Race, IQ and Brain Size

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

the most disgusting of all this is that they deny using falaciais

I find other things in the race / IQ discussion far more disgusting than that, but appreciate you providing this clear window into your personal/mental spectrum of atrocity and abhorrence. 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

But you were talking about race, not ethnicity. I might be inclined to accuse you of moving the goal posts, conflation of terms, and sloppy argumentation... but I'll give you a pass and chalk it up to language differences and translation issues... this time.

These social constructs of race and ethnicity cannot be detected in the genes... and the amount of melanin in someone's skin doesn't affect their intelligence. The social structures which differentially restrict access to food, housing, health, education, and opportunities do. 

Thank you (and others who replied with more information) for this simple explanation.

I had no idea there was a difference so I was quite correct to say that I am not qualified to answer the question as I would probably have given an inappropriate one.

13 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

ol, nor argued to commit such a fallacy, I just reported the fact that he confused two languages that have nothing to do with each other, Portuguese and Spanish

Really ?

Again I am not an expert in lingusitic matters, but I have always understood that both languages are 'romance languages' in that they derive principally from Latin.

[Luiz Henning]

here is my topic explaining the validity of the race category for humans. Lest they fill me up with meaningless questions about race.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Again I am not an expert in lingusitic matters, but I have always understood that both languages are 'romance languages' in that they derive principally from Latin.

in fact, but it does not mean that the two are ultimately alike, they have their divergence.

[MigL]

I've read your other topic also.

I agree with you.
There can be differing human 'races', depending on your definition of 'race'.
The problem arises once you start categorizing these different 'races' according to real or imagined attributes.
IOW, what do you intend to do with this information ?
Is it beneficial or detrimental ?

It's a lot like nuclear power.
Is the intention to provide cheap power, or to build bombs ?

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Luiz Henning said:

technically speaking, I prefer to use races, because it is a scientific term,

 

1 hour ago, Luiz Henning said:

"race" does not have a clear and objective definition,

Make up your mind.

[Luiz Henning]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

Make up your mind

Read my entire argument instead of saying "Make up your mind", I said that the concept of race as a whole is still quite obscure in biology, but I follow the current definition.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Luiz Henning

[zapatos]

32 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

Read my entire argument instead of saying "Make up your mind", I said that the concept of race as a whole is still quite obscure in biology, but I follow the current definition.

I guess I missed it. What is the scientific definition of race.

[nuDAN]

Hey, where did this come from? Because now I'm confused. Could some PLEASE clarify an "American Race" for a small brained person like m'self? Because I had no idea. It HAS to be because I'm stuck with this small brain I have a small brain, and so apparently I'm left trapped here in the Department of Redundancy Department, LOL.

Edited February 16, 2021 by nuDAN

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, nuDAN said:

Hey, where did this come from? Because now I'm confused. Could some PLEASE clarify an "American Race" for a small brained person like m'self? Because I had no idea. It HAS to be because I'm stuck with this small brain I have a small brain, and so apparently I'm left trapped here in the Department of Redundancy Department, LOL.

Welcome nuDAN and welcome to your first plus point.

Nice question.

[nuDAN]

Thank you, studiot, nice to be here, small brain and all Maybe I'll even stumble onto a thread that could inform me how I can produce more progenitors cells than neurons? Then perhaps I'll get lucky enough to have it result in even more neurons and hopefully get a smarter, bigger brain. Race, ethnicity, intelligence tests not withstanding.

Edited February 16, 2021 by nuDAN

[Luiz Henning]

39 minutes ago, nuDAN said:

Hey, where did this come from? Because now I'm confused. Could some PLEASE clarify an "American Race" for a small brained person like m'self? Because I had no idea. It HAS to be because I'm stuck with this small brain I have a small brain, and so apparently I'm left trapped here in the Department of Redundancy Department, LOL.

"america" alludes to Native Americans LOL.

by the way, I wanted a help here, whoever is helping me will be grateful, does anyone know how to delete a post here? I wanted to redo the one about races, I don't know what happened but he misaligned everything, thank you very much

 

[nuDAN]

Decided to say 'never mind'.

Edited February 16, 2021 by nuDAN

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

anyone know how to delete a post here?

You can’t 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

I guess I missed it. What is the scientific definition of race.

