East Asians are the most intelligent of the human race
Scroll to see replies
Original post by TheLionHearted
I thought that there was more than one type of intelligence?
There's fairly convincing evidence for a general factor of intelligence which underlines all cognitive skills (6 of Gardner's 8 intelligences, all except bodily-kinaesthetic and musical). However, this is interestingly more of a general stupidity than a general intelligence. At high levels of ability, practice/expertise becomes much more important and the different components of intelligence separate out. Hence you get English professors who aren't mathematical geniuses and vice versa.
Original post by serebro
Despite seeming taboo, this is true on a general scale. A lot of people think that this is a racist idea, but it is evident in our lifestyle and culture. It's merely how we are adapted to the environment.
Intelligence:
1) Mongoloids (Asians excluding those from Indian subcontinent)
2) Caucasians (White people)
3) Negroids (Black people)
Where do Arabs fit on this scale?
Personally, I believe it's about work ethic since in my Secondary school, Black Africans, often did much better than their white counterparts. But they where no Indians or east Asians
If we think about it, the Chinese were one of the earliest and most well developed civilisation of their age. Then along came white people and finally black people. More importantly, Asian languages are structured so that maths is straightforward, which gives them the advantage. 20 is simply '2 tens', which makes things easier when it comes to multiplication/division etc.
What about the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Roman, Persians? I believe they are all ancient societies that can lay claim to have helped human advancement whether in Mathematics or Science.
However, on a physical ability scale:
1) Negroids
2) Caucasians
3) Mongoloids
Black people lived in areas necessary for endurance, speed and important survival skills, especially if they lived in the bush. White people were in a richer environment and didn't need as much strength, instead they had developed extra fat to cope with cooler climates.East Asians however, did not need these survival skills as much. If you look at the Olympic games, you will often see black people getting the medals in athletics. Asians excel in skill based sports and acrobatics, while white people dominate water and winter sports.
Lol, this is so general. Every human population would have faced hardship arriving in a new environment and having to adapt certain physical features to cope. They were not modern Whites, Blacks or Asians as you know them and would have needed all the survival skills they could master.
However, this is only rule of thumb and there's a lot of exceptions. Something that's also interesting is that black/white people typically have higher EQ than Asians, meaning they can judge emotional situations better.
Intelligence:
1) Mongoloids (Asians excluding those from Indian subcontinent)
2) Caucasians (White people)
3) Negroids (Black people)
Where do Arabs fit on this scale?
Personally, I believe it's about work ethic since in my Secondary school, Black Africans, often did much better than their white counterparts. But they where no Indians or east Asians
If we think about it, the Chinese were one of the earliest and most well developed civilisation of their age. Then along came white people and finally black people. More importantly, Asian languages are structured so that maths is straightforward, which gives them the advantage. 20 is simply '2 tens', which makes things easier when it comes to multiplication/division etc.
What about the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Roman, Persians? I believe they are all ancient societies that can lay claim to have helped human advancement whether in Mathematics or Science.
However, on a physical ability scale:
1) Negroids
2) Caucasians
3) Mongoloids
Black people lived in areas necessary for endurance, speed and important survival skills, especially if they lived in the bush. White people were in a richer environment and didn't need as much strength, instead they had developed extra fat to cope with cooler climates.East Asians however, did not need these survival skills as much. If you look at the Olympic games, you will often see black people getting the medals in athletics. Asians excel in skill based sports and acrobatics, while white people dominate water and winter sports.
Lol, this is so general. Every human population would have faced hardship arriving in a new environment and having to adapt certain physical features to cope. They were not modern Whites, Blacks or Asians as you know them and would have needed all the survival skills they could master.
However, this is only rule of thumb and there's a lot of exceptions. Something that's also interesting is that black/white people typically have higher EQ than Asians, meaning they can judge emotional situations better.
Original post by PythianLegume
Genetic causality does not disappear when controlling for environment in twin studies.
