Jump to content
EgalitarianJay

Did humans evolve into separate races that differ in mental traits?

  

43 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe that there are racial differences in intelligence?



Recommended Posts

Mikemikev needs to explain why Sierra Leone and several other Sub-Saharan African countries have higher national IQ's than some European countries (e.g. Albania, Serbia).

 

There is no global IQ pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know. I'm sorry.

 

That's OK. I'm sure you can explain yourself if you take a deep breath and try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikemikev needs to explain why Sierra Leone and several other Sub-Saharan African countries have higher national IQ's than some European countries (e.g. Albania, Serbia).

 

There is no global IQ pattern.

Why would I need to explain some made up nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The consistent pattern is evidence for racial differences in intelligence. Its actually you that has no evidence for a cultural (read oppression) based explanation.

 

There is no consistent pattern. You can only make that argument by selectively citing data such as Rushton completely omitting Native Americans from his racial matrix because their IQs are not consistent with his "cold winters made Europeans and Asians smarter" evolutionary hypothesis. Environmental differences caused by racial discrimination easily explain racial IQ gaps which close as environment improves for historically oppressed people.

Edited by EgalitarianJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no consistent pattern. You can only make that argument by selectively citing data such as Rushton completely omitting Native Americans from his racial matrix because their IQs are consistent with his "cold winters made Europeans and Asians smarter" evolutionary hypothesis. Environmental differences caused by racial discrimination easily explain racial IQ gaps which close as environment improves for historically oppressed people.

A consistent pattern means the same races show roughly the same IQ wherever they are, it doesn't mean major races are homogeneous within. Nobody thinks this and it is a strawman. Native Americans are a low density race which probably evolved less over the last 20000 years. That's more plausible than your "no change" or "same evolution" hypothesis, which is more to do with emotions and politics than data.

Edited by Mikemikev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

We're not going to have this spill over into yet another thread with claims and rebuttals that have are not backed up. "Go Google it" is not acceptable, especially if one is not willing to practice what one preaches.

 

IOW you can't expect others to Google to find the support for a claim you make, and turn around and dismiss a rebuttal with doing the same.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

We're not going to have this spill over into yet another thread with claims and rebuttals that have are not backed up. "Go Google it" is not acceptable, especially if one is not willing to practice what one preaches.

 

IOW you can't expect others to Google to find the support for a claim you make, and turn around and dismiss a rebuttal with doing the same.

 

Specifically what are you talking about?

 

You mean What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis Is True? Linda S. Gottfredson School of Education University of Delaware?

 

Its fine to name a paper n'est pas? Is this a rule here or just some excuse to bully me because you don't like my POV?

 

How else could I establish the existence of "racism" theory other than referencing people who mention it? Isn't that of more value than the total ignorance, feigned or otherwise, of my discussion partner?

Edited by Mikemikev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specifically what are you talking about?

 

You mean What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis Is True? Linda S. Gottfredson School of Education University of Delaware?

 

Its fine to name a paper n'est pas? Is this a rule here or just some excuse to bully me because you don't like my POV?

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

"Tang, 2005" and "Long 2010", for example, are insufficient. That's used in research papers that have a citation list at the end. You aren't including the citations.

 

I will note that previously you did not include "Linda S. Gottfredson School of Education University of Delaware", not that that really is included in a normal citation.

 

Saxon as well, in a recent post. Claim, but no link to back it up.

 

 

You might notice the large number of LINKS other people provide. I'm not chastising the people who have done that because THEY HAVE BEEN PROVIDING LINKS. A crack about providing a link to Google and then dismissing rebuttals out of hand? That's you, not other people. The focus is on you because you are the one making many unsubstantiated claims and avoiding challenges to them.

 

 

Now, stop complaining about being asked to follow the rules and protocols and start following them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

"Tang, 2005" and "Long 2010", for example, are insufficient. That's used in research papers that have a citation list at the end. You aren't including the citations.

 

I will note that previously you did not include "Linda S. Gottfredson School of Education University of Delaware", not that that really is included in a normal citation.

 

Saxon as well, in a recent post. Claim, but no link to back it up.

