This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Do you believe in a superior race?
Scroll to see replies
Intellectually, Whites and East Asians are superior to Blacks, South Asians and Hispanics.
Physically, Blacks are superior, followed by Whites.
Physically, Blacks are superior, followed by Whites.
Original post by Steevee
Yes, racial characteristics vary, and there have been studies into that fact. However, when considered alongside environmental factors, it's difficult to get an accurate depiction of any real level of racial intelligence.
So simple answer, in practice, yes there are some races with higher average IQs than others, however whether this is down to racial attributes or environmental factors is a subject of much debate.
So simple answer, in practice, yes there are some races with higher average IQs than others, however whether this is down to racial attributes or environmental factors is a subject of much debate.
IQ is not an accurate measure of intelligence. So people should stop using it as such.
Of course there are differences, Jews are probably most intelligent and blacks the least. It annoys me no end that poltics has an influence over facts. People decide that they should be equal and then ignore any evidence against it. It is no coincidence that there are a lot more black sprinters than jews and there are more jewish world leading researchers. People do not have the freedom to study it properly because of politics so it may never be proven.
It wouldnt benefit society to prove it though.
It wouldnt benefit society to prove it though.
(edited 11 years ago)
Please, can people stop with this 'we're all equal' rhetoric? I think, deep down, we know that some people (not ethnicities) are superior.
Would you consider a mentally handicapped (don't know the PC term, don't really care) person equal to a genius? No, because they're clearly not. So, with that as the base, why is it hard to believe that fundamental differences exist within the human species? If anything, it's insulting to say that we're all equal, rather than the other way around.
Would you consider a mentally handicapped (don't know the PC term, don't really care) person equal to a genius? No, because they're clearly not. So, with that as the base, why is it hard to believe that fundamental differences exist within the human species? If anything, it's insulting to say that we're all equal, rather than the other way around.
Original post by Dont Tread On Me
I find it hard to believe that through evolution of humans the only thing that has changed is skin colour, and to a lesser extent, bone structures. Is it not plausible that the intellectual capacity of certain races has evolved beyond those of others, creating an intellectually superior race?
Well only 0.2% of the population of the world is Jewish and yet 20% of Nobel laureates are of Jewish origin... just saying.
Eurasian races (Caucasoids, Mongoloids) have higher IQ's than Negroids, as most are further away from the torrid zone or tropical belt. The colder Eurasian climate produced different selection pressures leading to increased intelligence in Eurasians. Basically northern latitudes demanded higher evolution in intelligence, as the peoples had to hunt when food was not seasonal. They had to hunt large herbivores such as mammoths, secondly they had to keep warm - so they had to solve the problems of making fires, clothes and shelters etc. All these led to overall developed greater intelligence.
The three major components of intelligence, are general, verbal and visuospatial ability. Caucasoids and Mongoloids are higher in all 3 than Negroids. These obviously developed in Eurasians because of the selective pressures.
That's the science behind the difference in race and IQ anyway. Yes certianly, races are not equal. Evolution is not egalitarian, mother nature discriminates. Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved a higher IQ, while Negroids were basically stuck in the Stone Age as late as European colonisation. Mongoloids and Caucasoids have produced all the ancient civilizations, Negroids never created one. They try and latch onto egypt, but the reality is Egypt was founded by Caucasoids with racial affinities to the Mediterranean/Southern Europe.
The three major components of intelligence, are general, verbal and visuospatial ability. Caucasoids and Mongoloids are higher in all 3 than Negroids. These obviously developed in Eurasians because of the selective pressures.
That's the science behind the difference in race and IQ anyway. Yes certianly, races are not equal. Evolution is not egalitarian, mother nature discriminates.
Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved a higher IQ, while Negroids were basically stuck in the Stone Age as late as European colonisation. Mongoloids and Caucasoids have produced all the ancient civilizations, Negroids never created one. They try and latch onto egypt, but the reality is Egypt was founded by Caucasoids with racial affinities to the Mediterranean/Southern Europe.