Mackintosh's IQ and Human Intelligence is a great review of the literature in this area, and Robert Plomin's G is for Genes is a great book detailing research into the heritability of intelligence-related skills in practice, such as exam and school success. IQ is more highly correlated with biological than adoptive parents (Bouchard, 1997), and separated MZ twins have an IQ correlation of 0.75. This is obviously not all genetic, due to the fact twins weren't often separated at birth, and there are pre-natal factors, but nonetheless is a huge correlation (and much higher than siblings or DZ twins). Chipuer et al. (1990) analysed a number of twin and adoption studies, being careful to avoid assumptions such as having 50% of shared genes between siblings, or equal shared environment for those raised in the same house. The concluded that about 50% of the variance in IQ is due to genetics.
However, this is not to say that genes are 50% of intelligence, only the variation in our current society. More equal societies such as Scandinavia have higher heritability scores than less equal societies like the USA. Think about it - if everyone has exactly the same environment, then 100% of the variations will be genetic. Moreover, genetic differences will be small factors if society is very polarised, with some people undernourished and lacking education and others living a life of luxury with access to the best schools.
Furthermore, IQ tests are some of the best methods we have of measuring intelligence. They've been improved massively over recent years and are highly predictive of later success. In fact, a simple IQ test is a more effective measure of a worker's job performance than interview performance or college grades (Ree et al. 2003). IQ tests are certainly culture-bound, and it is definitely problematic to try and use them across languages (although that's rarely what studies do - they test different races speaking the same language). However, people bash IQ unnecessarily. It's a flawed measure, but our best one.
Saying that there is a large genetic component to intelligence is not in any way Hitlerian. There's no reason to state that just because some people are more predisposed to certain traits that they ought to be exterminated. Facts cannot be prejudiced or evil. Only what is done with facts is evil. A hammer is not bad because it can be used to cave someone's skull in. There's nothing wrong with saying that genes code for intelligence, and we shouldn't ignore it just because some people might use it to do wrong.
Mackintosh's IQ and Human Intelligence is a great review of the literature in this area, and Robert Plomin's G is for Genes is a great book detailing research into the heritability of intelligence-related skills in practice, such as exam and school success. IQ is more highly correlated with biological than adoptive parents (Bouchard, 1997), and separated MZ twins have an IQ correlation of 0.75. This is obviously not all genetic, due to the fact twins weren't often separated at birth, and there are pre-natal factors, but nonetheless is a huge correlation (and much higher than siblings or DZ twins). Chipuer et al. (1990) analysed a number of twin and adoption studies, being careful to avoid assumptions such as having 50% of shared genes between siblings, or equal shared environment for those raised in the same house. The concluded that about 50% of the variance in IQ is due to genetics.
However, this is not to say that genes are 50% of intelligence, only the variation in our current society. More equal societies such as Scandinavia have higher heritability scores than less equal societies like the USA. Think about it - if everyone has exactly the same environment, then 100% of the variations will be genetic. Moreover, genetic differences will be small factors if society is very polarised, with some people undernourished and lacking education and others living a life of luxury with access to the best schools.
Furthermore, IQ tests are some of the best methods we have of measuring intelligence. They've been improved massively over recent years and are highly predictive of later success. In fact, a simple IQ test is a more effective measure of a worker's job performance than interview performance or college grades (Ree et al. 2003). IQ tests are certainly culture-bound, and it is definitely problematic to try and use them across languages (although that's rarely what studies do - they test different races speaking the same language). However, people bash IQ unnecessarily. It's a flawed measure, but our best one.
Saying that there is a large genetic component to intelligence is not in any way Hitlerian. There's no reason to state that just because some people are more predisposed to certain traits that they ought to be exterminated. Facts cannot be prejudiced or evil. Only what is done with facts is evil. A hammer is not bad because it can be used to cave someone's skull in. There's nothing wrong with saying that genes code for intelligence, and we shouldn't ignore it just because some people might use it to do wrong.
There is something very wrong about saying genes code for intelligence.
Once you control properly for environment effect of genes will be minimal.