Still waiting for an answer to this

[nuDAN]

It's not a good thing to do.

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by nuDAN

[Luiz Henning]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Still waiting for an answer to this

the answer to that is in my other topic, if you want to see it there, it's a little out of alignment, but the definition part is very readable.

Quote

You can’t 

what a pity, but any question or objection against my text may be being asked here, or there, in the recent topic.

guys, go to that link and ignore my other topic, this one is more complete and with less alignment errors, and this one with all sources.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210216180437/https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124404-race-is-a-valid-scientific-category-answering-questions-and-fallacies/

[nuDAN]

There is a real sociological danger when one pursues equating race to some degree of perceived Human imperfection. Personally, I'll have no truck with such concepts. So....done here.

[Luiz Henning]

I don't think, racial inequalities are probably a permanent feature of society that we will have to learn to deal with and are not anyone's fault. If society can internalize this truth, we will have made real progress towards understanding ourselves as a species.

[nuDAN]

15 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

I don't think, racial inequalities are probably a permanent feature of society that we will have to learn to deal with and are not anyone's fault.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here? I was leaving the thread but saw that I needed some clarity on that sentence. You said it was a truth but it's not reading well.  At least not to me.

[DrmDoc]

20 hours ago, Luiz Henning said:

In this Topic, I will argue that research on race, brain size and IQ constitutes a significant line of evidence that supports a genetic model of racial differences in IQ....

If I understand correctly, you're presenting a position that correlates genetically based racial distinctions with variations in brain size that confer variations in intelligence.  Let's start with the genetics, which does not confer intelligence unless their expression result in malformations that inhibit normal or average brain development or function.  Homo sapiens, as a species, share a commonality of brain development, structure, and function that may only be altered invitro or after birth as a result of nutritional, environmental, or social influences and effects.  What I'm stating here is that genetics do not influence our capacity to learn and innovate unless those genetics in someway effects brains developments that are inconsistent with average, atypical developments among the human species--which brings us to brain size. 

Indeed, genetics can affect brain size as evident by the brain cases of humans from extinct to modern emergences. However, brain size empirically does not confer "exceptional cognitive abilities".  If brain size were an empirical measure of intelligence, we'd be a planet of Neanderthals whose brain size were larger than modern humans.  Or, perhaps, we'd be ruled by species of whale or elephant whose brain volumes can measure as much as 9 kg and 7 kg respectively.  Indeed, the idea that brain size confer intelligence is a ludicrous assertion. 

Lastly, race vs. ethnicity are not synonymous from how I understand and has used those terms.  Race describes a purely physical distinction between humans primarily characterized by skin pigmentation, eye color, and hair texture.  While ethnicity describes a social distinction rooted in tribalism and traditions relative to origins of religious and/or geographic significance. Race and ethnicity are not empirical scientific measures of intelligence because they do not constrict the basic cognitive capacity of humans. The basic cognitive capacity of humans may only be constricted by the prejudices we impose overtly and subvertly on our species--as suggested by the argument you have posed in this discussion.   

[beecee]

22 hours ago, iNow said:

Anyway... I've seen posts like yours several times before. Usually the person has an agenda. We'll see if you're any different, but most of these things you seem to feel so strongly about are... not to get too technical on you here... horseshit and bollocks. 

Yes, I sorta smelt that too. 

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Yes, I sorta smelt that too. 

smelt or smelled...whatever the case maybe.

[nuDAN]

Good post, DrmDoc, and you take it back to the OP which/who has slipped away from the OP's initial presentation to one more based in sociology (as the more recent postings would suggest). Which, IMHO, is more pertinent the thread's title anyway. Because I've seen little but bias involved in any evidence correlating intelligence capacities with race. But the sociological evidence is overwhelming

I would like to add that, with respect to brain size, the development of the number of neurons in the neocortex is far more important than brain size. If it wasn't for that, I would be pulling termites out of a hole with a stick with my Chimpanzee and Bonobo cousins.

Edited February 16, 2021 by nuDAN

[MigL]

I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up over this.

If you chose to define every bus as a big yellow vehicle, you can make the correlation that it is full of school-age children; and you'd be right. However, we all know there are different colored buses, full of older people, or even empty.