 

 

You might notice the large number of LINKS other people provide. I'm not chastising the people who have done that because THEY HAVE BEEN PROVIDING LINKS. A crack about providing a link to Google and then dismissing rebuttals out of hand? That's you, not other people. The focus is on you because you are the one making many unsubstantiated claims and avoiding challenges to them.

 

 

Now, stop complaining about being asked to follow the rules and protocols and start following them.

Which unsubstantiated claims did I make which were challenged?

 

Why are you so obsessed with "LINKS" when anyone can look up my references in a second? Its just some arbitrary excuse to have a go at me because you don't like my "races are not the same" POV. Lets be honest for a moment shall we? Its like you complaining about me asking someone to stay on topic after they questioned my psychology: biased and lame moderation.

Edited by Mikemikev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried googling "Long 2010" and got nothing.

So you should work on your search ability. I came here to discuss with experts not spoon feed morons.

 

You seriously can't put together a search based on the context, since you are so interested? Are we supposed to believe this or are you trying to cause trouble for me?

Edited by Mikemikev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you should work on your search ability. I came here to discuss with experts not spoon feed morons.

 

Several people have noted that your references are not always helpful. It does not seem reasonable to blame others when you could, very easily, provide a relevant link.

My first result was an article about Nia Long winning an award (which could be seen as slightly ironic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several people have noted that your references are not always helpful. It does not seem reasonable to blame others when you could, very easily, provide a relevant link.My first result was an article about Nia Long winning an award (which could be seen as slightly ironic).

I write from memory. If I don't provide a link, unlucky. Perhaps you would prefer the zero information people like you provide. Why am I a target when my opponent provides exactly nothing? POV mod bias?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you so obsessed with "LINKS" when anyone can look up my references in a second? Its just some arbitrary excuse to have a go at me because you don't like my "races are not the same" POV. Lets be honest for a moment shall we? Its like you complaining about me asking someone to stay on topic after they questioned my psychology: biased and lame moderation.

 

!

Moderator Note

We gave you a chance to provide evidence instead of using these tired, asinine, internet chat tactics (like trying to discredit the moderators when it looks like they're about to ban you). You chose the low road (again). So have another vacation while staff discusses whether your intellectual dishonesty is worth wasting even a minute more on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's national IQ scores (using data from three sources):

 

http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

 

Sierre Leone is 91 above several south-east European countries (Croatia: 90, Albania: 90, Serbia: 89).

 

Supposedly this is meant to be Mikemikev's speciality topic, but he doesn't even know the data.


UK IQ is 100 (see link above).

 

Now why should the English, Scots, Welsh be lumped with Serbs as "white" who are 11 points lower in IQ?

 

That's why race doesn't make any sense. Even Mikemikev admits there is enormous variation in each race. I just see this variation as too much to make racial classification valid.


 

There is no consistent pattern. You can only make that argument by selectively citing data such as Rushton completely omitting Native Americans from his racial matrix because their IQs are consistent with his "cold winters made Europeans and Asians smarter" evolutionary hypothesis. Environmental differences caused by racial discrimination easily explain racial IQ gaps which close as environment improves for historically oppressed people.

 

How do you explain the low IQs of certain isolated hunter-gather populations? Prior to European colonisation these peoples were hunter-gatherers with lack of civilization (and they still are), so you cannot blame this on "racial discrimination".

Edited by Saxon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race is a superficial classification that has never presented as an accurate measure or predictor of human intelligence in the whole of human history. No significant genetic variance in brain formation and structure between the distinct races within this classification has ever suggested or supported a racially based intelligence distinction. In my view, intelligence regards an innate capacity to learn, innovate, and adapt that IQ tests can't adequately measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like irregardless, racialism is a word with a couple of extraneous letters that in no way change the meaning of the word.

 

 

"....this one time, at band camp....I stuck a flute....."

 

 

LOL

A consistent pattern means the same races show roughly the same IQ wherever they are, it doesn't mean major races are homogeneous within. Nobody thinks this and it is a strawman. Native Americans are a low density race which probably evolved less over the last 20000 years. That's more plausible than your "no change" or "same evolution" hypothesis, which is more to do with emotions and politics than data.