Steven Hinshaws work highlights the spurious connections you are citing above.
Saying genes code for intelligence means that assumptions about the levels of intelligence people can achieve (as measured by IQ tests or whatever definitional model you want to use) are determined by genes. A very nice argument for the middle class kid who's parents are both Drs and has a study in his 6 bedroom house that he does his homework in whilst visiting home from boarding school. Not so nice for the working class kid who's single parent left school at 14 and can't help with their homework.
Of course we want to highlight to the latter child when he fails his A-levels that it was all predetermined and if he ever had a hope he needed to work twice as hard because if his poor genes.
100% of the variations will be genetic? I feel that you have read a lot of genetics but little on developmental psychology/psychopathology, behavioural biology and epigenetic.
1stly this argument is pointless as environment can never be controlled and therefore has no ecological validity.
2ndly there are passive, active and evocative genetic factors all dependent on environment. Coupled with the demand characteristics of the environment (e.g. How teachers are less likely to push black kids to work hard in school as they expect them to under achieve). Then there's epigenetic factors - the food your mum are and the drink she drank when you were in her tummy could affect the expression if said genes. I'm quite sure that people in the East have different diets.
So Hitler was the extreme form yes... I not calling anyone Hitler. I'm just saying that the gene argument is a very slippery slope.
Your philosophical argument sounds nice. Last time I checked however a hammer not comparable to the complex physiological, mental, spiritual aspects of the human condition.
Bringing me nicely to the final part of my argument. Taking a more epistemological approach. We can think as relativists as supposed to realists and argue that IQ is a social construct, applying social constructionist ideas.
Intelligence is a human construct defined by the observer. I would argue that it doesn't exist in a strictly measurable form. I work in a psych service presently. We perform neuropsychological testing. The IQ Measures embedded in our tests such as the WAIS rarely correlate nicely with a persons social skills , independent functioning ability and ability to learn new knowledge.
Robert Sapolosky has a fantastic lecture series on you tube that I would like to bring to your attention.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Freier._.lance
Of course I don't agree. IQ has nothing to do with how people govern themselves.....
Do you think that the quality of government in the UK would be the same if the population were 3 standard deviations stupider? Note that the average in many African countries would be considered clinically retarded in the UK.
Original post by king117
There is something very wrong about saying genes code for intelligence.
Is it? What else would it be coded for by?
Denying that genes affect or even ultimately control and limit intelligence is more or less a denial of evolution, reductionism, and a rational universe. Why aren't cats or dogs equally as intelligent as humans? Why do dog breeds vary in their intelligence? A strong and 'obvious' distinction in the case of humans may have been justifiable half a millennium ago, but certainly not since Darwin.
Arguing that people have inherently equal intelligence and aptitude, especially in the face of contrary evidence, goes even further. It is a retreat into the Christian conception of a soul, separate from the body, created in God's image and universally granted.
Saying genes code for intelligence [is] ... a very nice argument for the middle class kid who's parents are both Drs and has a study in his 6 bedroom house that he does his homework in whilst visiting home from boarding school.
...
So Hitler was the extreme form yes... I not calling anyone Hitler. I'm just saying that the gene argument is a very slippery slope.
...
So Hitler was the extreme form yes... I not calling anyone Hitler. I'm just saying that the gene argument is a very slippery slope.
When people start justifying empirical claims by appeal to the political consequences of them being wrong I think there's an even stronger argument that what we're dealing with is mysticism, not science.
(edited 10 years ago)
Wrong.
White people have done more for society as a whole. In terms of Science (Einstein, Newton, Galileo), Art (Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael) and Literature (Shakespeare, Poe, Doyle).
White people have done more for society as a whole. In terms of Science (Einstein, Newton, Galileo), Art (Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael) and Literature (Shakespeare, Poe, Doyle).
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
Wrong, the Jewish people are the most intelligent. Consider Nobel prizes given. Jews comprise of less than 0.2% of the world's population, yet jews have won a total of 41% of all Nobel Prizes in ecnomics, 28% of medicine, 26% of physics, 19% of chemistry, 13% of literature, and 9% of all peace awards.
