my limited knowledge of the USA, I know only New York State, Florida and the Pacific North West, I would have to say that English speaking caucasions are better off than the American coloured or any Spanish speakers. The life outcomes are different between the "ethnic groups" in the USA. So it is not unexpected that the American coloured does not perform as well as English speaking caucasians. As for mongoloids, they are not very fairly represented in the USA. I expect a lot are in business or professional jobs and few in labouring jobs. As a group, mongoloids have a long history of an appreciation of education and its benefits. How would the Penn. Dutch who lead a traditional life perform in an IQ test? Pretty bad I suspect.
|
|
|
Post by Springa on Feb 16, 2004 23:20:39 GMT -5
True. Until college I was always a terrible student, because I had other interests. I was so bad that the school sent me to a psychologist and after tons of tests she atested my IQ was 178. So I stopped being treated like a problem child and became the "excentric" of the class. Meanwhile, most of the good students grew up to become ignorant, uninteresting, unintelligent adults. Probably because good students, under a dumb school system, are usually conformists. Aye! I completely agree. There were quite a few great men through history who didn't do good at school, but later on proved their genius. A natural born rebel will surely do bad at some conformist institution, no matter how high his IQ is.
|
|
|
Post by nunobento on Feb 17, 2004 8:31:19 GMT -5
Springa,
You have provided me with the best example of why this subject is important. I am guessing that doing your IQ test was a positive turning point in your life.
My whole motive for bringing up this subject is to make other people, who have the same problems as you had, realise that problems at school etc aren't always the failures they can be made out to be.
The point discussing genetic differences is not to give one race an excuse to lord it over another race, but it is to make people understand why they aren't fulfilling their potential. The African race as a whole just happen to be a good example, because of their genetic profile.
Thanks Nuno Bento
|
|
|
Post by galvez on Feb 18, 2004 4:22:34 GMT -5
To get the results you want, you appear to be stretching the meaning of intelligence. For example, you cite a study on memory, which is a very limited aspect of intelligence. Others took you (as I recall) to task over your claim that athletic ability is an aspect of intelligence. Additionally, IQ scores fluctuate somewhat from childhood to adulthood, so you might just be taking the scores of one study at one point and neglecting where the scores eventually settled due to the maturing of the subjects.
|
|
|
Post by nunobento on Feb 18, 2004 15:48:47 GMT -5
Galvez - your comments are a bit of a distortion of what I have said on my website.
As regards the memory test, my website says:
"It turned out that it was not better memories that enabled them (the Aboriginals) to perform this feat, but they used better thought processes to remember the location of the pieces."
I never attempted to say that memory is an aspect of intelligence, but better thought processes certainly are.
Also, I did not say that athletic ability is a sign of intelligence. What I did say is that athletic ability AND intelligence are probably both related to the higher variability found in the African genome. There is yet no definitive proof of that, but the emerging evidence is pointing towards that trend.
This subject is so new, there is as yet no conclusive proof of any of this, but the early evidence shows that this is the likely outcome.
|
|
Marina
Full Member
Just call me French-Hammerette!
Posts: 245
|
Post by Marina on Feb 18, 2004 21:09:41 GMT -5
On average, Orientals are slower to mature I know this is slightly off-topic, but East Asians (like Koreans) become sexually mature very early...
|
|
|
Post by nunobento on Feb 22, 2004 9:40:55 GMT -5
Marina,
I'm not sure how the genetic framework affects sexual maturity - as it affects almost everything about us, I'm pretty sure it does have some sort of effect.
I know for definite that the genetic framework affects the ageing process, which is why British women age better than Asian and Latin women, which is what has given rise to the term English Rose.
|
|
|
Post by devilsadvocate on Feb 24, 2004 0:59:17 GMT -5
It is not a mans ancestors or relatives or genes or body chemistry that should count in society, but only one human attribute... Individual ability, and ambition. Jnb421, all you promote with what you suggest is a racial ideal, your promotions-promote racism, and seperation. What you promote should not be considered, it is anti-productive as much as it is irrelevant.
I will state a moron is a moron no matter how many genius's are in his/her group. A genius is still a genius no matter how many morons are in the group. And to piggy back on that.... An average individual is still average no matter how many of either extreme exist in that group. The point here is that it is very obvious in society that no one groups ability is more dominant than another when it comes to an individuals ability to succeed. If it were true then one group would dominate another strictly on the basis of ability. Here is another way to look at it... Every racial group has individuals at every end of the spectrum. Since this is the case again obviously the group is ambiguous, and if color were not taken into acount, the grouping would consist of a lumping of the races. To apply a dominance by group on the basis of genetics is ignorant and plainly wrong. It also falsely applys racial seperation on false science.