 

would I throw a wrench into the works of your entire debate here if I told you that most of us Biologists and Anthropologists believe there actually is no such thing as "race?" that it is a myth? and we all descend from a common ancestor? and that the differences we have are due to our past cultural practices, diet, and environmental conditions? And that the DNA similarity between, say, a blonde-blue pale skinned Swede and Kunte Kinte is along the order of 99.99%? and that the minute difference is the genome code is NOT in the brain or central nervous system, but rather, is cosmetic? as in eyes, hair, (dead protein, anyway) and epidermal constituents?

 

so if this throws the proverbial wrench, sorry. If not, you're welcome. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"would I throw a wrench into the works of your entire debate here if I told you that most of us Biologists and Anthropologists believe there actually is no such thing as "race?""

 

I am a biologist (immunology/genetics) and I disagree that we biologists think human races are myths. They do exist, but they have little biological meaning (for all the reasons we have here tried to explain to Mikemikev). Intelligence is an emergent property that is a highly complex interaction of genetics, environment and development. Race, in its simplest form, means shared genetic characters. The problem facing people like Mikemikev is that there isn't a single set of shared genetic characters such that by simply looking at those characters could you tell which race the person belonged to ...and significantly....just as you cannot tell what a person's IQ would be by looking at their genes.

 

Currently I work in reprogramming T cells for use in autologous adoptive cancer therapies. There are distinct racial differences in the way people respond to therapies and even in the course of the disease itself. Of course there are also sex, age and familial differences too. It is in medicine where the differences between races may have a real biological basis as most medical issues are impacted by genes and those are the units of heredity. The medical community has just recently come to grips with the reality of treating differing racial groups as, depending on your ancestry, some therapies are more effective than others. ALL of these racial influences on health care are, of course superimposed upon and made more complicated by environmental, cultural and developmental influences. It is these latter which have the largest effect size, but race does as well.

 

Human races really do exist but it's just not a very useful concept in biology except in some rare and highly specific places, most prominently in medicine (and only when very carefully worked out...so we know what we're talking about)

Edited by MEC1960

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Human races really do exist but it's just not a very useful concept in biology except in some rare and highly specific places, most prominently in medicine (and only when very carefully worked out...so we know what we're talking about)

The issue really is that it serves no useful purpose in the ordinary lives of Joe and Josephine Public. The difference between specialist people, like yourself, and ordinary people is that one uses it for identification/distinction purposes to a therapeutic end, and the other uses it for discrimination and oppression; generally speaking. For social purposes it needs to be taken out of the everyday spoken language; it's a specialist word beyond the ken of the untrained..

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true, StringJunky. Race *isn't* a very useful concept most anywhere. In some branches of biology (medicine and genetics, for two) it has small use but certainly it is meaningless in any large sense to the biology of our species. In social, political and religious world views it plays a vastly larger role (and as badly muddled by many) than it does in biology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race isn't biological, it's barely even cultural. Race is political.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you explain the low IQs of certain isolated hunter-gather populations? Prior to European colonisation these peoples were hunter-gatherers with lack of civilization (and they still are), so you cannot blame this on "racial discrimination".

 

Hunter-gather populations typically lack the education and acculturation with Western society that other populations have which is needed to succeed on an IQ test. The argument that these populations are stupid because they lack civilization is fallacious since all populations used to be hunter-gathers at one point and there is no consistent pattern of one population remaining the most dominant in the world throughout history. Civilization represents the pinnacle of human ability but variation in cultural development is not reflective of the innate intelligence of a population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not forget that most blacks in the US descend from slaves who were forced to be illiterate by law. It is silly to take one slice out of that timeline and think, "Maybe they're just slightly different biologically."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not forget that most blacks in the US descend from slaves who were forced to be illiterate by law. It is silly to take one slice out of that timeline and think, "Maybe they're just slightly different biologically."

 

Literacy was an advantage most slaves were denied. Not being allowed by a slave owner to learn how to read and write his language is not the same as not having the intellectual capacity (intelligence) to do so. By the measure you've suggested, nearly every person on Earth is intellectually challenged because no one, in my opinion, is literate in every language humanity uses. As time has shown, former slaves and the children of former slaves have learned to read and write very well, when provided equal opportunity to do so. Slavery was never a deterrent to intelligence.

Edited by DrmDoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.