Two words: Jewish nepotism
Original post by Bustamove
it wasn't the qing dynasty that destroyed china... it was the opium that was sold to china from britain which got nearly the whole of china addicted to opium, including government officials....
the british corrupted the chinese government with opium.. once the emperor ordered the ban of opium from his lands and destroyed it all, britain decided to attack china (the opium wars)... with britains superior navy, britain destroyed chinas fleet and bombarded cities with their cannons from the sea...
the emperor had no choice but to surrender as they could not fight the british... the emperor signed the treaties presented by the british and gave hong kong to britain which they used as a port to carry on trade with china after the war...
it was britain which technically brought down the last dynasty of china... from there onwards, china went completely down hill...
China was advanced in ancient times...with admiral zheng he in the ming dynasty... the first ones to invent gun powder, first ones to have a blast furnace... china were the inventors and were one of the strongest super powers in ancient times... and now they are still considered one of the strongest super powers in todays world
i think that han dynasty was one of the best ones... even though the tang dynasty were considered the golden age of china, if i ever get to travel back in time, i would travel back to the han dynasty in ancient china or during the three kingdoms period and meet liu bei or Zhuge Liang
the british corrupted the chinese government with opium.. once the emperor ordered the ban of opium from his lands and destroyed it all, britain decided to attack china (the opium wars)... with britains superior navy, britain destroyed chinas fleet and bombarded cities with their cannons from the sea...
the emperor had no choice but to surrender as they could not fight the british... the emperor signed the treaties presented by the british and gave hong kong to britain which they used as a port to carry on trade with china after the war...
it was britain which technically brought down the last dynasty of china... from there onwards, china went completely down hill...
China was advanced in ancient times...with admiral zheng he in the ming dynasty... the first ones to invent gun powder, first ones to have a blast furnace... china were the inventors and were one of the strongest super powers in ancient times... and now they are still considered one of the strongest super powers in todays world
i think that han dynasty was one of the best ones... even though the tang dynasty were considered the golden age of china, if i ever get to travel back in time, i would travel back to the han dynasty in ancient china or during the three kingdoms period and meet liu bei or Zhuge Liang
Nope. China has been going downhill for a long time before the opium war. Otherwise how did we lose or allowed opium to be sold in the first place. The latter half the the Qing Dynasty was shocking, giving away macau and hongkong etc. So yeah, it is mainly Qing's fault imo.
I really like Zhuge Liang as well but in Three Kingdoms I like Chao Cao. He is such a lad. XD.
XiangYu or LiuBang?
Original post by king117
There is something very wrong about saying genes code for intelligence.
Once you control properly for environment effect of genes will be minimal.
Steven Hinshaws work highlights the spurious connections you are citing above.
Saying genes code for intelligence means that assumptions about the levels of intelligence people can achieve (as measured by IQ tests or whatever definitional model you want to use) are determined by genes. A very nice argument for the middle class kid who's parents are both Drs and has a study in his 6 bedroom house that he does his homework in whilst visiting home from boarding school. Not so nice for the working class kid who's single parent left school at 14 and can't help with their homework.
Of course we want to highlight to the latter child when he fails his A-levels that it was all predetermined and if he ever had a hope he needed to work twice as hard because if his poor genes.
Once you control properly for environment effect of genes will be minimal.
Steven Hinshaws work highlights the spurious connections you are citing above.
Saying genes code for intelligence means that assumptions about the levels of intelligence people can achieve (as measured by IQ tests or whatever definitional model you want to use) are determined by genes. A very nice argument for the middle class kid who's parents are both Drs and has a study in his 6 bedroom house that he does his homework in whilst visiting home from boarding school. Not so nice for the working class kid who's single parent left school at 14 and can't help with their homework.
Of course we want to highlight to the latter child when he fails his A-levels that it was all predetermined and if he ever had a hope he needed to work twice as hard because if his poor genes.
