|
|
| Page 1 of 3 |
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
 Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 06:55 Post subject: Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic |
|
 |
| Quote: | A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.
The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."
The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.
"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.
"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."
1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.
2. Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.
3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.
4. Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.
5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
6. Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.
7. IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.
8. Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.
9. Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.
10. Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.
In their article, Rushton and Jensen also address some of the policy issues that stem from their conclusions. Their main recommendation is that people be treated as individuals, not as members of groups. They emphasized that their paper pertains only to average differences. They also called for the need to accurately inform the public about the true nature of individual and group differences, genetics and evolutionary biology.
Rushton and Jensen are well-known for research on racial differences in intelligence. Jensen hypothesized a genetic basis for Black-White IQ differences in his 1969 Harvard Educational Review article. His later books Bias in Mental Tests (1980) and The g Factor (1998), as well as Rushton's (1995) Race, Evolution, and Behavior, show that tests are not biased against English speaking minorities and that Black-White-East Asian differences in brain size and IQ belong in an evolutionary framework. |
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx
In this case though I won't speak of bad genes though, that referred to genetic diseases that can critically lower one's chances in life.
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/42774/
If someone can acquire the whole story, I am interested. 
Also found that controversial story back:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 07:02 Post subject: |
|
|
What? Societies with a functional education system and lack of war leads to higher IQ-citizens? This cannot be a matter of false correlation, can it? No, it surely must be genetics.
Similar comparisons have been made in different social classes, and people with higher social classes score higher on average, regardless of race.
Personally, I have scored differently on IQ tests after I've taken some and learned how they work. In the beginning I was average, and more recently I score around 139-140 (one around 170, which I dub as an anomaly), which is a bit above average.
IQ as a tool for measurement of genetics is flawed at best.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 09:12 Post subject: |
|
|
170 in an online IQ test is not an anomaly, it's quite common - for me, at least. What you want to do, to really test it, is be tested by a psychologist, that adjusts the test for your age, and you can't finish it in 15 minutes, like you can most online ones. Once you figure out the very few patterns, that online tests are based on, you can ace them very fast, and completion time is factored in the score.
If internet IQ tests were accurate, we'd have like 10 Einsteins just on the hump.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 09:23 Post subject: |
|
|
So much is wrong with that text. First, I see nowhere proven that it's genetics. Second, brain size is not directly related to intelligence. I have no idea how they come to that conclusion. That whole text is a bunch of speculation based on statistics. Third, see fisk's first sentence.
You should better check or understand your sources.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 09:45 Post subject: |
|
|
I guess you should dig up the 60 page article, I have no easy access to an university library.
I have read fisk's comments yes, this article seems to suggest that even that IQ-testing is not an ideal tool that there is significant evidence that differences in average IQ are largely genetic. This is also deductible if one is capable of coherent, rational thinking. It is just not politically correct, I guess.
You should stop making stupid remarks, Mr_s.
This issue: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/law/11/2/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 09:59 Post subject: |
|
|
So link me to some studies showing this direct correlation between intelligence and genetics. I'm eager to find out what genes are the stupid genes.
I say again, you have no clue what you're talking about.
edit: Okay I rarely do this for an internet discussion, but I took the time and checked out Rushton, J. Philippe and Jensen, Arthur R., specifically the articles written by them and the commentary/peer reviews they got. First, acorrding to peer reviews their research is shoddy at best and a direct correlation between brain size/genetics and intelligence is not proven. Second, their counter argument (which can be found in another longass article) denotes to a simple "scientists are too PC and so don't like our paper of 2005". Third, these are the only researchers I can find who claim there's a direct correlation between race and intelliegnce (though I must admit I did a very quick search). Fourth, their basic method of comparing brain sizes is retarded since the brain is not a simple processing unit which can be quantified by the number of neurons. Shall I go on?
You should drop this genetics thing since you, I repeat again, have no clue what you're talking about. Either confirm the sources you use by reading other papers or stop posting about the subject.
Last edited by Mister_s on Wed, 9th Nov 2011 10:11; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spankie
VIP Member
Posts: 2958
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 10:07 Post subject: |
|
|
Well yeah, a test designed by a white males shows that white males score better on it, that's not really what I call 'independent'.
