Intelligence is nearly always desirable - why not tweak with it?

[aswokei]

I don't think there are many cases where intelligence isn't a desirable trait to have. The only exception I can think of is with some women. It seems that archetypal men are more drawn to dumb or 'ditzy' women. Perhaps it's because these women are easier prey and are easier to dominate, which is what archetypal men like to do.

 

It's even well-known that some women pretend to act dumb to land their man of preference (by dyeing their hair blonde and acting dumb). So that right there is an example of how intelligence kicks ass. Even if intelligence is undesirable in a certain situation, an intelligent person can adapt and get what he/she wants because he/she is clever and cunning.

 

So it is my proposal that intelligence is nearly ALWAYS good to have. If this is true, why haven't humans evolved to be more intelligent than they are?

 

Intelligent people clearly have a huge advantage over the idiots and it shows. Here's some information I got from this

link:

 

Brain Size Cranial Capacity:

Blacks: 1,267

Whites: 1,347

Orientals: 1,364

 

Brain Size Cortical Neurons (millions):

Blacks: 13,185

Whites: 13,665

Orientals: 13,767

 

Intelligence IQ Test Scores:

Blacks: 85

Whites: 100

Orientals: 106

 

Reproduction Hormone Levels:

Blacks: Higher

Whites: Intermediate

Orientals: Lower

 

Personality Aggressiveness:

Blacks: Higher

Whites: Intermediated

Orientals: Lower

 

Marital Stability, Law Abidingness, Mental Health:

Blacks: Lower

Whites: Intermediate

Orientals: Higher

 

"Is Race a Valid Taxonomic Construct," by J. Phillipe Ruston, Department of Psychology at the University of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, Internet Essay, 2001.

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.or...icConstruct.pdf

 

Secondary Source (original printed publication):

"Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective," by Rushton, J.P., Port Huron, MI, Charles Darwin Research Institute, 2000.

 

The data show that the IQ for the average mongoloid is 106, 100 for caucasoids and 85 for negroids. Now do these figures mean anything? Can you even see what they mean in the real world? The answer is yes. Take into account of the state, lifestyles and cultural achievements of the members belonging to those groups.

 

On their own, blacks haven't really achieved much as a race, technologically speaking compared to the caucasoids or mongoloids. In the United States, their murder rate is almost 6 times as high as their white counterparts, which is also a telling sign of a relative lack of intelligence, although their comparably strong inclination towards violence is likely also due to higher levels of testosterone and socioeconomic factors.

 

Caucasoids and mongoloids on the other hand, have achieved a WHOLE lot, technologically, aesthetically and in terms of cultural nuance. Although caucasoids undeniably hold economic dominance over mongoloid nations in the world market at the present moment, that's very likely going to change in the future. And I have little to doubt that intelligence has a lot to do with it.

 

A lot of the reason I believe the mongoloids aren't dominating right now is because of their relative lack of natural resources and their past policies regarding foreign trade.

 

But that's all changing now. In China, the government is seeing how they held their country back by not allowing their businesses to grow and flourish. They're definitely seeing the wisdom in capitalism and they're ready to take full advantage and employ policies that will make them better able to compete with the rest of the world.

 

The world is flattening and technology is evolving at an unprecedented rate. If you are smart and savvy enough to take advantage and be innovative with the technology, you can literally turn nothing into something. And this is exactly why in the past decade China has been able to switch many regions over from agrarian poverty to urban modernity. It's because they have the brainpower to harness and exploit technology to pull themselves out of poverty. I've read some crazy statistic like; there are 1,000 new cars on the road in China everyday.

 

Now let's go back to South Africa. No offense to any blacks reading this, but these guys are so dumb they can't figure out how to use condoms. So much of their plight could be instantly stopped if their collective IQs rose 10 points. But this is the unfortunate reality. And it's not just true in South America. If one simply does a little research, he will find that the same characteristic behavior patterns everywhere negroids exist.

 

 

 

 

Now here is where I'm going with all of this: Intelligence is really important in the large picture. It has a lot to do with how much one achieves, the standard by which he lives, his ability to adapt and his ability to proliferate (I realize there is a lot of evidence to the contrary of the proliferate option) It many ways, it seems obvious to me that smarter equals better.

