Reply to: IQ and Race

[stackpole]

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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[OwlHoot]

I am no expert on this area but I understand that this area is not as clear cut as physics or mathematics, and there remains huge debate over the role of race and so on on intelligence.

Sickle cell aneamia is a disease that is easily diagnosed, and has a well defined cause. It's not the same as the brain, which is less well understood.

I suspect environment over centuries does have a slight bearing on average IQ, but the snag is practically everyone's ancestors have been on the move one way or another over the last few thousand years so any effect is likely to be spread out until it is almost indistinguishable.

But broadly speaking, people like Jews descended from nomadic tribesmen and still "wandering" until recent times must travel light and thus historically there's possibly been a premium on symbolic thinking and wheeling and dealing without much in the way of physical possessions to work with.

Maybe it's no coincidence that the Jews were the first to worship a God who could be carried about or represented light by an empty box instead of an idol weighing tons! Same thing applies to asians and Russians, who were also largely nomads until a few thousand years ago.

Then in Europe, which was once covered in dense forests, there must have been an advantage in being able to remember and navigate vast tracts of forest paths, which perhaps helps explain European and especially German (where the forests were thickest) pre-eminence in science and maths.

I must admit there are holes in the theory. For example, not all nomads seem unusually smart, and African jungles are also pretty dense but Africans don't seem to be that prominent in areas such as chemistry requiring mastery of intricate interconnected details.

But perhaps in the jungle they have (or their ancestors had) it too easy, being able to find ripe fruit or catch game without needing to venture very far.

[vetran]

Throw some mud

Only based on the story on the BBC and I'm sorry to say no other investigation I think the following quote is telling :

"The way to deal with this is not to treat people as groups, but to treat them as individuals."

So what he is saying is that we shouldn't label people, we should understand certain social & genetic factors affect peoples success in western intelligence tests.

so we have choices :

1/ Adjust the way we measure intelligence to take these factors into account.

2/ Adjust the way we teach to take these factors into account.

3/ Assume the differences are irreconcilable and condem all non western orientated races to slavery and crime.

4/ Assume its the white / rich man's fault and promote / employ / grade people higher than those who are not in the 'majority'


New Lie have number 4, the BNP have number 3 so I think 1&2 are probably worth looking at as the best solution.

Of course we could just condem the messenger and watch crime & poverty rise in these social groups. Oh sorry New lie, the BBC & the Granuid have this option covered as well.

Anyone who doesn't believe Nature / God / Random chance / little Green Aliens (delete as appropiate) tuned individual races to fit best in their enviroment and that this includes the type of intelligence is a fool. The evidence is overwhelming from basic cranium sizes to active areas of the brain we are different. That doesn't mean we are better or worse, just different.

[Fungus]

I met a generous Scot once and a Jew who wasn't hellbent on making tons of money.

I wish I'd led such an adventurous life.

[Denny]

I met a generous Scot once and a Jew who wasn't hellbent on making tons of money.

[Fungus]

Not true that dumb people are likely to have dumb kids. There is a regression to the mean effect.

I'm with MailMan on this one. I happen to think that quite a strong determinant of how well you do in life is culturally based e.g. expectations, diet and so on. I suppose I could point to Richard Dimbleby and his sons, and the two Attenborough brothers as examples, but such examples do not mean much really.

As an aside, I have traced my ancestry back about 200 years, and what strikes me is that most of them are oiks, working in mundane jobs e.g. agricultural labourers, knife grinders, coal miners and mill workers. But on my mother's side 200 years ago there is a tailor which was a decent profession. And the descendents from that line do well. You could argue that it is genetic, but then why does one side dominate. And my mother and her mother had a strong sense that one could progress through education. Indeed my father came from a very poor background - his father worked in a brick yard, and his father was a knife grinder. But after he met my mother, he went to night school and did well.

Many years ago I gave tutorials to undergraduates at a major UK university. About half came from private schools. What struck me was that the best were brighter then me - hohum - and yet quite a few of the private school ones were thick as tulipe. And yet they were at a major university. So cultural advantages help a lot.

[vista]

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?

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.

[Fungus]

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?

I am no expert on this area but I understand that this area is not as clear cut as physics or mathematics, and there remains huge debate over the role of race and so on on intelligence.

Sickle cell aneamia is a disease that is easily diagnosed, and has a well defined cause. It's not the same as the brain, which is less well understood.

You might be right. The problem is that this is a contentious area, and can offend a large number of people. So there is extra reason to err on the side of caution rather saying that "darkies is thick". Yeah okay I exaggerate, but you get the picture.

[Mailman]

He does have the right to say and the 150 or so of the student body who signed a petition for his removal should be removed from his lectures, hey tough tulip if you don't get your degree because you want to play politics.

He should have the right to say what he said but then again there are enough doubts about the methodology (ie. testing is very narrow etc) used for him to use a bit more discretion with his statements.

Mailman