Original post by thomaskurian89
Intellectually, Whites and East Asians are superior to Blacks, South Asians and Hispanics.
Physically, Blacks are superior, followed by Whites.
Physically, Blacks are superior, followed by Whites.
Original post by Sternumator
Of course there are differences, Jews are probably most intelligent and blacks the least. It annoys me no end that poltics has an influence over facts. People decide that they should be equal and then ignore any evidence against it. It is no coincidence that there are a lot more black sprinters than jews and there are more jewish world leading researchers. People do not have the freedom to study it properly because of politics so it may never be proven.
It wouldnt benefit society to prove it though.
It wouldnt benefit society to prove it though.
Original post by Pyramidologist
Eurasian races (Caucasoids, Mongoloids) have higher IQ's than Negroids, as most are further away from the torrid zone or tropical belt. The colder Eurasian climate produced different selection pressures leading to increased intelligence in Eurasians. Basically northern latitudes demanded higher evolution in intelligence, as the peoples had to hunt when food was not seasonal. They had to hunt large herbivores such as mammoths, secondly they had to keep warm - so they had to solve the problems of making fires, clothes and shelters etc. All these led to overall developed greater intelligence.
The three major components of intelligence, are general, verbal and visuospatial ability. Caucasoids and Mongoloids are higher in all 3 than Negroids. These obviously developed in Eurasians because of the selective pressures.
That's the science behind the difference in race and IQ anyway. Yes certianly, races are not equal. Evolution is not egalitarian, mother nature discriminates.
Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved a higher IQ, while Negroids were basically stuck in the Stone Age as late as European colonisation. Mongoloids and Caucasoids have produced all the ancient civilizations, Negroids never created one. They try and latch onto egypt, but the reality is Egypt was founded by Caucasoids with racial affinities to the Mediterranean/Southern Europe.
The three major components of intelligence, are general, verbal and visuospatial ability. Caucasoids and Mongoloids are higher in all 3 than Negroids. These obviously developed in Eurasians because of the selective pressures.
That's the science behind the difference in race and IQ anyway. Yes certianly, races are not equal. Evolution is not egalitarian, mother nature discriminates.
Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved a higher IQ, while Negroids were basically stuck in the Stone Age as late as European colonisation. Mongoloids and Caucasoids have produced all the ancient civilizations, Negroids never created one. They try and latch onto egypt, but the reality is Egypt was founded by Caucasoids with racial affinities to the Mediterranean/Southern Europe.Why are you conflating the individual intellectual endeavours of unrelated persons on the basis of a non-causal (and non-existent) variable? A professor in theoretical physics has no tangible connection with a truanting imbecile on the other side of the country, so why have their individual achievements been conflated into a single, meaningless figure?
What good is an average when the comprising elements of said average are completely unrelated and are capable of changing their intelligence if they personally choose to do so?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by whyumadtho
What good is an average when the comprising elements of said average are completely unrelated and are capable of changing their intelligence if they personally choose to do so?
The overall development of a country is determined by the average intelligence of it's people, not by the outliers.
Original post by thomaskurian89
The overall development of a country is determined by the average intelligence of it's people, not by the outliers.
It's determined by the elite powers in the country. Individuals act as individuals, not groups. Unless individuals have a tangible psychological link with another individual, you cannot suggest their idiosyncratic psychological profiles can be averaged. It's like suggesting people with size 10 feet are on average smarter than people with size 9 feet: you're correlating two unrelated variables of unrelated persons to justify (wrongly) the existence of one that suggests these unrelated persons are connected somehow. Our individual intelligences were not shaped by our ethnic origins, it was shaped by our personal intellectual endeavours. Why should you and I, therefore, lose the acknowledgement of our agency because people we have never met have done X, Y and Z? They have had no influence on us and we have had no influence on them.
You never answered any of my questions directly.