Let me find the paper that shows that there is a correlation between white males IQ and work performance but there is no correlation between non whites IQ and work correlation. Hence, the test is flawed and says nothing. Edit: can't find it now, but it showed that average earnings related to work performance is almost not correlated with initial employment testing in blacks and strongly correlated in whites. Why? Because the test is flawed, not the people.
The paper also showed that when taking a more 'independent' test, such as military entrance tests, people with all sorts of different backgrounds (whites, blacks, hispanics, asians) do indeed score different on IQ tests, but score similar on the military entry tests (mental and physical) and that result is correlated with future performance.
This is interesting as well: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html
Iconized, stop your search. There is no reason to belief that there is a major genetic force making you stupid or smart (by some sort of definition, which is highly biased as well), if so, nature would have selected 'the stupids' away a long time ago.
Didn't you read the article on jew noble prize winners? Put a jew in antarctica and he will be retarded, put a pinguin in a jew household and he will be smart (a little bit exagerated, but whatever). The education system and the view towards schooling is the determining factor that a lot of jews are really smart. And there happens to be a giant set of genetic markers for being a jew, but that has nothing to do with the brains. There is a relation, but no causal effect.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 10:37 Post subject: |
|
|
Then you might as well suggest that Chimpanzees are as smart as us, we just haven't found the right tool to show it yet. We share 96% (?) of the same genes with them. I wouldn't go so far to compare complete races with each other because of huge genetic variety within races. A lot can influence "potential" intelligence, nature, nurture, summer or winter pregnancy, age of mother during pregnancy, etc. But to say it is not genetic is a denial.
Formerly known as iconized
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14330
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 10:45 Post subject: |
|
|
Take a good measure of ethnocentrism and mix it with scientific positivism, biologism and a pretty narrow concept of intelligence (which is still only a concept) and you get that as a result.
I see that some people are urgently in need of a criterion to define and determine the value of human life. Its disgusting, really. Because these values seem only based on a level of "productiveness" and individualism. This primat of "productiveness" is quite the modern western interpretation of human value and has its roots in a society overly concerned by monetary and economic values.
Social darwinism is an interpretation carried by those poeple because it fits their view of life. It is only an interpretation, but as it becomes an indicator to what human life is valuable and what is not it becomes an ideology and quite the fascist ideology.
There is no reason whatsoever that these values are better then any other values. We only know that discrimination (in light of these subjective values) leads to dispute, war and misery.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 10:49 Post subject: |
|
|
*article promotes white male*
NO, THE ATROCITY, IT MUST BE A WHITE SUPREMIST PLOT, IGNORE RESEARCH LONG LIVE DIVERSITY.
Yeah please stop using arguments like this, its fucking retarded. There is no world wide need of white males to promote white males, stop trying to imply there is. Even then this article promotes asians OVER white males so now it makes even less sense.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24636
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24636
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 11:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragedoctor wrote: | *article promotes white male*
NO, THE ATROCITY, IT MUST BE A WHITE SUPREMIST PLOT, IGNORE RESEARCH LONG LIVE DIVERSITY.
Yeah please stop using arguments like this, its fucking retarded. There is no world wide need of white males to promote white males, stop trying to imply there is. Even then this article promotes asians OVER white males so now it makes even less sense. |
It's funny you should say that.
East Asians = apparently highest IQ
Europeans = medium IQ
Africans = lowest IQ
Let me see here:
East Asians = highly developed science and knowledge, industrial culture, have a distinct study & work ethic that makes our top universities look like daycare centres, they work and study so hard and do so out of cultural work ethics.
Europeans = highly developed science and knowledge, industrial culture, have a somewhat more relaxed study & work ethic, we like free time and relaxation between studies and don't work even close as hard as in East Asia.
Africa = most areas in turmoil, civil war, schools are extremely basic, children have to help to make the family survive, severe lack of technology.
Hummmm....
Just for a moment, imagine this: in Africa, esp. sub-sahara, education and development is hindered by lack of schooling, food, safety and security. So there's no way they can foster a culture of study and enlightenment, they're too busy trying to survive....
Go back a couple of hundred years in Europe and the populations weren't particularly enlightened (most couldn't read), lived in dirty huts etc. while the nobles lived like gods, fighting wars etc...
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 12:07 Post subject: |
|
|
We had some enlightened despots. A very big problem in Africa is corruption of leaders.