Similarly, if you choose to define 'race' on the basis of external appearance, you can make the argument that there are many 'races' of humans. However we all know that external appearance can vary more widely within a 'race' than between so-called 'races'.

I'm sure if we take Luiz' efinition of intelligence, that based solely on IQ tests, he may be able to make a correlation to brain size, and even to these different 'races' he has defined.
That would not prove very much at all.

 

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

if you choose to define 'race' on the basis of external appearance, you can make the argument that there are many 'races' of humans.

He’s not making that as a personal choice, though. He’s asserting that science and biology have chosen this, that it’s valid as a genetic description, and that anyone who points out the obvious error of this claim is ignoring reality (I believe “idiot” was the word... his word, not mine). 

[Luiz Henning]

in my view, sir "DrmDoc" you only read the announcement of the topic, and look at it still, as it seems like even that you have read, let's see the first pointless question.

Quote

Let's start with genetics, which does not provide intelligence unless its expression results in malformations that inhibit normal or average brain development or function.

Lol, it is quite obvious that a gene that carries cogenite malformation of the cephalic mass, will come out with a defective brain, however, the genetic link that I claim to exist in the topic (which you have not read) are responsible for the exponential increase of the brain and are also linked to general intelligence. If you are still not satisfied, let's go to some more empirical evidence about genes and intelligence. There is evidence that also points to a genetic explanation. Consider that the fact scores on the IQ test questions vary in their heritability. Some cognitive skills are more hereditary than others and it turns out that the more hereditary a cognitive skill is, the greater the racial gap in that skill tends to be (1) (2)  This discovery is easy to explain in the hereditary view, but very difficult to explain otherwise. Many alleles of specific genes have been associated with superior intelligence and, in all cases, these alleles occur more frequently in whites than in blacks. This research comes mainly from 4 articles that analyzed how 14 alleles (variants of the gene) that were previously associated with intelligence, or a proxy for intelligence, vary by race (3) (4) and (5) m a sample of 101,069, 10 of these 14 alleles were found to each predict a higher than average educational achievement (6) The predictive ability of each allele was then tested again on 12 samples, totaling 25,290 people. All 10 alleles were associated with intelligence in several samples, although the associations were not always statistically significant. It is important to note that the samples consisted only of white people, which means that no genes arbitrarily associated with race will be falsely considered to be associated with education just because race does. Here is a brief summary of these studies (because I am sure that no one here will make a point of reading, as only what suits your egalitarian ideology is appropriate, even so, for those who want to see the sources, they are in listed hyperlinks) The studies basically they say that four alleles come from more varied sources. The first is a version of the NPTN gene, which is involved in how the brain changes itself (neural growth and synaptic plasticity). A particular allele of this gene has previously been found to predict lower IQ scores and less cortical thickness. The second allele comes from the FNB1L gene and has been associated with high intelligence in several studies. The third allele is a version of the CHRM2 gene and has been linked to high intelligence in 4 separate studies. Finally, in a meta-analysis of 77 previous studies, it was found that a version of the APOE4 gene predicts better memory, speed of perception and overall cognitive functioning. Each of the studies involving these four genes used different sets of controls and statistical adjustments.

nevertheless, you still make the unfortunate statement of:

Quote

we'd be a planet of Neanderthals whose brain size were larger than modern humans.  Or, perhaps, we'd be ruled by species of whale or elephant whose brain volumes can measure as much as 9 kg and 7 kg respectively.  Indeed, the idea that brain size confer intelligence is a ludicrous assertion. 

get here, i'll tell you a secret, did you know that big bodies need big brains to manage them? Another curiosity, did you know that you are not looking for variations outside the species but within it? And finally, one last curiosity, did you happen to know that brains of different species are organized differently? I found it curious to mention the Neanderthals, did you know that they were considered in the past as the most evolved and intelligent Hominide than other species of hominids that roamed the world? it is not for nothing that they are known as "the Hellenists of the Paleolithic". In any case, Neanderthals represent the last significant divergence from the main stem of hominid evolution. Both the sapiens and Neanderthal lineages should continue to develop their brains, but the Neanderthal brains developed in a very different direction. Both the sapiens and the Neanderthal lineages developed in order to become more effective hunters. However, Neanderthals emphasized greater development in sensory and motor centers mainly in the posterior half of the brain, while sapiens emphasized an increase in upper centers, that is, speech, imagination and, above all, ethical centers, in the frontal half of the brain, particularly the frontal lobes, which were twice the size of Neanderthals, one of the palpable explanations of why modern humans are more intelligent than Neadertals, it would be that, in the process of evolution, the brains neadertals, they were made for activities such as hunting (planning), and remote skills, depacial and dynamic, that is, in activities that involve movement. But the fact that the modern man is more intelligent in this regard, is due to the fact that the first hominids to develop proto-agriculture, were the large-brain Neanderthals, that is, without them in our evolutionary chain we would never have the capacity to mainly create tools and agriculture.

