Dreamer Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 We frequently rank things in science. Words like "primitive"/"advanced"-"inferior/superior" frequently appear in scientific articles, especially in the discipline of biology. Now, the question is why can't we apply these terms to us? The homo-sapiens? Why is it each time that someone writes that africans have a low IQ he's considered a racist? The truth is, that like everywhere else - there are superior and inferior people. There are superior and inferior races. Science can prove any such statement and back it with countless empirical evidence. So should we all continue to believe in lies that all humans are equal? Give me a break. I'm not a racist, I don't have people because of their colour - But I believe that if Asians have an IQ of ~105, as compare to Africans who have an IQ of ~70, then Asians are superior to Africans. Now, am I wrong?
YT2095 Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 it all depends on whether you apply it as a Blanket term or a specific. to say all Asians are inferior would be flat out false, to say that SOME asians are inferior would be more correct. and to be TOTALY correct to say Some asians have inferior intelects. that way no generalisation or "catch all" sweeping statements can be made. when it is applied in Science, it`s always within respect to a specific
Dreamer Posted January 22, 2004 Author Posted January 22, 2004 Dear, Uhm, "Beautiful Mind", Did you ever hear about the new, fascinating mathematical ivention called "The Mean"?
Dreamer Posted January 22, 2004 Author Posted January 22, 2004 All Africans are inferior to all Asians = WRONG Every African is INFERIOR to every Asian = WRONG Mean African is INFERIOR to mean Asian = TRUE
Skye Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 How does having a high IQ score make you better? By the way primitive/advanced refer to how derived an organism from an ancestor, not how 'good' it is.
YT2095 Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 Skye said in post # :By the way primitive/advanced refer to how derived an organism from an ancestor, not how 'good' it is. Yup, the Knife and the Wheel are exteremly "primative" inventions, yet we still use them "Dear, Uhm, "Beautiful Mind", Did you ever hear about the new, fascinating mathematical ivention called "The Mean"?" Beautifull mind? LOL, now that`s SCARY! and yes I have heard of "mean" or otherwise "Averages" that was the basis of my post, don`t patronise me either!
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 The idea of science is to apply reason free from passion, much like the Aristotlean view of Law (which could be considered one of the parents of modern science in a roundabout way). Biology doesn't need to account for political correctness.
atinymonkey Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 Can someone clarify what is meant by 'asians'? Is it meant to signify entire the populous of the Asia continent? I'm not sure there has been an IQ test administered to the asian races recently. I suspect that the difference in IQ from a globally administered IQ test would not be much different continent to continent, despite what we blithely believe about intelligence. Bear in mind IQ is only indicative of relative intelligence, not a score out of 200.
YT2095 Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 I always figured the Japanese to be darned clever chaps as well, the Chinese gave us lots of new tech (back then) also. they class as Asian also
Radical Edward Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 problem is, the sorts of lives that the tested people live in. black people tend to live in crap places, and it isn't their fault. they live in the crap bits of US cities, lots of their countries are run by crap governments with crap education systems and so on. To be honest it is very difficult to compare the differing intellects of differing races because of the wide disparity in living environments.
YT2095 Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 your point is also reflected in the fact that people of african or asian decent compare quite well when brought up in more affluent environments that most occidental regions provide. as I mentioned before, it`s all about specifics, this alone has at least empiricaly locked it down even further to upbringing, as opposed to prior mentioned "Asians" as a people
blike Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 Radical Edward said in post # :problem is, the sorts of lives that the tested people live in. black people tend to live in crap places, and it isn't their fault. they live in the crap bits of US cities, lots of their countries are run by crap governments with crap education systems and so on. To be honest it is very difficult to compare the differing intellects of differing races because of the wide disparity in living environments. I'm going to try and make my words as tasteful as possible. But what if the whole reason they're in those places is because of their general intelligence. Most people would agree that the more educated you are, the more likely you are to have a stable income. The US public school system ensures that all children have the same opportunities (on the whole) with highschool education. In other words, many poor children attend the same schools as rich children. They have the same opportunity to make good grades, earn scholarships, and have a free-ride to any college they choose. Because income is related to education, and everyone has the same potential in the US educational system, then you cannot conclude that the lower class remains less educated because of thier social status. Instead, their social status depends on their education.
newbie Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 I cannot believe this has gotten as far as it has. There is only one thing to say here, Hitler was wrong. There is no inferior/superior race or person. We can't even measure or define Intelligence, so I think having a debate on that is rather limited. Just to give my two cents, contrary to what some say—if one where too look at academic studies one would surely see most studies show no difference between the average IQ of Asian Americans and that of the general population.
YT2095 Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 "Just to give my two cents, contrary to what some say—if one where too look at academic studies one would surely see most studies show no difference between the average IQ of Asian Americans and that of the general population. " as stated in post #11 the original idea was more a debate of semantics, why can`t word `X` be used in THIS sentence? type of thing. it was soon debunked
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 newbie said in post # :There is no inferior/superior race or person. As far as races go, I agree. At least for humans, anyway. In other species it is very clear that different cultivars and breeds can be evolutionarily fitter than others. As for individual people, of course there are superior and inferior examples. Just the very existence of things like the Olympic Games are a pretty good indicator of this.
