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

[aswokei]

Sisyphus:

 

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?

No. Actually, I was being facetious. The study which tries to prove that blacks and whites are the same in intelligence tries to use as evidence the small closing of the race gap. It says assuming that trends continue the way they are, that reading levels for blacks will equal those of whites in 25 years and science scores will equal those of whites in 75 years. My point is that they're making out that the "closing" aptitude test disparity between whites and blacks seem greater than it really is.

 

 

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.

 

I think you may be getting confused. If you look at the things I wrote, you'll see nowhere that I said that environment plays no role. That's just silly. You, on the other hand, said genetics plays no role. Which is silly. I can actually quote that, and in fact, I did.

 

Now, I know that's not what you literally meant. I mean, let's get real. Both nature and nuture matter. But I think nature is more important because nurture (our environment) depends a lot on who we are because we are humans and we have the ability to change our environments. So yes, environment matters. But it is my contention that nature (our genetic compositions), has a lot to do with nuture (the environments we create for ourselves and our progeny) - especially in dealing with humans because to our unique ability to manipulate our environment. Perhaps a combination of our indoctrinations (it being looked down upon to notice differences in races) and the unamiguous influence of environment on blacks have made it seem acceptable to dismiss genetics as a factor, but look around.

 

Neither you, nor Phil answered my question as to why blacks are disadvantaged as a society everywhere they go. My answer is that they are not equipped to create good* environments for themselves or their progeny.

 

But statistics nearly everywhere agree that they are disadvantaged (at least to live according to the lifestyles of the powerful majority). Does this not make sense?

 

As for the study, I'm very skeptical of it because it has information in it that don't agree with information that has long had its place in the scientific community. Let me explain. It said that black children raised in black, middle class families IQs were 104, where black children raised in white middle-class families was 117.

 

The average black person's IQ (not in just middle-class suburbia) is 85. If this study is not flawed, the inconsistent numbers are probably due to the fact that those middle-class children are not good representations of black Americans.

 

Phil:

 

You don't understand the point, it's not that they achieve better; they are as good (even slightly better)

 

Can you get that quoted from a source somewhere? I read that pdf you gave me and kept mentioning the closing gap between whites and blacks but it said nothing near to the effect of an eliminated gap.

 

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.

Obviously, I'm talking about culture in a very broad sense. What this speculation is based on is that culture and social norms have a lot to do with a selected group's environment and gene pool. What activities come naturally to most people, determined by genes and environment, in that group inevitably turn into the rule.

 

*good - I know my definition of good is biased.

[PhDP]

Neither you, nor Phil answered my question as to why blacks are disadvantaged as a society everywhere they go. My answer is that they are not equipped to create good* environments for themselves or their progeny.

 

Sure I did, I gave you 9 references. To be sure this time, I'll ask you the question directly;

 

IF "Blacks" are genetically less "intelligent", why, when the environmental causes are out, they are NOT less "intelligent" ?

 

I've state many times, that phenotype is not genotype, that's basic knowledge of genetics, and you don't even disagree but again, by looking at "society everywhere they go", you are making a fallacy, you ARE confusing phenotype and genotype. I don't answer your question about society, and I could start speaking about how harsh is Africa and how they are closing the gaps in America, but it doesn't matter, what matter is; are they still disadvantaged when you compare them without any environmental factor. You say they are not equipped to create a good environments, and it's perfectly possible that for some reason there is something in their culture not helping "them" in the modern world, but again, if it's cultural, the claim made by Rushton is wrong.

 

Can you get that quoted from a source somewhere? I read that pdf you gave me and kept mentioning the closing gap between whites and blacks but it said nothing near to the effect of an eliminated gap.

 

In the pdf I gave you, under "Assignment of Black Adoptees to Families of Different Races", "Assignment of Black and White Adoptees to the Same Environment", "Children in Postwar Germany Born to Black and White American Soldiers" and under "Self-Reports of European Ancestry". The author quote many studies showing that, in absence of environmental factor the gap is gone.

 

Obviously, I'm talking about culture in a very broad sense. What this speculation is based on is that culture and social norms have a lot to do with a selected group's environment and gene pool. What activities come naturally to most people, determined by genes and environment, in that group inevitably turn into the rule.

