|
Post by ramsharma on Mar 21, 2005 20:13:36 GMT -5
Whoseyourdaddy, I agree with you. Plus, I really have a hard time believing that intelligence can be quantified in any way. Some people might be good in one thing, some others might be good in something else. So what qualifies as intelligent and what does not? In my preceding post, I used IQ as a substitute for intelligence. I have a hard time believing that if I take an IQ test again and again and again, my "IQ" will not improve. It's just a matter of perseverence.
|
|
|
Post by Human on Mar 21, 2005 20:16:37 GMT -5
ive read each generation IQ gets higher and higher, significantly. as IQ is supposed to measure an intrinsic thing, then this kind of increase should not be happening.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 22, 2005 12:27:18 GMT -5
Sorry, but thats just not true, neither for immune variants, blood types nor psychological traits.
If thats what somebody told you, he was no great expert anyway.
Re-read what I've written. If in a population just 1 percent of the individuals would have a positive mutation, this would be enough to spread it in 200 years under high selective pressure.
Since many populations went through bottlenecks, think about it again...
It depends on the steps you need. F.e. you cannot come from a wild dog to a Chihuahua in just 3 generations. But if in a population different variants are already present, at least in a recessive form, you could breed a new type if you are consequent in very few generations.
And if looking at mother nature and modern accelerated selection (not always positive one though) for the human species, yes, this selection was usually very consequent.
There are populations which changed their physical type totally in just 200 years, and the example is not exaggerated.
You read Svorza? If so you didnt understood it. Even more important, you should read his newer works and articles in which he saw certain mistakes of his past work.
The European success had many reasons, I could now write about 20 sides about the cultural steps necessary to achieve the position of 19th century Europe, but I dont.
Anyway, Europeans are not that superior, did I say so?
Its always a question of which group you are comparing with which other one.
Progressive types are almost all on a very similar intelligence level and almost all progressive types are descendants of the out of Africa groups and lived in a temperate climate or were influenced by those groups.
When the African sapiens came to Eurasia, he had to adapt to totally new environment. Many strategies useful in the tropics were not effective any more and new adaptations necessary.
F.e. West Africans used the small-hunter-group-sprint way of getting meat, that wouldnt have worked in the North. People had to adapt themselves to the new climate and hunted in bigger and better organised units.
Its not by chance that Europids and Mongolids have a higher IQ and are better if its about tasks which need a complex intelligence than other groups.
Furthermore you shouldnt underestimate the time frame anyway, since we speak about a time from 100.000-50.000 years of specialization.
If its about the IQ-tests, yes, IQ is not a perfect, but a useful way to determine certain abilities. Sure this tests have to be improved and there are forms of intelligence which the test doesnt measure at the moment probably, BUT it still says something about certain abilities IF PRESENT. If not, thats a lack of such to certain degree no matter how important that might be.
Now if we look at the average IQ of scientists, good military strategists etc, you see such a high correlation with a higher than average IQ, especially a good mark for those areas which are important for their profession, that you can say what you want but IQ is an important element to determine intelligence, though you should also know its weaknesses.
Well, body height increased too, does that mean there are no genes determining height?
Nonsense.
Genes just determine the potential, that doesnt mean if you have a good genetic potential that you are able to fully use it the conditions are bad.
|
|
|
Post by ramsharma on Mar 22, 2005 13:24:28 GMT -5
You're making an assumption here. Phenotypes or physical types might not be dictated by genotype. One good example biologists like to give is of plants belonging to the same species, but placed in soil with different nutrients. What they noticed was that while one group of plants had stunted height, the other in rich nutrients grew to be tall, like other regular plants of that species. Your assumption is that the environment does not matter. Sorry bud, ain't true. Another fact is that genetic polymorphisms occur in clusters. Furthermore, human geneticists use parts of genes that in fact produce no proteins for human migration research. Essentially speaking these genetic markers that biologists use are chosen *because* these are regions where mutation rate is higher. Simple fact. I guess your logic is that you use these genetic differences and conclude that various races have various genetic mutations. Simply put, there has been *no* evidence that suggests that various races have various protein mutations. Ultimately, it's not the genes that matter, but the proteins that are responsible for various biological functions. Plus genetic mutations might not even matter if there are no changes in the proteins themselves. This is a fact.
