|
Post by Caligastia on Feb 22, 2005 16:34:55 GMT -5
Hi folks, this is my first post. I have been interested in racial issues for a while now, and found this site particularly interesting, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of race and whether or not the average intelligence of the races are different.
Personally, I don't see how every racial group can have the same average intelligence when you consider that most other characteristics are different. It just seems to be a topic that people feel very uncomfortable with, so they would rather just bow out by saying "we are all the same".
Of course, believing that different races probably have different levels of intelligence does not mean I condone any racial hatred or violence.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Feb 22, 2005 16:54:19 GMT -5
I look at race as family writ large. In as much as intelligence can be passed on through parents to children, so can it be passed on through races. Though that doesn't mean smart parents are always going to have smart children or dumb parents are going to have dumb children. It is variable.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 22, 2005 18:09:38 GMT -5
Caligastia your must not have looked around much the topic is debated endlessly. I don't think your argument holds any water, because aside from superficial morphometric features the differences between human populations are genereall quite small while the intra population diversity is quite high, significant differences in intelligence are unlikely. Furthermore if you look at subspecies in non human animals you see the same pattern morphometric variation is often significant but behavioral differences are usually undectable.
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia on Feb 23, 2005 10:08:12 GMT -5
Caligastia your must not have looked around much the topic is debated endlessly. I was referring to the content of the main site, not the message boards. Why has this topic been excluded? The old "greater genetic difference within populations than between" is an old and irrelevant argument. If this topic has been discussed as much as you say, then I'm surprised you don't know that. Perhaps you haven't followed the discussions very closely. Did you know that there is more genetic variation among populations of monkeys and humans than there is between them? Yet you would never try to claim that humans and monkeys are the same, as you are trying to do with regard to different human races. It is not the number of varying genes that are important in determining real differences, but which genes are different. A useful parallel (which may help you to understand) can be drawn between humans and dogs. Breeds of dogs differ in appearance, temperament, and intelligence. Yet, it is almost impossible to tell Great Dane DNA from Pekinese DNA. The huge differences between the breeds are accounted for by tiny genetic differences barely detectable by modern analysis. As with human races, small genetic differences account for very important physical differences.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Feb 23, 2005 10:40:55 GMT -5
Hi Caligastia, Falecind is right the argument is overdebated on this site. Nevertheless I think it would be nice to have a trhead where everybody interested takes part, so that we can find some common ground and define the debate (e.g. I think many could agree on the fact that differences in intelligence within races can't be proved, so we can only infer their existence or lack of it), plus list all the pro and against arguments we can find. BTW, did you find your "dogs" example in "Race: The Reality of Human Differences" by Vincent Sarich, Frank Miele? Anyway, to the objection that interracial differences are much greater than racial differences I would answer that this is not a reason to deny racial differences and their importance. A small difference can be very important when there's a lot of competition (as for success in sports within one nation), and expecially when racial groups are also states (as for success over other states in inter states competition). A small difference in cognitive abilities can then be very significant.
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia on Feb 23, 2005 11:23:32 GMT -5
Hi nockwasright,
Sorry to bring up a topic that has already been debated so much. I looked around the boards and didn't see a thread that specifically discussed it, so I started this one.
I actually got the dogs example from an old issue of American Renaissance - it provides a very good analogy IMO.
"Race - The reality of human differences" is one of the books I have bought but have not got around to reading yet - does it have the dog example too?
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Feb 23, 2005 11:38:49 GMT -5
Yep. Miele is an amatour dog breeder. The book isn't terrific, though.
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia on Feb 23, 2005 11:57:17 GMT -5
(e.g. I think many could agree on the fact that differences in intelligence within races can't be proved, so we can only infer their existence or lack of it) Didn't you mean to say between races? And I don't see why it can't be proven. Surely there have been enough IQ tests done on different racial groups for us to draw a conclusion. But, I don't want to rehash too much of what has already been said on this forum - would you be able to point me in the direction of a thread that has a good discussion on it? I haven't found a title that would indicate that type of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Feb 23, 2005 12:18:30 GMT -5
Yes, thanks, I meant "between" (damn English).