Original post by whyumadtho
It's determined by the elite powers in the country. Individuals act as individuals, not groups. Unless individuals have a tangible psychological link with another individual, you cannot suggest their idiosyncratic psychological profiles can be averaged. It's like suggesting people with size 10 feet are on average smarter than people with size 9 feet: you're correlating two unrelated variables of unrelated persons to justify (wrongly) the existence of one that suggests these unrelated persons are connected somehow. Our individual intelligences were not shaped by our ethnic origins, it was shaped by our personal intellectual endeavours. Why should you and I, therefore, lose the acknowledgement of our agency because people we have never met have done X, Y and Z? They have had no influence on us and we have had no influence on them.
You never answered any of my questions directly.
You never answered any of my questions directly.
Intelligence is genetic, as northern latitudes demanded higher evolution in intelligence. Eurasian races (Caucasoids, Mongoloids) have higher IQ's than races for example native to Sub-Sahara Africa (Negroids, Capoids).
This is historically verified. All civilizations have been created by only two races - Caucasoids and Mongoloids. If other races are equal in IQ, where are their civilizations?
I believe different races and ethnic groups are better suited to different environments (generally the ones they come from) but other than that I don't think any race is really superior, just different from each other and better in different areas and doing different things. I also acknowledge that individual difference still plays a major role.
Original post by Pyramidologist
Eurasian races (Caucasoids, Mongoloids) have higher IQ's than Negroids, as most are further away from the torrid zone or tropical belt. The colder Eurasian climate produced different selection pressures leading to increased intelligence in Eurasians. Basically northern latitudes demanded higher evolution in intelligence, as the peoples had to hunt when food was not seasonal. They had to hunt large herbivores such as mammoths, secondly they had to keep warm - so they had to solve the problems of making fires, clothes and shelters etc. All these led to overall developed greater intelligence.
The three major components of intelligence, are general, verbal and visuospatial ability. Caucasoids and Mongoloids are higher in all 3 than Negroids. These obviously developed in Eurasians because of the selective pressures.
That's the science behind the difference in race and IQ anyway. Yes certianly, races are not equal. Evolution is not egalitarian, mother nature discriminates. Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved a higher IQ, while Negroids were basically stuck in the Stone Age as late as European colonisation. Mongoloids and Caucasoids have produced all the ancient civilizations, Negroids never created one. They try and latch onto egypt, but the reality is Egypt was founded by Caucasoids with racial affinities to the Mediterranean/Southern Europe.
The three major components of intelligence, are general, verbal and visuospatial ability. Caucasoids and Mongoloids are higher in all 3 than Negroids. These obviously developed in Eurasians because of the selective pressures.
That's the science behind the difference in race and IQ anyway. Yes certianly, races are not equal. Evolution is not egalitarian, mother nature discriminates.
Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved a higher IQ, while Negroids were basically stuck in the Stone Age as late as European colonisation. Mongoloids and Caucasoids have produced all the ancient civilizations, Negroids never created one. They try and latch onto egypt, but the reality is Egypt was founded by Caucasoids with racial affinities to the Mediterranean/Southern Europe.Britons were only several clusters of savage and supersticious tribesmen 2000 years ago- before the Roman colonisation. I don't think you will have evolved such vastly superior mental capabilities in such a short period of time. Also, if you research the matter you will find that Ghana -1000 years ago- had a highly prosperous civilisation that was at a comparable stage of development to what we had in Britain before the Romans. Also, what meaning is there in trying to determine the intelligence of the "black race" when it has been shown that there is more genetic diversity in sub-saharan Africa, between different groups of Africans, than there is between all other racial groups outside of Africa- e.g. between asians and europeans etc. It would seem Africans are not such a homogenous group of people as some pseudo-scientists would like to make out.
Finally, as a mixed race (black-white) person who has scored 134 on an iq test conducted by my school, I can say with authority that 99% of you haters don't have anything on me.