Formerly known as iconized
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 12:15 Post subject: |
|
|
SAT Test scores vs income and race - Data from 1995 in the US
white |black |Hispanic |Asian
income verb math |v m |v m |v m
x$1,000 | | |
under 10 409 460| 320 315| 330 386| 343 482
10-20 418 459| 337 369| 349 403| 363 500
20-30 428 471| 352 382| 369 420| 397 518
30-40 433 478| 362 393| 384 431| 415 528
40-50 439 488| 375 405| 399 446| 432 537
50-60 446 498| 382 414| 409 456| 444 549
60-70 453 506| 385 415| 415 458| 453 558
over 70 475 533| 407 442| 430 478| 476 595
overall 448 498| 376 426| 356 388| 418 538
This kind of rules out the economic factors for one. I mean, check it out, those with asian heritage with income under 10k have math scores equaling white scores of around 40-50k, they also surpass the math scores of both blacks and hispanics with household income greater than 70k.
Is it genetical? I'd say there's no theoretical reason, why such things couldn't be genetical, but I see no proof for it being genetical. I see proof here, that it's cultural.
I think it mostly comes down to the culture these people are brought up in. Around 65% of the black youth grows up without a father-figure, so what role model do they have? And if you think a single mother can raise kids proper, while there's peer pressure on these young kids to join gangs, then think again.
Call me a racist, or whatever, but thing is, public discourse in the US shouldn't be about "racist this guy, racist redneck that guy, the MAN keeping us down ... etc". The blame-game should end, and discourse should mainly focus on how to make the average black family as functional as possible. It's long past the point, where whitey can be blamed for this, time to stop looking for scapegoats of the underachieving phenomenon, and it's time for the black community to start improving their culture. They can start with rethinking gangs and gang culture.
Same for hispanics.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
helvete
Posts: 2727
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 13:04 Post subject: |
|
|
Here's one thing you need to know about IQ: It's steadily going up. Every generation scores higher than the previous. The demands put on the brain by the complexity of the world around it determines the average IQ of a population. The brain's plasticity is amazing, and environmental factors have a great deal to say about which genes in your genome become active.
REPOST
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spankie
VIP Member
Posts: 2958
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 13:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| iconized wrote: | | Then you might as well suggest that Chimpanzees are as smart as us, we just haven't found the right tool to show it yet. We share 96% (?) of the same genes with them. I wouldn't go so far to compare complete races with each other because of huge genetic variety within races. A lot can influence "potential" intelligence, nature, nurture, summer or winter pregnancy, age of mother during pregnancy, etc. But to say it is not genetic is a denial. |
Iconized, you really should not try to fight me on genetics. We share 96% with a chimp, we share > 99% with each other human. So I really don't see where that number is relevant. I'll tell you more, we share >70% with C elegans flatwurms 
For the last time, belief me. I have ample experience in genetics, there is no intelligence gene. There is some sort of genetic link associated with intelligence but it circumstantial, as I explained with the jew example. Some genetic characteristics drive people to organize better education, but there is no clear 'intelligence gene'.
You apparently don't want to belief, i'll just bury you in scientific data.
Sternberg, R.; Grigorenko, E.; Kidd, K. (2005). "Intelligence, race, and genetics". The American psychologist 60 (1)
Deary, IJ; Johnson, W; Houlihan, LM (2009). "Genetic foundations of human intelligence". Human genetics 126 (1)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spankie
VIP Member
Posts: 2958
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 13:33 Post subject: |
|
|
| helvete wrote: | | Here's one thing you need to know about IQ: It's steadily going up. Every generation scores higher than the previous. The demands put on the brain by the complexity of the world around it determines the average IQ of a population. The brain's plasticity is amazing, and environmental factors have a great deal to say about which genes in your genome become active. |
No no no no, IQ test are severely biased. IQ is just a test and the test is public. People know that they will be assessed by IQ tests, so schools and teacher just teach skills that they know will score well on IQ tests.
If you manage to devise a new skill test that becomes the new standard, people would acquire new skills. Most probably they would score less on the current IQ tests. Does that mean people are 'stupider' than before? Of course not.
I am not implying that people are not 'smarter' than before. We know have computers etc that were not around before. But just saying 'IQ goes up, we become smarter' is too simplistic.