How exactly did you come up with your calculation? Of course by selective pressure, if you mean knowingly selecting for these positive mutations, that's true. Otherwise, evolution will take thousands of years. In what "high selective pressure" were, say, Europeans or Asians put that have given them higher cognitive abilities? Scientists haven't come to a consensus, and most of them don't even believe that mental differences between races exists. It is a *completely* different issue if you're talking about mental differences between individuals however. Nobody will deny that some people are more intelligent than others.
You're talking about genetic drift? These occur in small populations. Genetic drift does not guarantee that positive mutation will be selected. It's all random.
Of course different variants are already present. Unique genes in different races are seldom ever found. If you're going to practice some form of eugenics in the future it is *very* possible to select for these desirable genes. If however nature takes its course, it'll take much longer. Even dog domestication was expedited by us.
Perhaps, but so what? How exactly do you know that these were not because of environmental factors rather than genotypic?
Svorza clearly does not believe in the idea of *race*. Instead he groups people in clusters. Furthermore, markers that are frequent in one population can be present in a different population but with a different frequency. This complicates the idea of "race".
Yes, but that's just an organizational difference. It could be entirely true that the new climate was better for making technological advancements.
As you know, Asia has higher IQ on average than Europeans. By your logic, one would have surmised that Asia would have been more advanced than Europe. After the 14th century, however, Europe started transcending the rest of the globe. Also, how exactly do you explain the dark ages??? How do you explain the downfall of the middle-east? Miscegenation? Also, how do you explain the fact that Hungary's IQ went up by 21 points between 1952 and 1982, ie in 30 years? Hungary's IQ is about 99 now if I'm correct. This has in fact been very highly documented.
Of course there are genes that determine height, genes that determine IQ, genes that determine eye color. Two individuals might have different IQ, but extrapolating this to race might even be incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by q10 on Mar 22, 2005 13:35:18 GMT -5
this thread/poll is so f*cking racist
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 22, 2005 14:14:07 GMT -5
You're making an assumption here. Phenotypes or physical types might not be dictated by genotype. One good example biologists like to give is of plants belonging to the same species, but placed in soil with different nutrients. What they noticed was that while one group of plants had stunted height, the other in rich nutrients grew to be tall, like other regular plants of that species. Your assumption is that the environment does not matter. Sorry bud, ain't true. What? Did you read on before writing this? What I said about genetic potential and height points strongly to the fact that environment DOES matter! I would never say something else. Sure plants grow better in a good ground. Every gardener, EVERY INTELLIGENT CHILD does know that. But if you know Mendel, if you are talking about plants, plants neither change the color or grow larger than others in the same ground as long as you dont change the genes and that was the point I want to say to you all. Oh really, well, thats nothing new, I explained that hundred times to others. Right, thats funny, its really funny that you mention it since I wrote about that here on this board. dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=genetics&action=display&thread=1109178117So its seems that a rather small genetic difference can cause great differences in protein structure. Selective pressure was high enough in many cases, otherwise this drastic change of type f.e. between Europids and Mongolids wouldnt have been possible. Well, those scientists know why they dont say it in the public oftentimes, you just have to look what happened with Rushton and Brand. But whereas there are thousands of proofs for the differences, as they exist, might they caused by environmental influences as well, sure, there is none for a racial equality if its about intelligence. So just thinking about probabilities and what are the results we have, plus considering the different evolutionary ways of specialising of the various races, you can come just to the conclusion that mental differences exist and that intelligence is partly determined by genes. These differences are partly caused by genes and to assume that there are no racial differences is therefore absurd, since races are selected groups of individuals and those which didnt adapt to the necessary group standard in a certain environment just died out. Drift is usually by chance yes, but I spoke about a situation of high selective pressure. So no, the features/mutations were not selected "by chance". There is no positive "natural" selection in the mass society. Anyway, if you speak about domesticated dogs or other animals, you might know or at least should know, how fast this artificial selection can be reversed. F.e. wild