Umm, saying genes code for intelligence does not set a cap on the level of achievable intelligence. Saying that intelligence is highly heritable simply means that, in our society, genes account for a lot of the difference. It doesn't mean that environment does not account for any of it, nor does it mean that people are reaching their potentials.
Original post by king117
100% of the variations will be genetic? I feel that you have read a lot of genetics but little on developmental psychology/psychopathology, behavioural biology and epigenetic.
1stly this argument is pointless as environment can never be controlled and therefore has no ecological validity.
2ndly there are passive, active and evocative genetic factors all dependent on environment. Coupled with the demand characteristics of the environment (e.g. How teachers are less likely to push black kids to work hard in school as they expect them to under achieve). Then there's epigenetic factors - the food your mum are and the drink she drank when you were in her tummy could affect the expression if said genes. I'm quite sure that people in the East have different diets.
1stly this argument is pointless as environment can never be controlled and therefore has no ecological validity.
2ndly there are passive, active and evocative genetic factors all dependent on environment. Coupled with the demand characteristics of the environment (e.g. How teachers are less likely to push black kids to work hard in school as they expect them to under achieve). Then there's epigenetic factors - the food your mum are and the drink she drank when you were in her tummy could affect the expression if said genes. I'm quite sure that people in the East have different diets.
You misunderstood my point. I was explaining to you the nature of heritability. And believe me, I know next to nothing about genetics, and all this is coming from a developmental psychology standpoint.
My point was that in a fictional world where everyone's environment is the same, all variations will be due to genetics. Similarly, a world of clones would have zero heritability - all differences would be environmental. I use these as examples to show that heritability is not absolute - it is culture bound. Thus a high heritability of IQ is actually the mark of a more equal society.
Not sure why you mention the East - I never said that race was related to IQ, in fact quite the opposite. I merely said that variations in IQ (within races) are partly due to genes, to a significant degree.
Original post by king117
Bringing me nicely to the final part of my argument. Taking a more epistemological approach. We can think as relativists as supposed to realists and argue that IQ is a social construct, applying social constructionist ideas.
Intelligence is a human construct defined by the observer. I would argue that it doesn't exist in a strictly measurable form. I work in a psych service presently. We perform neuropsychological testing. The IQ Measures embedded in our tests such as the WAIS rarely correlate nicely with a persons social skills , independent functioning ability and ability to learn new knowledge.
Intelligence is a human construct defined by the observer. I would argue that it doesn't exist in a strictly measurable form. I work in a psych service presently. We perform neuropsychological testing. The IQ Measures embedded in our tests such as the WAIS rarely correlate nicely with a persons social skills , independent functioning ability and ability to learn new knowledge.
Well IQ is obviously not related to social skills, I'm not sure many people claim it does. Also, the fact you're talking about independent functioning ability suggests to me you're talking about mentally ill/handicapped people, hardly an appropriate population to base things on. The fact is that IQ in the general population correlates better than most measures with performance at school and work. It's very imperfect and very socially constructed, but then we live in a socially constructed world. Intelligence has always only been what people say it is. But so what? Friendliness is socially constructed, that doesn't mean that I'm not justified in disliking a rude individual. Intelligence is a social construct, but one that is relevant to the socially constructed world we live in.
Original post by Qtj987
jewish is not a race - it is to due with religon
Wrong. To be Jewish, you ether (A) have Jewish ancestry, or (B) have adopted the Jewish religion, or (C) have married into a Jewish family. Any of these entitles you to be Jewish and entitles you to citizenship of Israel.
Most of those Nobel prize winners I referred to were Jewish by ancestry, not by religion.
Original post by I'veGotAHadron
Wrong.
White people have done more for society as a whole. In terms of Science (Einstein, Newton, Galileo), Art (Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael) and Literature (Shakespeare, Poe, Doyle).
White people have done more for society as a whole. In terms of Science (Einstein, Newton, Galileo), Art (Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael) and Literature (Shakespeare, Poe, Doyle).