Even if racial differences in iq were present, there would still be a considerable overlap of the iq distributions. And I don't believe that racial differences in iq mean much given the vast number of intelligent and dumb people of all races. Furthermore, given the amount of time it seems you seem to have spent researching the matter, I can only assume you are of the latter capacity.(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Pyramidologist
Intelligence is genetic, as northern latitudes demanded higher evolution in intelligence. Eurasian races (Caucasoids, Mongoloids) have higher IQ's than races for example native to Sub-Sahara Africa (Negroids, Capoids).
This is historically verified. All civilizations have been created by only two races - Caucasoids and Mongoloids. If other races are equal in IQ, where are their civilizations?
This is historically verified. All civilizations have been created by only two races - Caucasoids and Mongoloids. If other races are equal in IQ, where are their civilizations?
The political elite have the most control over the shape and circumstances of a an area. They were not created by 'races', they were created by the innovations of persons residing in a territory at any given time. The millions of other people in the country did nothing to contribute to that individual's achievement or intellectual merit and derived this individual's benefits as a matter of incidence through living in the same territory. They simply accepted what was bestowed to them by the political elite in the country.
I have never understood how this could be. DO you mean there is more genetic diversity between 2 randomly picked white men than between an average white man and an average black man? I could conceive this as true, though I would find it very surprising.
Please help me to clarify what scientists mean when they say such things.
Please help me to clarify what scientists mean when they say such things.
(edited 11 years ago)
You have to be careful of what you say here- otherwise it could be confusing:
I cannot imagine that there would be more genetic diversity between say 2 randomly picked white men than between a randomly picked black and white man.
However, it could be possible that when taking averages all the genetic differences even themselves out- so that the average black man is in fact very similar to the average white man- with two random white men still having a vastly differing genetic make-up.
I cannot imagine that there would be more genetic diversity between say 2 randomly picked white men than between a randomly picked black and white man.
However, it could be possible that when taking averages all the genetic differences even themselves out- so that the average black man is in fact very similar to the average white man- with two random white men still having a vastly differing genetic make-up.
(edited 11 years ago)
You are spouting Lewontin's fallacy, which has been debunked. Race is a biological reality, recent genetic studies that have identified racial clusters. Furthermore outside of genetics, race is valid in forensic anthropology, pharmaceuticals and many other scientific areas.
No you aren't.
Genetic clusters have proven the classic tripartite Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid racial divisions.
The only thing that was challenged is that Amerindians who are Mongoloid, appear in their own genetic cluster, but this is to be expected considering they have branched off and lived in the Americas for 15,000 or so years isolated.
Here are the clusters based on 52 population samples:
Rosenberg et al 2002, cited in Excoffier, Laurent. (2003) Human Diversity: Our Genes Tell Where We Live. Curr Biol; 13:R134-R136
Genetic cluster 1 = Caucasoid
Genetic cluster 2 = Negroid
Genetic cluster 3 = Mongoloid
Genetic clusters have proven the classic tripartite Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid racial divisions.
The only thing that was challenged is that Amerindians who are Mongoloid, appear in their own genetic cluster, but this is to be expected considering they have branched off and lived in the Americas for 15,000 or so years isolated.
Here are the clusters based on 52 population samples:
Rosenberg et al 2002, cited in Excoffier, Laurent. (2003) Human Diversity: Our Genes Tell Where We Live. Curr Biol; 13:R134-R136
Genetic cluster 1 = Caucasoid
Genetic cluster 2 = Negroid
Genetic cluster 3 = Mongoloid
Original post by Pyramidologist
You are spouting Lewontin's fallacy, which has been debunked. Race is a biological reality, recent genetic studies that have identified racial clusters. Furthermore outside of genetics, race is valid in forensic anthropology, pharmaceuticals and many other scientific areas.
"The myth of major genetic differences across “races” is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence." (Owens & King, 1999).