pigs in Australia, dogs in Australia and America, cows etc. The natural form was selected much faster in nature than the artificial form. A) Because the genes were present, individual genetic differences in intelligence count for present genes, and the process of selection was hard in nature... Just imagine ice age humans in medium-Northern Eurasia...that was an extreme situation, different from the tropical regions. Because the other type, the older variant, still existed in all social strata and environments, just in lower numbers and the selective pressure changed with the population. So no, there are coincidences, but there are so many such examples that we know its nothing "by chance". I know that. Races are tendencies or types which share a common heritable feature-combination visible in the phenotype. Now genetic cluster correlate with races and Svorza is just very cautious and has to think about other things than science anyway, as a person in the public. That doesnt mean I say "he knows it better", but a) he is under pressure as many are and b) he's not alway right anyway. The climate was better for making technological advancements? What? Ice age Eurasia was better because you had more challenges and this challenges were formed a high selective pressure. More intelligent people are better if its about new advancements and the use of it. Furthermore under such conditions the average intelligence should be higher too since every individual has to cope with more challenges of the mind than in a "traditional life form" which was essentially the same as that of the first sapiens... Well, as I said, genes just determine the potential, not what you make out of it under various conditions. That you are theoretically able to make an invention, doesnt mean that you really do it in your life but maybe somebody else... But somebody without your abilities could try it his whole life and will never be successful, thats the point. I dont know the exact numbers for Hungary, but just assuming you are right, again = potential. It might. But from year to year and from what we know its more and more unlikely and everything speaks for a racial difference if its about intelligence. Look, I can explain it to you this way too: If you have a European population with an IQ of 100 and you have contraselection at work for 200 years, the IQ would decrease. If just the less intelligent people reproduce themselves in sufficient numbers, but the more intelligent ones not, on the long run the intelligence will decrease with our without admixture. Thats happening in Europe and even worse, immigrants coming too. Kinship is for me of high importance anyway, I'm not a racist because of the IQ issue only anyway. Because if that would be the case, I wouldnt have something against progressive Mongolid admixture. Of course its not as worse as primitive one, but still its about the group... The intelligence question is not just a question for racists, its a search for truth and the truth is on my side, at least in this case since there are too much proofs which point in the variation of intelligence under races and not equality.
|
|
|
Post by whoseyourdaddy on Mar 22, 2005 14:14:15 GMT -5
You want to hear the most contradictory thing about the IQ being genetic, is that anybody, no matter what race, can take nifty little classes to increase it. www.learningstrategies.com/index.aspIf this site seems to fake to you, do a yahoo search or an Amazon.com search on the books and see how many people these programs worked for. My brother took one of these and increased his IQ 15 points! He has only taken the IQ test twice. Wow, I never knew taking a month long class can increase my brain size *sarcasm* I never knew evolution can happen overnight.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 22, 2005 14:24:05 GMT -5
Even for the oldest tests it was said that to repeat the test too often means to downgrade its worth.
As I said, its a useful mean but far from being perfect.
Even more important, if you train yourself with certain examples, yes, you learn, but than you dont have to be as creative as at the first try...
But I dont pray to the IQ-test you know ;D
I think I just see it as a good instrument but it should be mainly used in a "fair way".
So if your brother trained and others not, its not fair to use the results of both in the same way f.e. But again, show me great scientists etc. with a very low IQ and low test results if its about their area in particular....
|
|
|
Post by Human on Mar 22, 2005 14:34:16 GMT -5
Even for the oldest tests it was said that to repeat the test too often means to downgrade its worth. As I said, its a useful mean but far from being perfect. Even more important, if you train yourself with certain examples, yes, you learn, but than you dont have to be as creative as at the first try... But I dont pray to the IQ-test you know ;D I think I just see it as a good instrument but it should be mainly used in a "fair way". So if your brother trained and others not, its not fair to use the results of both in the same way f.e. But again, show me great scientists etc. with a very low IQ and low test results if its about their area in particular.... Richard Feynmans IQ was around 120. So did many Nobre Prizer winners in the science field (around 110-120). there are some examples.