You know people who use a pencil or something else to write in their job on a daily basis earn 40% more on average. One might conclude that we should hand out pencils everywhere and national income would go up. That's as flawed as the IQ debate. People know they are judged by IQ, so they make their IQ go up, but in the end it doesn't make a real difference.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spankie
VIP Member
Posts: 2958
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 13:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | Ragedoctor wrote: | *article promotes white male*
NO, THE ATROCITY, IT MUST BE A WHITE SUPREMIST PLOT, IGNORE RESEARCH LONG LIVE DIVERSITY.
Yeah please stop using arguments like this, its fucking retarded. There is no world wide need of white males to promote white males, stop trying to imply there is. Even then this article promotes asians OVER white males so now it makes even less sense. |
It's funny you should say that.
East Asians = apparently highest IQ
Europeans = medium IQ
Africans = lowest IQ
Let me see here:
East Asians = highly developed science and knowledge, industrial culture, have a distinct study & work ethic that makes our top universities look like daycare centres, they work and study so hard and do so out of cultural work ethics.
Europeans = highly developed science and knowledge, industrial culture, have a somewhat more relaxed study & work ethic, we like free time and relaxation between studies and don't work even close as hard as in East Asia.
Africa = most areas in turmoil, civil war, schools are extremely basic, children have to help to make the family survive, severe lack of technology.
Hummmm....
Just for a moment, imagine this: in Africa, esp. sub-sahara, education and development is hindered by lack of schooling, food, safety and security. So there's no way they can foster a culture of study and enlightenment, they're too busy trying to survive....
Go back a couple of hundred years in Europe and the populations weren't particularly enlightened (most couldn't read), lived in dirty huts etc. while the nobles lived like gods, fighting wars etc... |
Thank god (or some other divine being), could not have said it better.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 13:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| spankie wrote: | | iconized wrote: | | Then you might as well suggest that Chimpanzees are as smart as us, we just haven't found the right tool to show it yet. We share 96% (?) of the same genes with them. I wouldn't go so far to compare complete races with each other because of huge genetic variety within races. A lot can influence "potential" intelligence, nature, nurture, summer or winter pregnancy, age of mother during pregnancy, etc. But to say it is not genetic is a denial. |
Iconized, you really should not try to fight me on genetics. We share 96% with a chimp, we share > 99% with each other human. So I really don't see where that number is relevant. I'll tell you more, we share >70% with C elegans flatwurms
For the last time, belief me. I have ample experience in genetics, there is no intelligence gene. There is some sort of genetic link associated with intelligence but it circumstantial, as I explained with the jew example. Some genetic characteristics drive people to organize better education, but there is no clear 'intelligence gene'.
You apparently don't want to belief, i'll just bury you in scientific data.
Sternberg, R.; Grigorenko, E.; Kidd, K. (2005). "Intelligence, race, and genetics". The American psychologist 60 (1)
Deary, IJ; Johnson, W; Houlihan, LM (2009). "Genetic foundations of human intelligence". Human genetics 126 (1) |
Okay will do some reading up, but sorry I am stubborn. I never said there is a specific intelligence gene. There are most likely hundreds of genes that work together in yet unknown ways that are responsible for the development of the brains and the working of the brains, like developing neural connections. Females have smaller brains, they compensate by making more connections also between the hemispheres. But why should we assume that these genes are the same with every person? If I am wrong again I give up.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rofl_Mao
Posts: 3187
Location: Nederland
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 13:54 Post subject: |
|
|
Iconized thank you my man I've suspected for quite some time average IQs are linked to race, but sadly most people are too politically correct to admit it. I think it's just patronizing to censor research when the outcome is not in favour of non Western people. Or negroes, let alone jews.
To be clear, I'm totally against any racial violence. But enforcing racial equality seems just as bad to me. I'm not saying one race is better than the other, but that races are different and unique. Certainly African persons can be smarter and more successful than Western Europeans or Japanese. But the average level appears to be lower. Nothing wrong with that if you ask me, and certainly not any reason to kill each other.
Homework for me: what race am I as an Indonesian Dutch halfblood? The kind of race that has genetic traits for clogging the toilet...
