IQ and Race

[stackpole]

Point 1 - Only the foolish or those with vested interests 'trust' scientific data completely, accepted scientifc theory is constantly being updated.

Point 2 - Why are some people Black, some Brown and some White? As a response to their environment, the environment inside white/brown/black heads are identical. There may well be variation but its unlikely to be significant given the other factors involved in living a life.

But most compellingly if there were significant differences in intelligence between races it would have been spotted by now either by experiement or outcome.

But we have, haven't we? Isn't the whole point that significant differences have been spotted by all that research?

I think you are all being very PC here. If scientific data is all you have to go on, surely it is a better source of information than our hearts, which tell us we must not appear to say that one particular race is, on average, not as intelligent as another. Nobody that I know of complains when Jews are described as being cleverer than the rest of us.

1. Dodgy science happens all the time, but it is not in the majority. Why should this particular data be less trustworthy? There have been lots of studies, going back a hundred years. They haven't all been carried out by Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan.

2. How can we say that environmental factors over many thousands of years can affect the evolution of any part of the body except the brain in our heads? Didn't the brains of homo sapiens themselves evolve over millions of years by adapting to various environmental changes better than other animals?

[Miss Ellie]

Problem with the guy's theory is a lot of people from the Caribbean and US whose phenotype is Black, are gentically mixed with White people.

This means the guy has to distinguish who is white, black etc and this is where most theories on race and intelligence fall down. Especially as most of the "scientific" studies use black people from the US.

I know people of all colours who have a white, black, Indian etc grandmother or grandfather.

Unless you can specifically find a group of people who have never have produced offspring with people outside that group you cannot do any such research and claim it's scientific. So to do such a test and claim conclusive results you would have to use Icelandic people, some indigenous Indian group in the Amazon and a normadic African tribe.....this off course leads to other problems......

[stackpole]

True Miss Ellie, but I suspect that at least some of those researchers might have thought of that. For example, are many central Africans of mixed race?

Look, it is not one guy's theory. It is his opinion, having read results from many different studies, which apparently seem to point the same way.

[threaded]

IThen in Europe, which was once covered in dense forests, there must have been an advantage...

I remember reading a study where people were shown pictures of forests and plains and deserts etc. There was a correlation to what they liked and feared to their family background. They went further and were able to predict family background after showing the test group some pictures of forests, plains and deserts. And I think the study was done with people born and brought up in cities.

Quite curious, so maybe you're on to something there.

[expat]

1. Why do you think he might be completely wrong? He is basing his opinion on consistent results from a lot of scientific research.

2. Regarding your alternative view, why is it that environmental evolution can affect skin colour, susceptibility to sickle-cell aneamia, and a thousand other biological differences, but not significantly the function of the brain?

Are we talking about whether an academic should be able to examine possibilities, or are you just trying to tell us that blacks are inferior?

Sickle-cell anaemia reminds me of baa baa black sheep: not quite what people think. How come Africans can get this disease? Is it a lack in them? No, it isn't: it's an advantage that they have over non-Africans, as a result of evolutionary forces in their environment. The sickle-shaped red blood cells that define the disease have the inestimable advantage (in West Africa) that they do not fall victim to the malaria parasite, so if 1 of your parents gives you this you won't die from malaria. Unfortunately if both your parents give you that gene and you live in where you aren't at risk from malaria anyway anyway, you pay the cost.

I think it shows the relativism of the value of inherited characteristics: sickle cells evolved as an evolutionary advantage in that environment. They just happen not to be an advantage in all environments. Perhaps our IQ tests are measuring something that is partly specific to environment too.


A specific disease is a rather simple thing: you're either susceptible to sickle-cell anaemia or you're not. "The brain" is a less simple matter. At least mine is.

[Churchill]

Are we talking about whether an academic should be able to examine possibilities, or are you just trying to tell us that blacks are inferior?

Sickle-cell anaemia reminds me of baa baa black sheep: not quite what people think. How come Africans can get this disease? Is it a lack in them? No, it isn't: it's an advantage that they have over non-Africans, as a result of evolutionary forces in their environment. The sickle-shaped red blood cells that define the disease have the inestimable advantage (in West Africa) that they do not fall victim to the malaria parasite, so if 1 of your parents gives you this you won't die from malaria. Unfortunately if both your parents give you that gene and you live in where you aren't at risk from malaria anyway anyway, you pay the cost.

I think it shows the relativism of the value of inherited characteristics: sickle cells evolved as an evolutionary advantage in that environment. They just happen not to be an advantage in all environments. Perhaps our IQ tests are measuring something that is partly specific to environment too.


A specific disease is a rather simple thing: you're either susceptible to sickle-cell anaemia or you're not. "The brain" is a less simple matter. At least mine is.

Nicely put.

It all goes to show... Lies, damn lies and statistics. Eugenics, anyone?

[stackpole]

Yes, let's fudge the argument. You can't trust unpleasant statistics, only fluffy-bunny ones. Best all round. Agreed?