4 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Lastly, race vs. ethnicity are not synonymous from how I understand and has used those terms.  Race describes a purely physical distinction between humans primarily characterized by skin pigmentation, eye color, and hair texture.  While ethnicity describes a social distinction rooted in tribalism and traditions relative to origins of religious and/or geographic significance. Race and ethnicity are not empirical scientific measures of intelligence because they do not constrict the basic cognitive capacity of humans. The basic cognitive capacity of humans may only be constricted by the prejudices we impose overtly and subvertly on our species--as suggested by the argument you have posed in this discussion.   

Lol, there is no single variant of this definition of "ethnicity", some authors speak of ethnicity as the assumption of a biological basis, which can be defined by a race, a culture or both; the term is avoided by current anthropology, as it has not received a precise conceptualization, but it is commonly used in non-terminological language

4 hours ago, nuDAN said:

Good post, DrmDoc, and you take it back to the OP which/who has slipped away from the OP's initial presentation to one more based in sociology (as the more recent postings would suggest). Which, IMHO, is more pertinent the thread's title anyway. Because I've seen little but bias involved in any evidence correlating intelligence capacities with race. But the sociological evidence is overwhelming

I would like to add that, with respect to brain size, the development of the number of neurons in the neocortex is far more important than brain size. If it wasn't for that, I would be pulling termites out of a hole with a stick with my Chimpanzee and Bonobo cousins.

don't be so my dear, white brains are 7% bigger (1438 cc versus 1343 cc) which indicates that they also have 600 million more neurons (each one carries about 600 billion synapses, each one carries a bit of information cortical) in the last analysis, bigger brains can carry a bigger amount of neurons, you don’t think such a costly thing, when a big brain would be in vain right? It needs to be of some use. Lol

one more curiosity about IQ. IQ is strongly related, probably more than any other measurable trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic and social variables. IQ is also correlated with a number of brain variables, including its size, electrical potentials and glucose metabolism rate during cognitive activity.

[nuDAN]

1 hour ago, Luiz Henning said:

white brains are 7% bigger (1438 cc versus 1343 cc) which indicates that they also have 600 million more neurons

No it doesn't. Bigger brains do NOT mean more neurons. If that was the case Elephants would be ruling the world. Example: duplication of base pairs in the Human NOTCH2NLB gene, which resides at the 1q21.1 locus of chromosome 1, can cause macrocephaly (large head/brain) and lead to autism and other mental issues and neurological disorders. It has nothing to do with the number of neurons. It's like most things, generalities can work until one begins to talk about an individual. But according to you large brain individuals are what? Better Humans? I've known plenty of folks with large brains that are down right stupid. Academia all over the world is filled with big brains and small brains.

You're just going to have to come up with something better than brain size to anchor your beliefs. Maybe look more at the slower rate of brain development in fetuses that allow stem cells more time to produce more progenitors than neurons. In Great Apes the fetus grows a brain much quicker than a Human brain. As a result, more neurons than progenitors get created. What that means is there won't be enough progenitors in the long run to grow the number neurons need to match the Human brain. It's why Chimps will never build an iPhone. It's easy to pass judgement after everything's in place but it's critical that one understands that brain development and function doesn't happen in the bubble of a perfect world. How about looking at malnourishment which is at epidemic levels in third world countries as well as developed countries. You can't tell me that a country or region that has experienced war and famine for years id going to have nutritionally perfect brain and body development. Bottom line? The world is flawed and it's peoples aren't cookie cutter perfect.

There's 8 billion people in this world. Sample half, sample a quarter, not the small numbers of individuals I've seen in the research papers- many of which are dated- and then get back to me

Edited February 17, 2021 by nuDAN