 

When humans become adept at engineering the genome, I think intelligence should be the first thing we improve in humans because as I said, smarter almost always equals better. Like I suggested, if we could increase the IQ of the negroids by 10 or 20 points, so many problems caused by stupidity could be solved. Why shouldn’t we make ourselves better if we have the power? It seems like a stupid notion not to. I know I could certainly use a few more points myself! Of course precautions should be taken. Have a prototype phase until we implement it on a large scale.

 

When we start creating people with superhuman intelligence (it is going to happen sooner or later), the world and what it means to be human will never be the same. We will finally get to take control. I certainly couldn’t imagine it being any worse than it is.

[Sisyphus]

I'm not going to address the race issues you're talking about beyond saying:

 

a) This study contradicts others I've seen that say there is no significant difference in intelligence based on race. That doesn't mean this is wrong, necessarily, but it does probably mean it's not quite as black and white (pun not intended) as you think. Measuring inborn intelligence is not even close to an exact science.

 

b) Your logic is seriously flawed regarding the outcomes of such hypothetical differences. (Asians are at a disadvantage due to trade policies, yet blacks are "too dumb to use a condom.")

 

and

c) Did you really not expect to be called racist moron because of this, or do you just not care?

 

ANYWAY, regarding your initial premise, "intelligence is always desirable." I don't think I agree. Your example of the intelligent woman pretending to be dumb to get what she wants is true, but misleading. Intelligence will, it's true, usually help you get what you want. But in order for it to be evolutionarily desirable, what you want always has to be more children. However, this is clearly not the case - to the contrary, the more intelligent one is, the more likely is one to find reasons not to have children, like education or finances. Who's going to have more kids, the woman with 4 PhD's who is in school until she's 35? Or the high school dropout who is "too dumb to use a condom?"

 

Intelligence also might not always even be useful at getting what one wants. I remember reading somewhere that the most successful and well-adjusted people tend to have IQs between 115 and 130. Curious.

[PhDP]

Rushton is the idiot. You cannot conclude that "black people" are genetically less intelligent without eliminating the environmental factor, and when the environmental factor is out (by comparing data on black and white children raised by white parents), blacks are as intelligent as white people. And Rushton continue to evaluate the phenotype like is was a correct evaluation of the genotype.

 

Intelligence also might not always even be useful at getting what one wants. I remember reading somewhere that the most successful and well-adjusted people tend to have IQs between 115 and 130. Curious.

 

Could you find the source for that, I find that conclusion to be very interesting.

[DV8 2XL]

Sisyphus, why are you soiling yourself by replying to that garbage?

[aswokei]

Sisyphus:

 

Thanks for your response.

 

a) This study contradicts others I've seen that say there is no significant difference in intelligence based on race. That doesn't mean this is wrong, necessarily, but it does probably mean it's not quite as black and white (pun not intended) as you think. Measuring inborn intelligence is not even close to an exact science.

 

Could you please cite those studies for me? Nearly every scientific study I have read about the differences in race acknowledges the disparity of apparent intelligence. I actually only started getting interested in this sort of stuff in the past few years when I was reading in my pyschology text book for school about intelligence. It said the average IQ for whites in America is 100, hispanics, 92, blacks, 85. Needless to say, I was surprised because like a lot of people, prior to that, my thoughts about race were what I had been brainwashed with:

 

Everyone is the same. Their skin may be different colors. But we are the same. Everyone is equal.

 

Well, for anyone who refuses to have blinders on their eyes, it turns out that's not true at all. The differences exist and they are more apparent to me than ever.

 

 

b) Your logic is seriously flawed regarding the outcomes of such hypothetical differences. (Asians are at a disadvantage due to trade policies, yet blacks are "too dumb to use a condom.")

 

I what I meant by "too dumb to use a condom" is that if they were smarter in South Africa, AIDS wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem as it is.

 

c) Did you really not expect to be called racist moron because of this, or do you just not care?