 

Again I ask you, if it's in the gene pool, if "being black" is a disadvantage, why then eliminating the environmental factor eliminate the gap in intelligence ? It's the only thing that really matters. If you think "blacks" are less intelligent, and that it's in their genes, there's no way the gap could ever be overcome by comparing them with "whites" in the same environment.

[lewism]

Ok aswokei, seeing this has become an arguement about race I am compelled to add my own opinions here. PLEASE read this all the way through, I hope you'll find it quite revealing.

 

There are some major flaws with your arguments.

 

1) Your definition of intelligence. Have you really thought bout what 'intelligence' is? I don't there's a scientist out there who can answer this one simply. You want to use 'IQ' as your measurement. Ok, as someone mentioned earlier, IQ is an ethnocentric measure of intelligence, based on western concepts and constructions of intelligence. This basically means, they are culturally biased tests, made for white people, by white people, if you like.

 

2) Your second problem is your steryotyping of 'race' into these three arbitrary categories (white, black, hispanic) which I quite frankly find laughable, but it continues to shock me how many people have this bizarre conception of 'race' based on skin colour.

 

Skin colour is determined by one gene which regulates the production of melanocytes, the skin cells that produce melain, the brown skin pigment. Even if, for some bizarre reason, you decide to categorise someone by their skin-melanin levels, what you will find is a CONTINUOUS scale of colour from very light skinned people to very dark skinned people. Did you know there is a greater diversity of skin tones within Africa than between Africa and the rest of the world? Where, exactly, do you draw the line between someone being black and white?

 

Now, lets think about this. One gene determines skin colour. Now, what makes you think this skin colour gene is linked to, lets say, an 'intelligence gene'. Are all people with blue eyes also extremely tall? No. Why? because there is no link between the genes. When two people mate, their genes go through a process of recombination, meaning any gene from one person's chromosome can be mixed with any gene from another person's matching chromosome. There is probably no link between genes for brain development and genes for skin colour.

 

Ok, enough about external differences between human populations. What about internal differences? Skin colour is an arbitrary classification. So lets take something else arbitrary...the ability to digest lactose in milk. People from south east asia tend to lack the gene that encodes the enzyme lactose dehydrogenase, which can break down lactose in milk. Why not categorize people by the difference in this gene, rather than the melanin gene? Instead of 'black' and 'white' people, we could call them 'milk digesters' and 'non-milk digesters'. But isn't that just as a rediculous classification as skin colour?

 

Also, you will find you are likely to have more genes in common with someone of a different colour who lives in Africa than to your white (or same coloured) neighbour next door to you. As I said, skin colour is determined by one gene only. Every person is as genetically different as anyone else. The thought that you have more genes in common with someone of the same colour as you is as stupid as saying your are more likely to have more genes in common with someone who has the same eye colour as you. The one major difference in genotype and phenotype within human populations is actually between men and women. Like the eye colour thing, are you trying to tell me you have more DNA in common with a woman of the same colour than with a man of a different colour? Sorry, you're wrong.

 

Ok, so, your classifications of race are totally invalid, and 'race' (especially race based on colour) as a biological concept has been completely debunked if you know anything about genetics. Also you have no idea what intellence is or means.

 

------------

 

Right, so lets get on to why there may be differences in 'intelligence' (or, I should say, the ability to perform well in an ethnocentric american intelleigence test) between people who have different amounts of melanin in their skin.

 

Well, it is, entirely I will bodly claim, environmental. You seem to completely ignore the history of humanity in this arguement. Since European imperialism beginning shortly after the 'enlightenment' in the 16th and 17th centuries or so, people of darker skin tones have been opressed by people of whiter skin tones. If you want to go back further, the same thing happened in the Middle East during the crusades. But, why, I hear you ask, did white people manage to be 'superior' to dark toned people. Dumb luck. The humans who migrated north from Africa a couple of hundred thousand years ago (who were black, I hassen to add) gradually developed lighter skin tones in a reaction to the lack of vitamin D which was normally gained through exposure to bright sunlight (which you get too much of in Africa). Lighter skin tones meant more sunlight reached the skin which meant more vitamin D could be produced, which is essential for bone integrety. So, we now have a population of light skinned humans living in Europe. Now look at Europe's climate. Nice and mild, pleanty of water in the winter, enough sun in the summer for crops, and pleanty of fertile land and resources. So we developed civilisation. We developed technology. We developed IQ tests to show how bright we were. Then we started exploring. (All this, by the way, happened in the far east as well, with a similar climate and land zone type). So this explains why dark skinned people in Africa didn't become industrialised like Europe (and later..America) did.

