Is it true that some human races are naturally more smarter than other races?

[Mr Rayon]

What studies have been done on this?

 

I have heard that people who have blue eyes are smartest when compared to people who have other coloured eyes.

 

Are there physiological benefits to being a particular race for every race?

 

For example, Africans having higher muscle density than non-Africans and Africans generally having high melanin concentration in the skin. etc.

 

Are some races more intelligent than other races or are we all roughly equal/the same?

 

Are the differences negligible or worth looking into?

[Moontanman]

You'll have to define race before we can discuss this... and no it's not as simple as you think...

 

[StringJunky]

The human species appears to be genetic continuum stemming from a mother population in Africa so any lines you want to draw are necessarily arbitrary. Apparently there are greater differences within a geographic group than there are between discrete geographic groups.

 

 

Distribution of variation

 

The distribution of genetic variants within and among human populations are impossible to describe succinctly because of the difficulty of defining a "population," the clinal nature of variation, and heterogeneity across the genome (Long and Kittles 2003). In general, however, an average of 85% of genetic variation exists within local populations, ~7% is between local populations within the same continent, and ~8% of variation occurs between large groups living on different continents,. (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a; Hinds et al. 2005). The recent African origin theory for humans would predict that in Africa there exists a great deal more diversity than elsewhere, and that diversity should decrease the further from Africa a population is sampled. Long and Kittles show that indeed, African populations contain about 100% of human genetic diversity, whereas in populations outside of Africa diversity is much reduced, for example in their population from New Guinea only about 70% of human variation is captured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

 

It's not that any given traditionally geographically discrete population is inherently smarter it's just that, historically, local resource availability has allowed some populations to technologically flourish over another so there will be proportionally more "smart" representatives in that technologically superior culture than those nurtured outside of it. With the present and ongoing increase in global mobility and methods of disseminating knowledge the differences will equalise in time. I think this is definitely a case of nurture not nature that is the arbiter of the collective intellectual/technological differences between traditionally distinct geographic groups.

Edited February 6, 2013 by StringJunky

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

OK - we need a citation, preferably from a journal but otherwise from a reputable news source for your initial claim. There are too many highly speculative and potentially divisive questions being posted which the cynical might see as trying to advance an agenda without providing any proof. topic moved to speculations till some form of citation or evidence provided.

!

Moderator Note

and stop posting everything in the lounge - we will start locking topics again if you continue.

[Mr Rayon]

!

Moderator Note

OK - we need a citation, preferably from a journal but otherwise from a reputable news source for your initial claim. There are too many highly speculative and potentially divisive questions being posted which the cynical might see as trying to advance an agenda without providing any proof. topic moved to speculations till some form of citation or evidence provided.

 

!

Moderator Note

and stop posting everything in the lounge - we will start locking topics again if you continue.

Hi,

I didn't mean to place it in the wrong place.

I was just interested in what is already established as scientific fact in the link between race and intelligence.

I started this thread because I am currently reading 'The Malay Dilemma' by Mohathir Mohamad as he discusses racial identity in his book.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/339251.The_Malay_Dilemma

Though it was first written many years ago so scientific progress may have changed significantly since then.

[Arete]

I was just interested in what is already established as scientific fact in the link between race and intelligence.

 

Quite the contrary. It's a "scientific fact" that the concept of "race" has no biological basis, and the genetic differentiation between "races" is clinal: http://www.sciencedi...002929709001578 Races are a cultural, rather than biological construct - therefore any phenotypic correlations with discrete races are likely to be also clinal or coincidental.

 

An alternative explanation is that environment has a large role to play in intelligence and that allopatric human populations are subjected to different environments:

environment plays a larger role in the development of intellect than heritable components:

 

"The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero"

http://pss.sagepub.c.../14/6/623.short

 

"IQ, is perhaps 48%; narrow-sense heritability, the relevant quantity for evolutionary arguments because it measures the additive effects of genes, is about 34%."

http://www.nature.co...l/388468a0.html

 

"large environmentally induced IQ gains between generations suggest an important role for environment in shaping IQ"

http://psycnet.apa.o.../rev/108/2/346/

 

etc.

[imatfaal]

Arete - do me a favour and point me in the direction of a nice definition of clinal in the manner in which you use it. It is not a well-understood term for me and the definitions at most of the internet dictionaries are not that illuminating. From the rest of your post I think I get it - but let's face it you don't have an expert and not ask their opinion.

[swansont]

Though it was first written many years ago so scientific progress may have changed significantly since then.

 

I think one must consider the possibility that scientific progress has declared earlier work null and void.

[Phi for All]

Arete - do me a favour and point me in the direction of a nice definition of clinal in the manner in which you use it.

 

Pending clarification from a REAL expert, check this out.

[randomc]

It makes sense that polygamy would set up a selection differential on whatever genes contribute to social intelligence.

The epidemiology of disorders related to social intelligence such as schizophrenia and autism bare this out to some extent - groups with recent polygamous ancestry show a higher incidence of schizophrenia and associated disorders, while groups with recent monomagous ancestry show a higher incidence of autism and adhd.

Skin colour doesn't objectively define race, but i suppose race could be defined in terms of near ancestry, so the definition relates allele frequencies to the geographical location of several generations of a persons ancestry. Summat like that.

[Arete]

No worries - clinal variation, at least in evolutionary sense, is cases where you get a gradient of genotypes or phenotypes between one state and another - for example: if you sampled a person in Calabria in Italy, you might find they have a "100% southern Italian" genotype; and you sampled a person in Finland you might find they have a "100% Scandinavian genotype" and subsequently infer that the Scandinavians and Italians are separate genetic races. But then you sample a person every 5km between the two and find a gradient of every combination between your two distinct genotypes. So rather than two distinct entities, what you actually observe is two ends of a clinally distributed gradient.

 

An example seen in other organisms are ring species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species where individuals sampled at the extreme ends of the distribution appear to be separate entities, but when you sample the entire distribution you find a gradient of intermediate phenotypes from one to the other. Here's an example in salamaders:

http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2012/01/ring-species-evolution-in-progress.html

 

Of course, you'll find exceptions of either geographically or culturally isolated human populations - like the Amish which have a distinct genetic background compared to adjacent populations, but studies have shown that as you move broadly across human distributions, differences are clinal in nature and a lot of admixture happens - such that comparing distributional extremes is non-representative of the true genetic makeup of the species as a whole.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Arete

[imatfaal]

Cool - many thanks Arete and Phi

I love rosarubicondior's blog as well - another one to add to the feed

[Ophiolite]

Hi,

I started this thread because I am currently reading 'The Malay Dilemma' by Mohathir Mohamad as he discusses racial identity in his book.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/339251.The_Malay_Dilemma

Though it was first written many years ago so scientific progress may have changed significantly since then.

Mahathir Mohamad is a retired politician. At the time he wrote the book he was a decade away from becoming prime minister of Malaysia and the Malaysians were less than a decade away from having been granted independence. The Malay/Chinese dichotomy in Malaysia is a cultural one, not a racial one. (See earlier posts to that effect.) As a politician I have considerable regard for Mahathir Mohamad. As a scientist it is another matter.