 

Well I understand this is a touchy subject. But people here seem a bit more intelligent and dispassionate than people from other forums. And therefore I figured this would be a better place to discuss this because people here seem more likely to attack an argument rather than the person proposing the argument.

 

However, this is clearly not the case - to the contrary, the more intelligent one is, the more likely is one to find reasons not to have children, like education or finances. Who's going to have more kids, the woman with 4 PhD's who is in school until she's 35? Or the high school dropout who is "too dumb to use a condom?"

 

I can see your point here.

 

Intelligence also might not always even be useful at getting what one wants. I remember reading somewhere that the most successful and well-adjusted people tend to have IQs between 115 and 130. Curious.

 

I'd like to see where you got this and who decided on what is meant by "successful" and "well-adjusted".

[aswokei]

Phil:

 

You cannot conclude that "black people" are genetically less intelligent without eliminating the environmental factor, and when the environmental factor is out (by comparing data on black and white children raised by white parents), blacks are as intelligent as white people.

 

Can you cite that for me?

 

Well, it doesn't really matter. I didn't really want to make this a big thing about race anyway. It just seemed like a really easy and obvious way to show how much intelligence matters.

[PhDP]

Can you cite that for me?

 

Yes I can;

 

Nisbett, R.E. 2005. Heredity, Environment, And Race Differences in IQ; A commentary on Rushton and Jensen. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(2), 302-310.

 

Jencks, C. and Phillips, M. (Editors), 1998. The Black-White Test Score Gap. Brookings Institution Press

 

Scarr, S. and Weinberg, R.A. 1983. The Minnesota Adoption Studies: Genetic Differences and Malleability. Child Development, 54, 260-267.

 

Scarr. S., Pakstis, S., Katz, H and Barker. 1977. The absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestory and intellectual skills within the Black population. Human Genetics, 39, 69-86.

 

Tizard, B., Cooperman, A and Tizard, J. 1972. Enviromental effects on language development a study of young children in longstay residential nurseries. Child Development, 43, 342-343.

 

Two other very interesting articles on the subject of "race and IQ";

 

Mingroni, M. A. 2004. The secular rise in IQ: Giving heterosis a closer look. Intelligence, 32, 65-83.

 

Show that the IQ rise may be due to cross-ethnic matings.

 

Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L. & Dodd, S. M. 1984. Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines. Current Anthropology, 25, 301–330.

 

Show that distance from the equator, not race, predict the mean IQ of a group

 

Well, it doesn't really matter. I didn't really want to make this a big thing about race anyway. It just seemed like a really easy and obvious way to show how much intelligence matters.

 

I don't like Rushton. His work range mostly from "biased" to "completly irrational". I've read his book nearly by accident (while doing a research on the theoretical implications of life history evolution), and his understanding of life history evolution is extremely low. It's incredible, he used the r/K model as it was a powerful predictive theoretical tool ! Even Pianka acknowledge his model is mainly a pedagological tool, and, anyway, it is now known to be too inaccurate to make any sort of predictions;

 

Case, T.J. 1999. An Illustrated Guide to Theoretical Ecology.

 

I still can't believe he call himself a defender of race realism...

[aswokei]

I don't like Rushton. His work range mostly from "biased" to "completly irrational". I've read his book nearly by accident (while doing a research on the theoretical implications of life history evolution), and his understanding of life history evolution is extremely low. It's incredible, he used the r/K model as it was a powerful predictive theoretical tool ! Even Pianka acknowledge his model is mainly a pedagological tool, and, anyway, it is now known to be too inaccurate to make any sort of predictions;

 

But even so, the data he presents in this situation is nothing startling. You find that same pattern of IQ disparities between race just about anywhere you look. Blacks, then whites, then orientals/jews.

 

That's the only point I wanted to make. That, and what an obvious difference IQ makes in the real world, which if looked at honestly and compassionately is extremely apparent and real.

[aswokei]

Sisyphus mentioned or alluded to the fact that it seems that lesser intelligent people are breeding more than the higher intelligent. This rings true. And for intelligence to be desirable evolutionarily, what you want has to be more children. But is more always better?