Lutzifer: no, IQ is not genetically linked to "race". Saying so is still a minority opinion usually only expressed by nazis. If i see people starting to argue that some "races" are inferior because of IQ, people still will get banned
| Lopin18 wrote: | I think you played too much Fallout 3, Pedo Perk acquired.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rofl_Mao
Posts: 3187
Location: Nederland
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 13:56 Post subject: |
|
|
| iconized wrote: | | spankie wrote: | | iconized wrote: | | Then you might as well suggest that Chimpanzees are as smart as us, we just haven't found the right tool to show it yet. We share 96% (?) of the same genes with them. I wouldn't go so far to compare complete races with each other because of huge genetic variety within races. A lot can influence "potential" intelligence, nature, nurture, summer or winter pregnancy, age of mother during pregnancy, etc. But to say it is not genetic is a denial. |
Iconized, you really should not try to fight me on genetics. We share 96% with a chimp, we share > 99% with each other human. So I really don't see where that number is relevant. I'll tell you more, we share >70% with C elegans flatwurms
For the last time, belief me. I have ample experience in genetics, there is no intelligence gene. There is some sort of genetic link associated with intelligence but it circumstantial, as I explained with the jew example. Some genetic characteristics drive people to organize better education, but there is no clear 'intelligence gene'.
You apparently don't want to belief, i'll just bury you in scientific data.
Sternberg, R.; Grigorenko, E.; Kidd, K. (2005). "Intelligence, race, and genetics". The American psychologist 60 (1)
Deary, IJ; Johnson, W; Houlihan, LM (2009). "Genetic foundations of human intelligence". Human genetics 126 (1) |
Okay will do some reading up, but sorry I am stubborn. I never said there is a specific intelligence gene. There are most likely hundreds of genes that work together in yet unknown ways that are responsible for the development of the brains and the working of the brains, like developing neural connections. Females have smaller brains, they compensate by making more connections also between the hemispheres. But why should we assume that these genes are the same with every person? If I am wrong again I give up. |
Females are doing better in school and universities these days, according to the papers. So men are a little dumber 
| Lopin18 wrote: | | I think you played too much Fallout 3, Pedo Perk acquired. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 13:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal – was very small.
A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist.
|
and now you can shut up about this racism bs.
we are part of the homo sapiens (sapiens sub race). Every single living human.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zipfero
Posts: 8938
Location: White Shaft
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 14:33 Post subject: |
|
|
that people regularly drag that shitty bell-curve nonsense up again and again is beyond me (apart from the ideological need of racist bigots to quote this). Nearly nobody in the field of iq research i know was convinced by that "genetic bell-curve argument" and there are numerous publications since that have severely challenged that one view. It also is a present for racist policy makers to argue that we do not need any programs to close the educational or societal gaps between different groups (because it s race and nobody can change that).
Beginning with how iq is measured, it is easy to understand that asians would have a huge cultural advantage because they train visual "intelligence" through the learning of their language. And guess what, the standard so-called culture free iq test (raven matrices) uses figures and logic similar to how asians build their language and it has been shown again and again that asians score especially well in visual-figurative iq tests. Go figure.
if you d care to look into the subject apart from that one publication, that nazis really love to quote the shit out of, you d find enough to show you a different picture of how iq has something to do with genetics (it most likely hasnt race-based, the co-factor cutlure does). Genetics may be a factor in iq on an individual basis, but the EXPRESSION of IQ is only measurably genetic in the first years of upbringing (up to the age of 12 to 16), afterwards the cultural factor outweights the genetic one (and if you look at how old people become nowadays, it s stupid to talk about IQ being race-based or genetic, just because of that)
as already stated, from a biological / genetical standpoint "race" is a construct that doesnt have a use for human beings and rightfully scientists speak about ethnicities instead of "race" in the human development tree afaik. Race is only skindeep with only minor differences in gene-expression that sadly are very visible and therefore devisive. There is also a lot to be said about iq-group measurments and about correlations and causation, but usually people who like the race argument arent interested in actually looking at the science of it all.
short to medium overview articles:
http://www.skepdic.com/iqrace.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/12/race-intelligence-iq-science
http://www.newstatesman.com/africa/2007/10/watson-intelligence-race
if you only want to read one, read this: http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=369
a longer overview that also discusses the controversies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 15:42 Post subject: |
|
|
I am afraid I made some blatant judgement errors. While I was actually looking for information to support my idea that a lot of characteristics including intelligence are for a substantial part caused by the genes we receive, I managed to post another article from some scientists with most likely a racist agenda. We receive our genes and we can't choose them, meaning that all racist and discriminatory ideas concerning these genes and characteristics are invalid. Everyone will have to try to make the best out of what you've got.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 15:56 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 15:59 Post subject: |
|
|
Just to throw some oil on the fire, am I the only one who thinks that "Intelligence" and "IQ" are useless concepts, invented by people who felt the need to be "superior" to others? Neither term means anything to me. Where I easily see solutions in programming, my brother and dad see the same in construction and metalwork respectively. My mum sees the same in financial shit and numbers. Which of us would be the most "intelligent" now?
