Hallam
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by Hallam on Mar 20, 2005 22:41:18 GMT -5
lol, I was merely trying to stir up an argument so I can prove a point, but the argument got way off topic. There is no way to measure which race is more creative or not, since both have contributed a lot to the modern world. This is why I like slapping down racist claims. They almost always don't have much substance. You can't claim one race is more creative based on crappy or irrelevent data and especially on data that is recent without taking in historical facts. Such as China's greatness in innovation before the modern erra. It is irresponsible to make those claims. They can measure it with a battery of tests. Of course, like all things in social science, they are not perfect. But there is a real correlation that expalins about 9% of the variance (a small amount) in creativity by IQ.
|
|
|
Post by whoseyourdaddy on Mar 20, 2005 22:48:17 GMT -5
This is why I like slapping down racist claims. They almost always don't have much substance. You can't claim one race is more creative based on crappy or irrelevent data and especially on data that is recent without taking in historical facts. Such as China's greatness in innovation before the modern erra. It is irresponsible to make those claims. Of course, printing press, pills, paper, gunpowder, to name a few. Hmm...interesting. I will look more into that. What do you mean by variance? That if there is a relation betwen IQ and creativity, is it big or small?
|
|
Hallam
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by Hallam on Mar 20, 2005 22:55:52 GMT -5
What do you mean by variance? That if there is a relation betwen IQ and creativity, is it big or small? I mean that 9% of the differences found in a population's creativity scores can be explained away (predicted using linear regression) by their differences in IQ. In other words, if you had a Pearson-Product-Moment correlation coeficient score of .30 (if I remember correctly, this is the correlation between IQ and creativity), you would have .30^2 which is .09 or 9% of the variance.
|
|
|
Post by whoseyourdaddy on Mar 20, 2005 23:57:01 GMT -5
Thanks for the info.
"Psychometrists are now beginning to suspect that divergent thinking (one way of putting it is the ability to "join" unrelated subjects etc. in thought) is the key to the high level of innovation, invention, and creativity, not IQ"
Thoughts anybody?
|
|
|
Post by Ashurbanipal on Mar 21, 2005 2:33:42 GMT -5
stupid thread, won't even read all through it. this is just a flame starting war thread. might as well make a who's dick is bigger thread. oh wait, we did that one already haha
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Mar 21, 2005 3:58:33 GMT -5
I agree. I.Q. is virtually meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Mar 21, 2005 4:00:37 GMT -5
Strange choices in terms of what constitutes a 'race.' Even subraces don't follow national boundaries as such.
Spiro: rethink this one, it's retarded i.e. the rationale behind this thread comes from a person with an I.Q. lower than 50.
|
|
|
Post by whoseyourdaddy on Mar 21, 2005 10:47:16 GMT -5
The most flawed thing about IQ is that there are substantial IQ differences between the same races:
1) Northeast Asians and Southeast Asians for example 2) West and East Europeans 3) Euro Jews and Non-Euro Jews
Proof that culture has a bigger impact on your IQ then anything.
|
|
|
Post by NuSapiens on Mar 21, 2005 12:03:35 GMT -5
The most flawed thing about IQ is that there are substantial IQ differences between the same races: 1) Northeast Asians and Southeast Asians for example 2) West and East Europeans 3) Euro Jews and Non-Euro Jews Perhaps each of these groups underwent different types of Darwinian selection that affected IQ averages. For instance, it's been argued that the Ashkenazim (who tend to have much higher IQs than other people of the Jewish faith) underwent selection for high IQ because of family success being linked to financial success in mentally demanding occupations along with low rates of intermarriage, which allowed the genes to become fixed. The Human Genome project found a sharp divide in Central China between North and Southeast Asians, so grouping them is a bit dubious IMO, especially given the vast differences in environment between Thailand and Japan, for instance. The question of heritability of IQ can only truly be answered with a more in-depth understanding of neurology and gene expression, which might take decades to attain.
|
|
|
Post by Kabbealompost on Mar 21, 2005 12:33:53 GMT -5
I voted for East Asians. Not because I'd have anything against them, I was just evil. ;D
|
|
|
Post by whoseyourdaddy on Mar 21, 2005 13:07:27 GMT -5
Perhaps each of these groups underwent different types of Darwinian selection that affected IQ averages. For instance, it's been argued that the Ashkenazim (who tend to have much higher IQs than other people of the Jewish faith) underwent selection for high IQ because of family success being linked to financial success in mentally demanding occupations along with low rates of intermarriage, which allowed the genes to become fixed. The Human Genome project found a sharp divide in Central China between North and Southeast Asians, so grouping them is a bit dubious IMO, especially given the vast differences in environment between Thailand and Japan, for instance. The question of heritability of IQ can only truly be answered with a more in-depth understanding of neurology and gene expression, which might take decades to attain. Yes. However, Europeans are very closely related to each other, but yet their IQ differences vary from each other simply by a couple of lines drawn on the map. (Germans, Austrians, and Italians being the highest, 102, Irish being one of the lowest 94, yet they are all genetically simlar) Mainland Chinesse also have a significant difference then Taiwanese (100 in China, 104 in Taiwan) and they are both Chinese! Japan and China are right next to each other yet, (Japan 105, China 100). And who can forget this rididculous difference simply by being apart for only 2000 years (Euro Jews 115 Non-Euro Jews 94) somethings not right there. I still think that more then anything culture will effect your IQ. Source: Taken from Richard Lynn's Wealth of Nations
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 21, 2005 13:35:46 GMT -5
First of all social stratification and contraselection are important factors inside a population as well, and no, Euro- and non-Euro Jews are not the same, and its not just about 2000 years in between. Just look at the genetic and anatomical studies about this subject.