TEXT
|
|
|
Post by devilsadvocate on Feb 24, 2004 1:02:51 GMT -5
Here is an example of why your conclusions are absolutely wrong... This is a paragraph from Steven Pinkers the Blank Slate... Steven Pinkers credentials are... He is a Professor of psychology at Harvard University. His book HOW THE MIND WORKS was a finalist for the Pulit'ser Prize. "If people differ genetically in intelligence and charachter, could we selectively breed for smarter and nicer people? Possibly, though the intracacies of genetics and development would make it far harder than the fans of eugenics imagined. Selective breeding is straightforward for genes with additive effects-that is, genes that have the same impact regardless of other genes in the genome. Some traits such as scientific genius, athletic virtuosity, and musical giftedness, are what behavioral geneticists call emergenic: They materialize only with certain combinations of genes and therefore don't "breed true". Moreover, a given gene can lead to different behavior in different environments. When the biochemist George Wald was solicited for a semen sample by William Shockley's sperm bank for Nobel Prize-winning scientists, he replied, "if you want sperm that produces Nobel Prize winners you should be contacting people like my father, a poor immigrant tailor. What have my sperm given the world? Two guitarists!" Now since we can not assume that even a direct line produces a certain I.Q. Potential, why should we consider the idea that an entire race produces a higher I.Q. level? This alone invalidates your entire postition.
|
|
Sandwich
Full Member
La pens?e d'un homme est avant tout sa nostalgie
Posts: 208
|
Post by Sandwich on Mar 13, 2004 7:20:09 GMT -5
I don't know if trainability=intelligence, but if it is, you can breed for it in dogs. Collies are highly trainable, Afghan Hounds aren't.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Mar 13, 2004 21:31:10 GMT -5
Here is an example of why your conclusions are absolutely wrong... This is a paragraph from Steven Pinkers the Blank Slate... Steven Pinkers credentials are... He is a Professor of psychology at Harvard University. His book HOW THE MIND WORKS was a finalist for the Pulit'ser Prize. "If people differ genetically in intelligence and charachter, could we selectively breed for smarter and nicer people? Possibly, though the intracacies of genetics and development would make it far harder than the fans of eugenics imagined. Selective breeding is straightforward for genes with additive effects-that is, genes that have the same impact regardless of other genes in the genome. Some traits such as scientific genius, athletic virtuosity, and musical giftedness, are what behavioral geneticists call emergenic: They materialize only with certain combinations of genes and therefore don't "breed true". Moreover, a given gene can lead to different behavior in different environments. When the biochemist George Wald was solicited for a semen sample by William Shockley's sperm bank for Nobel Prize-winning scientists, he replied, "if you want sperm that produces Nobel Prize winners you should be contacting people like my father, a poor immigrant tailor. What have my sperm given the world? Two guitarists!" Now since we can not assume that even a direct line produces a certain I.Q. Potential, why should we consider the idea that an entire race produces a higher I.Q. level? This alone invalidates your entire postition. You just reminded me of an anecdote involving George Bernard Shaw I read years ago. I do not remember it well but it is roughly as follows: Beautiful young actress: We should have a child together. Just imagine what a wonderful creature it would be with my beauty and your intelligence. G.B.S. : The only thing preventing me is the possibility the child might inherit my beauty and your intelligence. (G.B.S. was notoriously ugly)
|
|
|
Post by SwordandCompass on Jul 19, 2004 20:40:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fatman213 on Jul 19, 2004 23:40:01 GMT -5
Regression analysis is what was used by the authors of the Bell Curve. Though I have read most of it online--- I have not read the whole thing. Thus, I suspect the data that goes into the model is skewed. Consider that in the 1920's, JEWS, Italians and East Euros were considered inferior races by the eugenicists of the day. Also, I would point to Jaimie Escalante---the East Los Angeles math teacher who took a bunch of inner city kids and made them students able to pass the Calculus Advanced Placement tests--getting College credit. His efforts were immortalized in the movie; stand and deliver. I really have no time to delve into the actual regression analysis used by the authors of the bell curve . I will note however that the University of Texas projects that by 2040, the MAJORITY of Texas college students wil be "Latinos". txsdc.tamu.edu/Hell by that time, so will a LARGE % of USA graduate students!
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Jul 24, 2004 2:32:03 GMT -5
Asians are overrated. It seems a huge amount of northeastern Asians go into engineering, etc. Because northeastern Asians (and Amerindians too I've heard, although, I've seen no evidence at all) have a very significant discrepancy between their 'verbal' IQs and the 'mathematical' IQs. Their high math IQs bring them up over caucasoids. Ashkenazi Jews have the highest overall IQ of any group in the world, I've heard--and it shows. It has been shown, however, that Verbal IQ - whether its genetically or environmentally derived or not - correlates with GDP nicely. Asian countries with low vIQs do terribly compared to European countries, who have the highest vIQ. I've had these three from where I got this bookmarked for the longest while--probably should have reread them before posting this-- nicologic.free.fr/GeneralIntelligence.htmWhy Asians Lag: www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2.htmSOME THOUGHTS ABOUT JEWS, IQ AND NOBEL LAUREATES : www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/dialogue.htm
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Jul 24, 2004 2:50:26 GMT -5
In my opinion--intellegence is half and half, but leans towards environment. But the discrepency amongst the races--that's the actual question, I think. I think it's signicantly genetic. I also have seen educated legal immigrants to the US from Haiti, Cuba, the rest of Latin America, and they were all studious and did much better than the average, but not much has that to do with actual intellegence I think. What I mean by significant is certain Asians groups all go into one type of field--why don't Domicans go into engineering? Genetics.
|
|