 

One has to look at those countries like South Africa, where the population is breeding like crazy, despite their state of destitute poverty. Are those people better off than say, white Europeans, who seem to average 2-3 children per family? Or even China, where law prohibits more than 2 children per couple. It certainly doesn’t seem that way to me.

[Sisyphus]

Right, except that the IQ difference between Europe and South Africa is not genetic, it's environmental, as the studies Phil cites demonstrate. And the individuals in a society tend to have more children when they are less intelligent, meaning lower intelligence (to a degree, obviously) is more desirable, from an evolutionary standpoint.

 

Incidentally, it has become extremely undesirable to be Chinese. The population halves every generation!

[aswokei]

Right, except that the IQ difference between Europe and South Africa is not genetic

I haven't read a whole lot about intelligence being environmental. There may indeed be something to that. But to say that it's not genetic leads me to believe you are completely out of your mind.

 

Incidentally, it has become extremely undesirable to be Chinese. The population halves every generation!

 

Considering their population, you really think that's a bad thing? In my opinion, it seems they simply adapting to their environment. Don't you think it's a sign of collective wisdom that as the population density reaches a critical mass, that they stop reproducing so much? Or should they continue reproducing at an uncontrolled rate until they're living in their own shit suffer a plague?

 

In my opinion, population control is a contrived consequence of the application of intelligence.

[spudpeel]

Im doing psychology and at the moment we're studying education. There are loads of studies on Race, gender and other differences in people which seem to be related to IQ. As much as I hate terminology, IQ tests can be ethnocentric, i.e. suited to certain cultures. Language to understanding the questions can also be a barrier to success. Somebody (i dont know who) showed black children fostered by white parents have comparable IQ to white children fostered by white parents. This suggests that intelligence is possibly not inherited.

[PhDP]

I haven't read a whole lot about intelligence being environmental. There may indeed be something to that. But to say that it's not genetic leads me to believe you are completely out of your mind.

 

You don't understand, it's not that intelligence is not in the genes, it's that the differences between "race" is necessarily environmental, otherwise it would not disappear when we eliminate the environmental factor by studying the IQ of "blacks" being raised by "whites" parents.

[aswokei]

spudpeel:

Language to understanding the questions can also be a barrier to success.

It absolutely can be. In fact, I've read in Freakonomics (I'm sure some of you have heard about this book. It's pretty fun, easy and interesting reading about underlying truths and debunking conventional wisdom) a chapter about the author's findings in scholastic success in Chicago middle schools using switchboard statistical analsysis.

 

Essentially, it enables researchers to control for different factors in kids' lives, such as:

 

- whether or not the spoken language in the child's household is English

- whether or not the parents attend PTA meetings

- whether or not the parents cap the child's television viewing habits

- whether or not the child has a lot of books in his house

- etc... lots of stuff along those lines.

 

And what makes the book so fun and fascinating is learning what things really do matter. And like one might suspect, the author's studies have indicated that children whose households do not speak English primarily, do considerably worse than other children with English-speaking households.

 

Yeah, I agree, and studies back that up.

 

Another interesting one that correlates with scholastic success is the number of books a child has in his household. Children who have a lot of books in their houses tend achieve significantly more than kids with not so many.

 

People have misinterpreted this information and have initiated programs to give kids books in hopes that it will make them smarter or achieve better in school. But it did not.

 

The author surmises the reason smarter children have more books is because they inherited their intelligence from their parents. Books don't make children smarter. Smarter children gravitate toward books naturally. The books in the child's household is a consequence of his intelligence.

 

Nearly everything I've read suggests that intelligence is inherited.

 

Somebody (i dont know who) showed black children fostered by white parents have comparable IQ to white children fostered by white parents.

 

I hear people say this from time to time, but they can never give me any reliable data. I am open though. I would love to get my hands on this information.

 

Phil:

You don't understand, it's not that intelligence is not in the genes

I was just correcting Sisyphus. This is what he said:

Right, except that the IQ difference between Europe and South Africa is not genetic, it's environmental,

He made an incorrect statement. So I called him on it.