|
|
|
Post by jay (mulatto) on Mar 22, 2005 14:46:51 GMT -5
i voted East Asians. the Chinese at my university were the dumbest people. so i'm just using anecdotal experience Maybe different races have different talents, I don't know? so far the only thing that points towards East Asians being intelligent, is that they're Asian. which makes little sense in a racial perspective, you see if NASA was only hiring Mongoloid Chinese, and not Indians, then I'd say "Yeah I guess the mongoloid Asians are more intelligent, the non-mongoloid East Indians, can't hack it. Maybe the mongoloid Native Americans would be a better a import? - But oh yeah, the US already has about 20 million Mestizos...". It seems more a case of "Cream of the crop" immigrants do well. hence Chinese immigrants, East Indian immigrants, African immigrants in the US are all very academic (The Africans having the highest rate of professional qualifications, then the East Indians, then the Chinese). The difference in intellect between races seems mostly socio-economic, rather than biological. If I were forced to guess characteristics of different races. (which i think is a bit ignorant) I'd say that East Asian/Mongoloids are more drone-like, they're great for doing repetitive work, and carrying in foot steps in a given technology without being particularly creative. For instance China's manufacturing - anyone can assemble an alarm clock, computer, vacuum cleaner, automobile, on an assembly line, it doesn't require much IQ to do that. Japan doesn't seem too creative in my opinion either, much of their advances just rest on existing western technology. for instace their Aibo Robots etc. are impressive to look at, but essentially the Robot concept, the core design and parts etc. were all developed decades ago. just because they combine the stuff in a dog type robot, and spend a few years working on voice recognition, using bi-ped mechanics etc. (all of this knowledge is decades old, adding a small little idea to it). doesn't make them geniuses. I'd say Sub-Saharan Africans/Negroids fare better in social/artistic/creativity skills. Europeans/Caucasoids fare better in managerial/business-like/formal work. They're good at keeping stuff in order, methodical. Europeans/Caucasoids have also shown the ability to come up with radical ideas, and a new train of thought (Newtonian physics, Relativity, Super-String theory, Telephone, Radio etc.). South Asian/Caucasoid-Australoids tend to be great at mental abilities (e.g. mental arithmatic, spellings <- i suspect this is more so the Southern indians/Australoids). They're also more innovative than the East Asian mongoloids (perhaps this is their heavy Caucasoid-ness). essentially India invents, China makes. We in the West, outsource our mental/mind jobs to India (programming, design, call-centres), and our "you see this toy car, I want you to make 1,000 copies of it" orders to China. of these three (or four) categories. the East Asian mongoloids are the most in danger of having their abilities made redundant by computers/robots. The caucasoids will still be in business, as for the advancement of Artificial Intelligence, the last jobs that will be replaced will be the "come up with a new theory of relativity". negroids with their artistic/creativity, will also be more secure than East Asian mongoloids. Eventually the abilities of negroids will become the most in demand, especially when we move over to the robotic nation/mass unemployment. With the manufacturing Chinaman, the innovative European, and the super-fly African. The African's abilities will win out in the social sense (picture a futuristic robotic nation, with a population of 90% unemployed; whites, blacks, yellows. all equal in economic stature, such a society would be much less work focused, and much more social/play focused).
|
|
Hallam
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by Hallam on Mar 22, 2005 15:12:34 GMT -5
^^^ this post is either a joke or the person who typed it has such an inferiority complex and resentment towards Asians that it is probably best just to laugh at him.
|
|
|
Post by ramsharma on Mar 22, 2005 15:43:03 GMT -5
I will not be responding to some of the comments which you and I both seem to agree upon. But let me address some of the issues where you and I differ.
And your point being? Chimps and humans diverged millions and millions of years ago. You don't need a rocket scientist to figure out the differences between chimps and humans. If proteins between different races of humans are different, furnish some evidence. What sort of proteins are different between different races of humans?
Again, just because proteins are different does not mean that protein functions are different. Do you *really* believe that protein function is determined by all protein sequences, or do you believe that there are certain sites that are responsible for various protein function. Now think about it. What I am trying to say is that proteins might be different between chimps and humans but the active domains and other important sites might be essentially the same. However, it is possible for a mutation to change the protein structure.
Do *you* have any idea about the number of proteins whose protein structures have been not only analyzed but also known. My friend, the number is only 30,000. Go to PDB and look it up yourself. However, if you're talking about *unique* proteins, the number is much less than that. You think sequencing proteins is an easy task? It takes months just to understand structure of just *one* protein mostly by using crystollagraphic techniques. Furthermore, I have a hard time believing that we know all proteins found in humans and chimps. Many proteins are just transient. Many proteins are found in quiescent state until they are activated. You seem to think that we perfectly know the functions of proteins. We don't. That's the bottomline.
I am not interested in your speculation. What you need to do to really prove your point of view is provide me with differences in protein structures between Asians, blacks, Europeans, etc. Can *you* do that? So why should I put faith in your speculation if there is no *real* genetic proof that proteins responsible for mental abilities are different in different races? It is just your own conjecture and nothing more. Otherwise, we are just speculating.
I have a hard time believing that *most * Europeans and *most* asians are smarter than *most* other ethnic groups. That's the bottomline.