 

So, now I hear you ask.....without reading, without civilisation and without technology, how could black people in Africa ever become as intelligent. Ok, well here you're making another mistake.

 

Being able to read, and having the capacity to learn how to read, are both very strong indicators of intelligence. Every normally developed human in Africa has the capacity to learn ANYTHING and EVERYTHING a white European or American child can. They just don't, as has been pointed out, have the resources to display this in ways us 'civilised folk' understand.

 

So why the poorer IQ scored in black Americans, and why the higher crime, birth rates etc? Errr....hello? 300 years of white oppression anybody? 300 years of being denied a quality education, 300 years of not being picked for a job because of dark skin, 300 years of police prejudice, 300 years of not being able to get a bank loan to put the deposit on the house in the nice part of town....I could go on. Black people may be less educated (and thus find IQ tests much harder) but that is VERY different from being less intelligent.

 

Any claims of whites being more inteligent than anyone else as a population is so ridiculous and fundementally flawed on so many levels I CAN'T BELIEVE in this day and age people still think this way. It just doesn't make sense.

 

Ok, that's the end of my rant. Oh, I have white skin by the way, although I have a black skinned great grandfather, which, in itself, shows how misinformed your arguement is anyway.

[Omicron91]

I'm um, rather new here *cough*, but I was recently reading about this topic and I just glanced over whats been said and I don't think this has been stated yet, but...

 

Except for the normal variations in intelligence between everyday individuals each race proves to be basically the same in terms of intelligence.

 

Ignorance among those of the african american persuasion arrives due to disparities and the lack of good education in the areas where they are concentrated, urban detroit for example. In detroit how much time do you think is burned by disruptions or fighting between students because of the propegation of the problems in their area. I hate to forward the stereotype but in a lot of situations it can be very difficult for a black person to 'get out' of the ghetto or whatever you may choose to call it.

 

What you are comparing is clearly not intelligence but education. Consider how you said Orientals rank higher than others, well, the oriental school systems (China/Japan) have classes that run one or two hours longer than north american ones, not to mention it is ingrained in their culture and familial structure that they are supposed to study hard and work.

[bascule]

Just stumbled in on this clusterf*ck of a thread, and wanted to add what Dawkins had to say on the issue of race:

 

People of one race are genetically no more or less similar to people of another race than they are to individuals of their same race.

 

The actual genes that manifest the phenotypical features we associate with various races are an extremely small subset of the human gene pool. There is enormous diversity among humans as a whole, and no race is so isolated that both "smart genes" and "dumb genes" don't pervade the group as a whole.

[MattC]

I'd like to add a few points this this.

First:

"However, I've read several other adoption case studies that indicate a different conclusion (genetics). link So it's hard to know."

The link you supply in this post appears to be evidence of the LACK of importance of genetics in IQ. I followed your link expecting to find something suggesting that genetics plays a role - instead the page is all about how those initial findings were 1) unsubstantiated to begin with and 2) now outdated by more comprehensive studies.

 

Second:

I love it when people cite sources. If you don't cite a source, and you're not talking about something that NOBODY in the thread will debate, it's fine - otherwise, cite or most of us who read your post will think you're talking out of your arse, and we may not believe you, even if it's true. We may hold it against you!

 

Also, when you cite, if possible provide links, as it encourages people to actually read the sources - personally, if there's no link, and if I'm not so interested in the topic that I'll check a source myself, I tend to assume that it is false, knowing full well that the majority of the time a source is not made up. I'd rather assume I don't know something that I could know, rather than take the risk that I make an incorrect assumption.

 

Thanks for all the good citations, Phil!

 

Third:

I'm not going to claim to have done enough research to know the truth - actually, I think there simply isn't enough research to be certain, though what there is, that I have seen (not what has been said here: what I have actually read in my own studies) all indicates that while genetics play a role, that role is somewhat indeterminate, and that the role of environmental factors seem to drown out the effects of genetics.