 

it's that the differences between "race" is necessarily environmental, otherwise it would not disappear when we eliminate the environmental factor by studying the IQ of "blacks" being raised by "whites" parents.

 

Again, I haven't read anything convincing about the differences disappearing when controlling for the environmental factors. But it's interested how ready people are to accept it. Maybe I'm ignorant. But that can be fixed. It just seems there is a lot of pressure these days to not notice differences in groups, especially races.

[Sisyphus]

You misunderstand entirely. Obviously there is a strong genetic component to intelligence, otherwise there would be no point in talking about it. My statement is still completely accurate. The fact that when environmental factors are removed from the experiment, blacks and whites do exactly the same on intelligence tests demonstrates that the discrepancy BETWEEN RACES is environmental, not genetic. Like I said. You didn't "call me" on anything.

 

You also don't seem to understand what "desirable" means in terms of evolution. The entirety of what it means is the passing on of one's genes. Is population control a good idea? Obviously. But does it help you pass on your genetic traits? No. If every Chinese couple only has 1 child, a Chinese man's genes only account for one half of a person in the next generation. Compare that to a family with four children in, say, India. Continue this for a few generations, and assume the pattern holds. After one generation, the genes of the Indian account for four times as much of the total gene pool as the Chinese man. After two generations, 16. Three, 64. Then 256, then 1024 after just five generations. The total population is thus evolving to be more Indian and less Chinese at an extreme rate, and it is thereby extremely genetically undesirable to be Chinese.

[PhDP]

I hear people say this from time to time, but they can never give me any reliable data. I am open though. I would love to get my hands on this information.

 

Well, THAT'S a strange statement, as I just gave you many references on the subject;

 

Nisbett, R.E. 2005. Heredity, Environment, And Race Differences in IQ; A commentary on Rushton and Jensen. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(2), 302-310.

 

Jencks, C. and Phillips, M. (Editors), 1998. The Black-White Test Score Gap. Brookings Institution Press

 

Scarr, S. and Weinberg, R.A. 1983. The Minnesota Adoption Studies: Genetic Differences and Malleability. Child Development, 54, 260-267.

 

Scarr. S., Pakstis, S., Katz, H and Barker. 1977. The absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestory and intellectual skills within the Black population. Human Genetics, 39, 69-86.

 

Tizard, B., Cooperman, A and Tizard, J. 1972. Enviromental effects on language development a study of young children in longstay residential nurseries. Child Development, 43, 342-343.

 

What's even more strange is that you seem to accept the ideas of Rushton, even if he didn't prove;

 

A - That races are a biological fact. In reality, the very idea of a "black race" is phylogenetically unlikely. The first thing that draw my attention is Rushton's book is how he arbitrarily accept the "3 races" models as true.

 

B - That blacks score lower because they are black (which seems to be an important point). All his "life history" argument is completely bogus if he cannot prove the genetical basis on the difference, but he doesn't even seems to try. If blacks score lower because of the enviroment, and it is the case, well, how can Rushton interpret it as a different life history strategy ?

[jowrose]

Earlier in this thread someone made the argument that if Africans weren't too dumb to wear a condom, the AIDs crisis wouldn't be at the level it is today. Now, did it ever cross anyone's mind that perhaps it is the RESOURCES they are lacking, rather than INTELLIGENCE? We are talking about Africa, which has many of the world's most impoverished places. Can every African walk to the nearest Walgreens and pick up a pack of Trojan Man condoms for a few bucks?

 

I'm not saying that there aren't differences between races, but that is just one terrible argument.

[aswokei]

Sisyphus:

 

It seems we have been getting information from different sources. According to that pdf Phil gave me, blacks are closing the race gap. It says that assuming trends continue, black reading levels will equal those of whites in 25 years. And their science scores will level out with whites in 75 years. If trends continue of course.

 

One of the studies it cites demonstrates that environment, like you say, matters. (which I never actually disputed) It was an adoption study. In this study, it was found that black children raised by black middle-class families averaged 104 in IQ tests, where black children raised by white middle-class families averaged 117.