So why did you bring the drift argument? Also, what's the population of Europeans? 400 million? 500 million? I don't even know the number. But whatever the number it is *huge*. These "IQ" genes can hardly be spread over a "population" so big. I in fact have an easier time believing that *Jews* have an higher IQ. There is an easier explanation for it. In a hostile territory they had to be smarter to survive. Simple as that. Ice age theory has just too many holes and can easily be explained by environmental factors. Look, Jared Diamond seems to suggest that if anything, these "IQ" genes should be found in hunter-gathering society. The example he gives is of New Guineans. So why does he believe that New Guineans, by using his logic, smarter than say other population? Because in New Guinea, as opposed to Europe, the biggest reason for why people died was due to *murder*. That is, they had to fear their own peers. So those that survived had to be smarter than the rest of the population. This was his speculation. This sort of conjecture, that one group is smarter than another, can be bent in any direction.
Are you saying that the ice age was the primary reason for higher European IQ? I can give you another reason. Simply speaking, it wasn't higher intelligence, but rather the extreme condition itself that required Europeans to think. Africans and other ethnicities did not really have to think. What I'm saying is that technological advancement in Europe can be explained by *environmental factors* alone as opposed to genetic factors.
It's your own personal opinion. For all I care, Cavalli Svorza does not like the idea of race. That's what he has suggested. You might not like what he is saying, but he has given his opinion. He is not interested in races, but rather human migration, mostly speaking.
This is exactly what I meant by favorable climate.
Well, as I said, genes just determine the potential, not what you make out of it under various conditions. That you are theoretically able to make an invention, doesnt mean that you really do it in your life but maybe somebody else... But somebody without your abilities could try it his whole life and will never be successful, thats the point.
I am correct about it. The paper I read was a rebuttal of The Bell Curve.
I got no problem with that. Your choice and opinion.
But the fact is that we don't understand the IQ issue very well. Most of them are pure conjecture, trust me on that. Until and unless we find genetic reasons for IQ differences, I will remain a skeptic.
|
|
|
Post by jay (mulatto) on Mar 22, 2005 16:13:43 GMT -5
^^^ this post is either a joke or the person who typed it has such an inferiority complex and resentment towards Asians that it is probably best just to laugh at him. like i said. intelligence is largely socio-economic, i believe the races are moreorless the same in intellect. if there are any differences then they're certainly a LOT smaller than what some of the posters, such as you seem to suggest. everything from " If I were forced to guess characteristics of different races. " downwards is just to entertain the idea of there being significant differences based on trends. just like your patents theory, or the slavery theory. if you don't like alternative views, particularly those that go against the widespread idea that East Asians are the smartest race. then don't read my post. this has got nothing to do with inferiority complexes, it's just a perspective. what is a joke. is someone saying "Yeah yeah, East asians are the smartest, negroes are nothing. whites are average. I know this because of the common stereotypes ". according to Hallam East Asians are the most innovative, and thus this ties into their superior intellect. because Korea and Japan have 779 and 994 patents/million people respectively. Coincidently these are the wealthiest countries. China and India, which are representative of most of Asia, only have 1 patent/million people (which is only about 1000 patents filed annually each). But how reliable is this patents count? looking at Europe, and looking at N.America. The US has roughly 10 times as many patents filed as Canada (289 vs 31), but are Americans 10 times smarter or innovative? are they even smarter than Canadians??? If the UK has 82 patents/million, Germany 235 patents/million, Italy 13 patents/million, France 205 patents/million. It doesn't take an einstein to realise how useless this patent count is. it's a very VERY crude measurement of innovation, and an even cruder measurement of intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by whoseyourdaddy on Mar 22, 2005 16:21:27 GMT -5
Patents are not a good measure of creativity, because many are innovations things already invented. If all of those patents were original inventions, we'd be living like star trek. Also, there has been a large case of patent stealing that has been going on in recent years that muddle those numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Human on Mar 22, 2005 16:21:50 GMT -5
by reading this fierce debate here id like to point that intelligence may not be that much worth. under a biological point of view may be more normal down to mildly retarded may be a better thing. these people procreat so much. the really intelligents, on the other hand, are immersed on doubt and thoughts. bobby fischer and kazinsky, both men well above the average level of intelligence, had a rather troubled life, and none of them were biologically speaking successful. kazinsky may never have had a relationship or something, immersed as he was in his thoughts in his lonely Montanas cabin. so the somehow paranoical bobby fischer. i know many pretty normal people and those mildly retarded who seem to endure life with much more resilience and ultimately biologically speaking the succeed. the very fact that europeans, after such an expansion, and such an explosion of intellectual breakthroughs, seem to be at risk as a biological entity, may point to that direction as well...
|
|