Furthermore 2000 years are for humans a very long time.
You dont believe me?
Look at the racial change in Bavaria or Russia in a much shorter time, and without too much foreign admixture or migrations, at least less than if its about Jews...
There are hundreds of other examples in which you can see drastic physical or psychological changes in a very short time (from an evolutionary perspective).
Well, if you have two groups, A having 2, b 4 children each generation on average, both have at the beginning a proportion of 50:50, in about 200 years or 6 generations, the group with 2 children is down to 1,5 percent and almost extinct in the population.
If mixture happens, she is practically extinct...
Btw, similar things happen in Israel with the European Jews, especially the more liberal ones, if compared with the orthodox ones. This will cause serious troubles for Israel on the long run...
|
|
|
Post by ramsharma on Mar 21, 2005 18:43:07 GMT -5
2000 years is not a long time in human history, but merely represents an epoch. How long does it take a new mutant gene to be embedded in a community or a society? Oh trust me, it's going to take a long, long time. Of course people with high IQ exist, but the question is what % of the population carry gene for high IQ. A mutated gene does not necessarily produce mutant proteins due to silent mutations. Even if a protein is a mutant, there is no guarantee that it will be a good mutant. Proteins for example have active domains where most activities take place. Only if these domains have been mutated will real change be noticed. Then we have complex DNA repair system that will strive to repair all genetic aberrations. As we all know, most mutations are lethal, as a result of which most mutants tend to die. What I am saying is that homo sapiens haven't had enough time to vary along IQ lines. Ask any biologist. He will tell you that it will take hundreds of thousands of years for a mutated gene to be embedded in a society. It will be embedded *only* if it helps one to survive. To me it appears that a better approach for nature would be via reproduction--breed like rabbits to transcend other species. I'm not saying that intelligence is not important. It is. But brain functions are not too different among different races of humans. Human history began millions of years ago. Evolution is not an epoch of time, it goes on and on for hundreds of thousands of years.
Here we're talking about a big region, Europe or Northeast Asia. The question is, how many people carry genes that improve one's intelligence? If we select for these genes by using eugenics, that's a different issue. We domesticated dogs by unknowingly selecting those that fit what we were looking for in them. Even that took thousands of years. However for humans, there have been no such selection process. So how many people do in fact carry these genes? So it seems to me that most people are just plain average and nothing else.Cavalli Svorza's book seems to suggest that skin color and other physical traits might not even have a genetic basis, but rather an environmental one. The reason why Europe transcended other civilizations had to do with three simple factors: guns for killing people effectively, immunity to various diseases like small pox, and the fact that they had better technology. Really, if Europeans are in fact mentally superior to other ethnicities, why exactly was Europe not even on the world map before the 14th century AD. Remember that Europe was enshrouded in the dark ages for centuries. Also the fact is that China wasn't always top dog either. Civilization moves on in cycles. The Middle East was the hotbed of innovations once upon a time, it is now a cesspool. Racists will jump on it to assert that Arabs are mixed with blacks? Oh really? Fact is that most hunting-gathering societies spend most of their time hunting for food, while a sedentary society that relies on farming and domesticated animals have more time on their hands. This creates a stratified society, and so people have more time to think. But this does not really mean that one group is superior to another.
|
|
|
Post by whoseyourdaddy on Mar 21, 2005 20:00:35 GMT -5
First, IQ is becoming a less and less excepted way to measure intellegence. Recently, they have started creative tests and other various tests as a more effective way of measuring intellegence. You'd be surprised that results are much more even between races. Verbal and non-verbal analytical tests have also been used to measure intellegence. The IQ test was invented by a man who wanted to measure how well his students could solve problems. Even he admitted that it does not measure actual intellegence.
Even supporters of the IQ test say it only tests a specific type of intellegence, and it doesnt relate much to creative intellegence, probably the most important kind of intellegence.
People act like the IQ tests was transcended by God as the only way to measure intellegence, but the truth of it is, its just a test, and probably will be an outdated test in the next 50 years. Remember, some of the most creative minds of all time had average IQs. Ta-da.
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on Mar 21, 2005 20:10:32 GMT -5
This thread is absurd, you can't say any one group is dumber than another since intelligence is evenly distributed across all human groups, perhaps some groups may be better in certain areas than others but we all have the potential to make contributions regardless of race .
|
|