 

However, I've read several other adoption case studies that indicate a different conclusion (genetics). link So it's hard to know. I do find it curious why it apparently matters so much whether or not the home is black or white. I guess the reason I tend to think it's genetic is because of what I see in the real world - not the world of academia. If one looks at their achievements and progress (or lack thereof), how could one not judge them as having less intelligence?

 

 

You also don't seem to understand what "desirable" means in terms of evolution. The entirety of what it means is the passing on of one's genes. Is population control a good idea? Obviously. But does it help you pass on your genetic traits? No. If every Chinese couple only has 1 child, a Chinese man's genes only account for one half of a person in the next generation. Compare that to a family with four children in, say, India. Continue this for a few generations, and assume the pattern holds. After one generation, the genes of the Indian account for four times as much of the total gene pool as the Chinese man. After two generations, 16. Three, 64. Then 256, then 1024 after just five generations. The total population is thus evolving to be more Indian and less Chinese at an extreme rate, and it is thereby extremely genetically undesirable to be Chinese.

 

Arg man. Arg. (In reference to population control) "But does it help you pass on your genetic traits?"

 

It doesn't appear that way. At first look. But if they keep on multiplying and suffer a huge plague, destroying the entire population, that's not nearly as desireable, is it?

 

Phil:

 

What's even more strange is that you seem to accept the ideas of Rushton, even if he didn't prove;

 

A - That races are a biological fact. In reality, the very idea of a "black race" is phylogenetically unlikely. The first thing that draw my attention is Rushton's book is how he arbitrarily accept the "3 races" models as true.

 

Actually, I do not know a lot about Rushton or his studies. I just grabbed the link because it was available and it had numbers and IQ statistics that are very consistent with what is accepted in the science community. I was citing him for his statistics.

 

 

jowrose:

 

Earlier in this thread someone made the argument that if Africans weren't too dumb to wear a condom, the AIDs crisis wouldn't be at the level it is today. Now, did it ever cross anyone's mind that perhaps it is the RESOURCES they are lacking, rather than INTELLIGENCE? We are talking about Africa, which has many of the world's most impoverished places. Can every African walk to the nearest Walgreens and pick up a pack of Trojan Man condoms for a few bucks?

 

I'm not saying that there aren't differences between races, but that is just one terrible argument.

 

They are receiving aid from the US. They're handing out condoms and are encouraging them to them to use them, and you are right. They are definitely lacking in resources. The point I was making is that if they were more intelligent and apt to learning, there wouldn't be so many dying from AIDS.

[PhDP]

If one looks at their achievements and progress (or lack thereof), how could one not judge them as having less intelligence?

 

Well, that's not science, and it's not even rational. You cannot say it's in their genes, you cannot say it's because they are "black" as long as you didn't eliminate the environmental factor in your study, in fact it's quite easy to understand. So how could one not judge them as having less intelligence? By using science and rationality, not prejudice

 

The point I was making is that if they were more intelligent and apt to learning, there wouldn't be so many dying from AIDS.

 

And you think if they were white it would be different ? Have you read the article showing that people close to the equator had a lower IQ ? It's not because they are black, white or yellow, it's because the environment is hard.

[aswokei]

Phil:

 

in fact it's quite easy to understand.

If it's so easy to understand, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why it is that wherever blacks are, so follow the same pattern of disproportionate high violence and crime, low education, low achievement and low standard of living?

 

To me, the answer doesn't require scientific analyses. Just common sense and a little knowledge about statistics.

[PhDP]

I'll say it for another time (third?); phenotype is not genotype. It's basic genetics, I've learned that before university. It's not because black people have a lower IQ that it's because they are black. To prove that you have to eliminate the environmental factor, and when the environmental factor is out, "blacks" do NOT follow a pattern of "low achievement". Maybe you have decided that "blacks are idiots and that's it", but you'll need a little more than common sense to prove a point.

 

And seriously, I don't care about your common sense, as I don't care about my own common sense. One thing about science is going a little deeper than common sense, prejudices and blind faith.