Someone please define these terms for me, because to me they're about as useful and meaningful as a dead cat. I do believe there are some genetics involved in what a person is good at and what he/she can or can't do much like personality (part genetics, part culture, part the way they are raised), but "intelligence" and "IQ" mean absolutely fuck all. According to some tests I've taken at school and uni I fall into a "superior" or "very superior" category (it's been "measured" to anywhere from 121 to 148 - that alone shows how reliable and scientific this bullshit is), but I couldn't care less really, because it really means nothing to me :/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 16:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| wizarD. wrote: | | http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf |
| Quote: | | The first problem for his theory is that there need to be major races. That is, the differences between "Oriental," "Black," and "White" need to be more than skin deep. In claiming that these old racial categories correspond to large biological differences, Rushton moves in the opposite direction from the entire development of physical anthropology and human genetics for the last thirty years. Anthropologists no longer regard "race" as a useful concept in understanding human evolution and variation.[15] |
| Quote: | | "Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of 'racialism'"[16] |
| Quote: | | Hermann Helmuth, a professor of anthropology at Trent University, said, "It is in a way personal and political propaganda. There is no basis to his scientific research."[28] Francisco Gil-White wrote "Race, Evolution, and Behavior is a tiny, self-published book (a pamphlet, really), that Rushton takes the trouble to mail to people who never requested a copy, such as myself."[29] |
note also, that this is NOT a peer-reviewed publication but rather a self-published, and therefore a book that hasnt gone through thorough criticism before publication (which is one of the main functions of peer-review). It is also one of those books very often quoted by nazis. Some say it was written by a racist even (considering how he mailed a pamphlet verision of it to over 40.000 scientists)...
www.psygamer.net :::: 
Last edited by Lutzifer on Wed, 9th Nov 2011 16:18; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2011 16:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | Just to throw some oil on the fire, am I the only one who thinks that "Intelligence" and "IQ" are useless concepts, invented by people who felt the need to be "superior" to others? Neither term means anything to me. Where I easily see solutions in programming, my brother and dad see the same in construction and metalwork respectively. My mum sees the same in financial shit and numbers. Which of us would be the most "intelligent" now?
Someone please define these terms for me, because to me they're about as useful and meaningful as a dead cat. I do believe there are some genetics involved in what a person is good at and what he/she can or can't do much like personality (part genetics, part culture, part the way they are raised), but "intelligence" and "IQ" mean absolutely fuck all. According to some tests I've taken at school and uni I fall into a "superior" or "very superior" category (it's been "measured" to anywhere from 121 to 148 - that alone shows how reliable and scientific this bullshit is), but I couldn't care less really, because it really means nothing to me :/ |
i get where you re coming from and your argument is often brought up. It is basically the question of objectivity, reliability and validity of these tests.
The best definition imho for IQ is "what IQ tests measure", which shows the dilemma with the concept already. I like the research, but for real-life purposes it is often questionable or useless (and it has been shown that IQ or intelligence does not make you better in succeding in life, so there are many other co-factors that moderate how we achieve things in life).
But there are also some good tests out there and the research has shown that humans have a general factor of intelligence (most likely based on structural factors like speed of computation) and special intelligence factors (like language skills for example).
What you mentioned as well is problem solving, which should be the field where more intelligent people should be better. But as it turns out, it is not that easy. It has been shown that to be a good problem solver you ll need to have a very good overview of the field in which you want to solve something. So education / information about a problem field plays a huge role and the intelligence only helps along the way (or in other words, it s intelligence vs. intellect there).
intelligence tests still play a role in measuring deficits (in neuropsychology after brain injury, or in developmental psychology to test kids for deficits) or in assessment centers where people want to make sure that a certain subset of needed skills is indeed there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 3 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