I don't know the truth, but I have met many black people, many white people, and many asian people - and I have indeed noticed patterns.

The black people seem to be divided into two camps, with a somewhat thin line between them - one camp is definately less intelligent (I wouldn't say very much less intelligent - just less) than the average person, and these people are, in my experience, without exception (though I am sure there are exceptions to this, as everything) american blacks, who for numerous reasons are still, to this day, given less opportunities than white people, or even asian people, in this country. The other camp is average to above average in intelligence, and most of these people are from other countries. Many of them are black students from Nigeria and other afrikan countries. Most of those people seem smarter (and wiser, I'd even say) than the average American. I attribute this to the fact that they are by definition prone to be more worldly, as they are foreign students, and to the fact that they, in some cases, came from countries where their level of affluence (though high compared to the rest of that country, often) is comparable to the American middle class.

I have met many, many dumb white and asian people, and just as many who were not dumb. Though I attend UCR (a predominantly asian school), I have never had the impression that they are more intelligent - rather, they have a better work ethic, and that's because their parents will disown them if they do poorly, at the least won't pay for anything. That's a bit of a generalization, but I think the point is clear and most people here have probably had similar experiences.

 

Personally, I hate inquiries like this - people are different, yes, but I've yet to encounter a difference (especially a difference linked to race) that was significant enough to warrent a second thought. Furthermore, I suspect that you, in your own personal life, Aswokei, would benfit from abandoning these hard-to-defend semi-racist (some would debate the semi-) beliefs, as, in my opinion, they are not only wrong but harmful. If you were a black boy growing up around people debating about whether or not you even have the potential to match up to the average, it would have negative consequences. As a (presumably) white or asian person, and possibly as a man, you already are subject to other similar racist fallacies - for instance, the belief that there are huge differences in the sizes of genetalia between the races. How would you feel if you wanted to date a woman, only to find out that she doesn't want to date you because she believes that, because of your race, you are poorly endowed? In this matter, I can assure you that, though there may or may not be trends (I have never really read anything convincing enough in this regard, though I have read studies that suggest some difference - nothing significant, though, when you're considering averages, and alongside those studies are others that show nothing), there is so much variation among individuals of all races that these assumptions (which are basically racist) are useless. Any black woman who didn't date me because I'm white would definately be missing out on something big, and I'd be missing out big time if I wouldn't date a woman who was black simply because I worried that her skin color insured that she was less intelligent.

 

What worries me most about these inquiries is what they will lead to - science is good and fine, no matter the subject, if it's performed in a vacuum. Like that ever happens. Every time a poorly-conducted study concludes some racial difference (real but exagerated, or fake, or hell even if it's right on - though I'd say if it's true, we shouldn't be afraid to tell people), a bigot somewhere will use it to fuel his fire. One day, someone may read these studies saying that black people are less intelligent, take the results out of context (environmental differences), and conclude that black people should be wiped out before they further pollute the gene pool.

Not only that, but all this emphasis on the performance on a test detracts from the most important thing - what people actually do with their minds. Martin Luther King day is coming up, and this provides a perfect example - whether you think blackpeople are genetically coded to have 10 less IQ points or not, you have to admit (unless you're just racist and seeking evidence to support your position; I don't think you are) that this man accomplished great things in his life. So did Jesus, if you're a christian, and wasn't christ really black? I suppose that's debatable. The point is, who cares what someone's IQ is? Mine is consistently over 135 (three tests, over a decade), and yet I've accomplished less, by many standards, than many people with lower IQs. Because of my laziness I'm 25 and I'm only now going to get my B.S. degree. I plan on going to grad school, and I think I will succeed - not because of my IQ (which I think isn't so good, when you consider I come from an upper-middle class white family, with one parent with a four year degree and another with a two year degree ... parents who own and operate their own business, read to me as a child, and so on - statistically, I was predisposed to score high.), but rather because I have learned that what matters in the end is not intelligence, it is dedication. A more intelligent person than I could *easily* score lower, perhaps even significantly lower - and if you don't believe me, take a test! You will quickly see what I mean.