[sunspot]

The genetic stereo types of today are not that much different than the blue and red blood mentality of yester year. The blue bloods had all the advantages and attributed their social condition to good breeding. When opportunity was given to the red bloods and the blue bloods loss their opportunity monopoly, the correlation broke down.

[aswokei]

I'll say it for another time (third?); phenotype is not genotype.

You're right. Did I ever dispute this?

 

It's not because black people have a lower IQ that it's because they are black.

What?

 

To prove that you have to eliminate the environmental factor, and when the environmental factor is out, "blacks" do NOT follow a pattern of "low achievement".

It may be true that black adoptees achieve much better when adopted by white families. Bt something tells me that those studies are misleading. Do you know much about group polarization?

 

Take a man, put him in an environment with a lot of other men, and he will become more manly. Take a geek, put him in a room full of geeks and he will get geekier. Take a black person and immerse him black environment and he will get blacker.

 

Black culture in a way seems innate. Those black adoptees have it in them, but it is not expressed. The child adopts the culture around him/her completely, just like all humans are programmed to do. But bring black individuals together and black culture emerges - just like any other group of people.

 

How is it not taking into account for environment if one notes the fact that blacks nearly everywhere on the planet share similar patterns of violence, low education, high crime and low achievement? I remember a few years ago, being very innocent and reading up on statistics on blacks to disprove some racist I was arguing with. But I was shocked. I couldn't find any legitimate information to support my argument at all. The same patterns follow them everywhere they are.

 

Why are they disadvantaged wherever they go?

[Sisyphus]

Sisyphus:

 

It seems we have been getting information from different sources. According to that pdf Phil gave me' date=' blacks are closing the race gap. It says that [i']assuming[/i] trends continue, black reading levels will equal those of whites in 25 years. And their science scores will level out with whites in 75 years. If trends continue of course.

 

So you're contending that blacks are evolving to be as smart as whites by 15 IQ points in a couple generations? I mean, really?

 

One of the studies it cites demonstrates that environment, like you say, matters. (which I never actually disputed) It was an adoption study. In this study, it was found that black children raised by black middle-class families averaged 104 in IQ tests, where black children raised by white middle-class families averaged 117.

 

Actually, you said I was out of my mind. But that seems to show pretty conclusively that it's entirely environmental, don't you think? Or, if there is a difference, it is statistically insignificant, and well within the margin of error in measuring such things.

 

how could one not judge them as having less intelligence?

 

I guess you'd just have to look at the facts.

 

 

Arg man. Arg. (In reference to population control) "But does it help you pass on your genetic traits?"

 

It doesn't appear that way. At first look. But if they keep on multiplying and suffer a huge plague, destroying the entire population, that's not nearly as desireable, is it?

 

Sure, and if there's a nuclear war, it will be very undesirable to live in a city. And if France is destroyed by a giant meteor, it will be very undesirable to be French. But none of those things have happened, and it doesn't matter whether they will or not. Selection works on the individual level, and it doesn't plan ahead.

[PhDP]

You're right. Did I ever dispute this?

 

It seems so, you are often using as an argument that "blacks don't achieve well", like it was proving they have a lower intelectuel potential. In fact, and that's why I'm surprised there's still people believing Rushton (who is obviously biased), it's quite simple; the moment you show that by eliminating environment you eliminate the gasp, you know it's environmental. There's not a whole lot to say because it's not very complicated. Read about basic genetics, read about studies eliminating environmental factors, and then if you want to refute Rushton's "Life History" argument read about Life history theory (which doesn't even work if differences are only environmental).

 

It may be true that black adoptees achieve much better when adopted by white families. Bt something tells me that those studies are misleading.

 

You don't understand the point, it's not that they achieve better; they are as good (even slightly better). If it's in their genes, if "being black" is a sign of intellectual inferiority, how can you explain that ? Anway, the gaps is reducing, Rushton and his frieds, which often claim it was "impossible", must not be very happy.

 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/sub-reading-race.asp

 

Black culture in a way seems innate. Those black adoptees have it in them, but it is not expressed.

 

Wow, you have to explain that to me. "culture is innate", it's like saying "black is white", by definition when we are speaking of "culture", it's something acquired during life.