"Although conventional ‘racial’ categories as typically understood may not be defined by particular genetic markers, ‘pockets of populations’ living in particular geographical locales could be so defined." (McCann-Mortimer et al., 2004).
"We discourage the use of race as a proxy for biological similarity and support efforts to minimize the use of the categories of race and ethnicity in clinical medicine, maintaining focus on the individual rather than the group." (Lee et al., 2008).
"Because of a history of extensive migration and gene flow, however, human genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous fashion and seldom has marked geographic discontinuities. Thus, populations are never “pure” in a genetic sense, and definite boundaries between individuals or populations (e.g. “races”) will be necessarily somewhat inaccurate and arbitrary." (Jorde & Wooding, 2004).
"In short, while human biological variation certainly seems to be real, the ways that we cut it up, name and describe it are the product of our scientific imagination." (Morning, 2005).
"[...] The number of races observed expanded to the 30s and 50s, and eventually anthropologists concluded that there were no discrete races (Marks, 2002). 20th and 21st Century biomedical researchers have discovered this same feature when evaluating human variation at the level of alleles and allele frequencies. Nature has not created four or five distinct, nonoverlapping genetic groups of people." (Ossorio & Duster, 2006).
"Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races.”" (Serre & Pääbo, 2004).
"To avoid making "race" the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed. Human "races" are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans. A "subspecies" can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DN A haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate." (Templeton, 1998).
"Race is an accepted socio-cultural concept that lacks supportive genetic evidence." (Kittles et al., 2007).
"Biologists also disagree about the meaning of ‘race’, and whether it is applicable to human infraspecific (within-species) variation." (Keita et al., 2004).
"It has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics." (Keita et al., 2004).
"Studies of human population genetics and evolution have generated the strongest proof that there is no scientific basis for racism, with the demonstration that human genetic diversity between populations is small, and perhaps entirely the result of climatic adaptation and random drift." (Cavalli-Sforza, 2005).
Original post by Pyramidologist
No you aren't.
Genetic clusters have proven the classic tripartite Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid racial divisions.
The only thing that was challenged is that Amerindians who are Mongoloid, appear in their own genetic cluster, but this is to be expected considering they have branched off and lived in the Americas for 15,000 or so years isolated.
Here are the clusters based on 52 population samples:
Rosenberg et al 2002, cited in Excoffier, Laurent. (2003) Human Diversity: Our Genes Tell Where We Live. Curr Biol; 13:R134-R136
Genetic cluster 1 = Caucasoid
Genetic cluster 2 = Negroid
Genetic cluster 3 = Mongoloid
Genetic clusters have proven the classic tripartite Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid racial divisions.
The only thing that was challenged is that Amerindians who are Mongoloid, appear in their own genetic cluster, but this is to be expected considering they have branched off and lived in the Americas for 15,000 or so years isolated.
Here are the clusters based on 52 population samples:
Rosenberg et al 2002, cited in Excoffier, Laurent. (2003) Human Diversity: Our Genes Tell Where We Live. Curr Biol; 13:R134-R136
Genetic cluster 1 = Caucasoid
Genetic cluster 2 = Negroid
Genetic cluster 3 = Mongoloid
Rosenburg et al. grouped them into six clusters, but there is no logical reason to stop at six.
(I can't acquire a higher resolution image). You can see a new cluster emerging at K=6. More clusters would emerge at K=7, K=8, etc.
"So why has so much emphasis been placed on the results of the analysis using K = 6? Despite the fact that Rosenberg et al. (2002) presented no evidence that K = 6 represented the most likely number of genetic clusters in their data set, virtually all references to this study in both the scientific literature and the popular press mention the identification of either 5 or 6 genetic clusters. […] I would suggest that these particular results have been emphasized simply because they fit the general notion in our society that continental groupings are biologically significant. This notion is a legacy of traditional racial thought and seems to persist even when not clearly supported by biological data." (Bolnick, 2008: 77).
In other words, people have misrepresented the study. Try again.
(edited 11 years ago)
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