Then, IQ tests can not really prove anything (they can be an important, but not definitive argument) for many reasons: IQ relevance is debated; even if you concede IQ is meaningful, this doesn't necessarily mean it is the same thing of intelligence (actually at the beginning it was only a predictor of success in school); even given this you should prove it is completely inheritable, not affected by environment, not biased toward any culture or society, and explain the Flynn effect. If you can do all this (I am not saying all of this can't be argued, only I say it can't be proved) you sholud give IQ tests to a really meaningful portion of the human population and in a really meaningful lapse of time. Most of the IQ tests have been given on USA citizens in the last 50 years. But immigrants in the USA are communities selected by facts of history that are not correctly representative of the populations of their originary countries. Plus, many ethnicities changed results in a short lapse of time. That's why we can't draw a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 23, 2005 19:00:58 GMT -5
Caligastia I have seen other people try to dismiss the in group variability vs outgroup varibility before and just as know I think the argument is weak. It has to do with level of focus, we say chimpanzee are 98 percent the same genetically as humans but any human is on average only fifty percent related to their own brother. Its weak analogy. The dog analogy is even worse your talking about a species which has been intensely artificial selected, wild canid sub species are much more appropriate comparison and they do not show signficant genetic behavioral differences, same for wild chimps sub species. As for the IQ Test basically what nock said.
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia on Feb 24, 2005 9:37:06 GMT -5
Yes, thanks, I meant "between" (damn English). Then, IQ tests can not really prove anything (they can be an important, but not definitive argument) for many reasons: IQ relevance is debated; even if you concede IQ is meaningful, this doesn't necessarily mean it is the same thing of intelligence (actually at the beginning it was only a predictor of success in school); even given this you should prove it is completely inheritable, not affected by environment, not biased toward any culture or society, and explain the Flynn effect. If you can do all this (I am not saying all of this can't be argued, only I say it can't be proved) you sholud give IQ tests to a really meaningful portion of the human population and in a really meaningful lapse of time. Most of the IQ tests have been given on USA citizens in the last 50 years. But immigrants in the USA are communities selected by facts of history that are not correctly representative of the populations of their originary countries. Plus, many ethnicities changed results in a short lapse of time. That's why we can't draw a conclusion. Actually, IQ testing has been far more thorough than you think, and the mainstream opinion among intelligence researchers contradicts what you just said: www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia on Feb 24, 2005 10:09:39 GMT -5
Caligastia I have seen other people try to dismiss the in group variability vs outgroup varibility before and just as know I think the argument is weak. It has to do with level of focus, we say chimpanzee are 98 percent the same genetically as humans but any human is on average only fifty percent related to their own brother. Its weak analogy. The dog analogy is even worse your talking about a species which has been intensely artificial selected, wild canid sub species are much more appropriate comparison and they do not show signficant genetic behavioral differences, same for wild chimps sub species. As for the IQ Test basically what nock said. We seem to be having a communication problem. I'll try to spell this out more clearly. People who state that "there is more genetic variation within groups than between them" as if that means anything with regard to inter-racial differences just don't understand how genes work. As I said before - it is not the number of differing genes that matter, but which genes differ. "genetic variation" refers to the number of genes that differ, not which genes differ, therefore "genetic variation" is irrelevant to the measurement of actual differences. This is what I tried to illustrate with the dog example. The fact that you dismiss this example by pointing out that dogs have been selectively bred shows that you don't understand my point. Whether they were selectively bred or not is completely irrelevant. The point is that the enormous variety of temperaments, builds, and intelligence found among different breeds are accounted for by tiny genetic differences. This shows that the number of different genes is irrelevant to the question of real differences. Again, it is not the number of genetic differences, but which genes are different. All genes are not created equal! ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Feb 24, 2005 11:06:41 GMT -5
As far as I know IQ testing has been extensively practised only in the USA and for 40/50 years. If I'm wrong correct me, I may be wrong. Stalking the Wild Taboo is an interesting site, but surely not an expression of "mainstream" opinion. They themselves act more as a "persecuted heretical minority" than as mainstream scientists. Plus, the opinion of those who work with the IQ tests ("intelligence researchers") is necessarily biased in favor of their meaningfulness.
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia on Feb 24, 2005 12:16:14 GMT -5
IQ researchers may be biased towards the legitimacy of IQ, but I would take their word over the "mainstream" opinion of those who know nothing about the subject. After all, they have their own biases also. IQ testing has been practiced the most extensively in the west, but there have been studies condicted in other many countries too. www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 24, 2005 21:38:02 GMT -5
We still have communication problem. I am well aware that small genetic differences can make huge phenotypic differences like I said chimps vs humans, allmost all the differences are based on small number of devolpment regulatory genes. The point is there is no reason to beleive there has been that degree of differentation between human populations anywhere in the genome. Its not only genetically that the largest variations are within populations, its also true morphometrically and behaviorally. I am have studied canids rather extensively and your analogy is misleading races are not breeds, they are subspecies and growing scientific consensus is that sub species are not biological significant beyond the most superficial levels.
|
|