YT2095 Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 and now we`ve locked it down even further "The Individual" and so, Dreamer, it all depends now on what you classify as an "Asian"? you said "All Africans are inferior to all Asians = WRONG Every African is INFERIOR to every Asian = WRONG Mean African is INFERIOR to mean Asian = TRUE " well that is therefore clearly false! you also said "Why is it each time that someone writes that africans have a low IQ he's considered a racist? " I`m not so sure that they are considered "racist", IGNORANT perhaps, but not necesarily Racist, although that does all depend on their motivation behind saying it
-Demosthenes- Posted January 23, 2004 Posted January 23, 2004 How are we supposed to ignore and celebrate our differences at the same time?
iglak Posted January 23, 2004 Posted January 23, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :you also said "Why is it each time that someone writes that africans have a low IQ he's considered a racist? " I`m not so sure that they are considered "racist", IGNORANT perhaps, but not necesarily Racist, although that does all depend on their motivation behind saying it nope, they are considered racist by the people that actually take the time to get noticed about such things. the problem, again, relates back to fear. there are many people out there who aare afraid that people will become racist and harm them in one way or another. these people end up searching around for possible racist statements and harm the people that say them. in effect, these people are -ist against any indication of racism. in effect, these people are the ones that are racist, not the people that say semi-racist things unknowingly. again, if racism and evolution was actually UNDERSTOOD rather than feared, the world would be a much better place, and people would accept differences rather than ignore them. at this time (about the time that pigs will evolve wings), using derogatory words for races will be okay, and classifying races as superior or inferior, on average, at specific things will be okay because everyone (the teller and reciever included) would understand that they are not being racist, merly scientific or joking. P.S. my answer to anything like this is one word: FEAR!! here is a list of such things (there are many more): racism, races, ageism, ages, drugs, curse words, prostitution, weapons, breaking driving laws, depression, disabled, antidisabled, homosexuals, homophobes.
VendingMenace Posted January 23, 2004 Posted January 23, 2004 i think this has already been pointed out, but i will say it anyway... the problem with statements such as "X race is less intellegent than race Y" is that intellegence in not a property of a population, but of an individual. The statement that must be made is this; "on average, individuals in race X are less intellegent than those in race Y" Of course this statements gives you no information that would eb usefull when trying to decide who is more intellegent out of a group of individuals. As such, such a statement is almost worthless -- at least for evaluation purposes. This is why poeple react so negatively to such statements, even when they are phrased correctly -- they can be misinterprited. An unintelligent person would (almost ironically) use this statement as a grounds for hiring people of one race over the other, not realizing that averages derived from populations cannot help one decide the intellegence of an individual. And that is just what is wrong with making statements like that, symantically. There are many other reasons why such statements are poor, scientifically speaking. These include (but are not limited to) the following... 1) IQ tests are questionable measures of intellegence. It is not entirely certain that they acutally measure ALL types of intellegence, or even in they do meausure any type of intellegence (though they prolly do meausre at least some types) 2) There are way too many compounding factors when trying to compare intellegence between races. Such factors include, education, nutrition, traditional roles in their society, social standing, ect.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 23, 2004 Posted January 23, 2004 You are making sweeping generalizations. All sweeping generalizations are wrong.
-Demosthenes- Posted January 23, 2004 Posted January 23, 2004 I get what you are saying. A teacher at school said that he was responsible to teach us "Tolerance", in history. But he was refused. He said that the only thing he would teach was "Acceptance".
Radical Edward Posted January 23, 2004 Posted January 23, 2004 blike said in post # : I'm going to try and make my words as tasteful as possible. But what if the whole reason they're in those places is because of their general intelligence. Most people would agree that the more educated you are, the more likely you are to have a stable income. The US public school system ensures that all children have the same opportunities (on the whole) with highschool education. In other words, many poor children attend the same schools as rich children. They have the same opportunity to make good grades, earn scholarships, and have a free-ride to any college they choose. Because income is related to education, and everyone has the same potential in the US educational system, then you cannot conclude that the lower class remains less educated because of thier social status. Instead, their social status depends on their education. is the system really that equal though? Is it really as possible to get into higher education if you are in a delinquent school and get stuck in "the wrong crowd" of friends as it is if you are in a nice quiet suburban school full of middle class families. There are a lot of problems in inner city schools in the UK, and certain cities where the education standard as a whole is very poor, and these problems are not (always) race related. There seems to be a much stronger correlation with location. It seems rather naiive to me to say that everyone has the same potential, and completely ignore facts of local culture and environment.
Sayonara Posted January 23, 2004 Posted January 23, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post # :You are making sweeping generalizations. All sweeping generalizations are wrong. "Living people have heads."
Radical Edward Posted January 23, 2004 Posted January 23, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # : "Living people have heads." I think he was being intentionally contradictory: All sweeping generalizations are wrong.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now