I know you're probably trolling, but seriously, art and literature? Of course you've only heard of European art and literature; you live in Europe. The fact you only selected English-language writers shows this. You don't have experience of Spanish or German literature, or Eastern art. If you live in a Western European culture, of course the greatest cultural figures will be Western Europeans.
Original post by I'veGotAHadron
Wrong.
White people have done more for society as a whole. In terms of Science (Einstein, Newton, Galileo), Art (Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael) and Literature (Shakespeare, Poe, Doyle).
White people have done more for society as a whole. In terms of Science (Einstein, Newton, Galileo), Art (Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael) and Literature (Shakespeare, Poe, Doyle).
Wrong. Science started in the East. Almost all of modern science was discovered before the period of Einstein etc, but perhaps just not a well ordered or documented. Art and Literature are all debatable. Since I consider ancient Chinese drawings and calligraphy to be a much superior form of art, one which you will disagree. Also ancient chinese writings and poems, which are unreproducible today is superior to any form of English literature. You will, of course disagree about this too.
Original post by ChampEon
Two words: Jewish nepotism
So you really believe that the success of Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, Richard Feynman, Wolfgang Pauli, Max Born, Eugene Wigner, Felix Bloch was attributed to Jewish nepotism? These people practically created modern quantum physics. I don't believe the popularity of quantum physics is due to Jewish nepotism but due to the level of precision quantum predictions can make. Quantum electrodynamics developed by Nobel prize winner Richard Feynman is the most accurate scientific theory, in terms of how many decimals it agrees with experiment, the world has known to date.
Original post by Arieisit
This includes Japanese, Chinese, Koreans etc.
Discuss!
Discuss!
Also most beautiful and smell nicest.
Original post by PythianLegume
I know you're probably trolling, but seriously, art and literature? Of course you've only heard of European art and literature; you live in Europe. The fact you only selected English-language writers shows this. You don't have experience of Spanish or German literature, or Eastern art. If you live in a Western European culture, of course the greatest cultural figures will be Western Europeans.
Slightly.
But internationally these people have had the most influence.
Original post by Observatory
Do you think that the quality of government in the UK would be the same if the population were 3 standard deviations stupider? Note that the average in many African countries would be considered clinically retarded in the UK.
3 standard deviations lower in the IQ scale you mean, not stupider. We currently don't have have a way to measure intelligence.
People with the highest IQ's do not rule countries or countries' governments.
The best leaders are best described as having high EQ, not IQ.
Original post by Observatory
Note that the average in many African countries would be considered clinically retarded in the UK.
And the average person from western countries would be clinically retarded when compared with those from African countries. They wouldn't be aware of any basic survival skills.
Oh but of course if they come across a code locked safe in the African woods that has a mathematical sequence you have to solve to get to the water or food inside. Then they would be the boss right?
Original post by Freier._.lance
3 standard deviations lower in the IQ scale you mean, not stupider. We currently don't have have a way to measure intelligence.
People with the highest IQ's do not rule countries or countries' governments.
The best leaders are best described as having high EQ, not IQ.
And the average person from western countries would be clinically retarded when compared with those from African countries. They wouldn't be aware of any basic survival skills.
Oh but of course if they come across a code locked safe in the African woods that has a mathematical sequence you have to solve to get to the water or food inside. Then they would be the boss right?
People with the highest IQ's do not rule countries or countries' governments.
The best leaders are best described as having high EQ, not IQ.
And the average person from western countries would be clinically retarded when compared with those from African countries. They wouldn't be aware of any basic survival skills.
Oh but of course if they come across a code locked safe in the African woods that has a mathematical sequence you have to solve to get to the water or food inside. Then they would be the boss right?
I think a key point you're missing here is resources. The average African is less well nourished and less well educated than the average European. Naturally, the cultural nature of IQ also contributes as you say.
Original post by KongShou
Wrong. Science started in the East
Correct, Although I believe not as far east as you may think. The earliest science is likely to originated from ancient Mesopotamia or India.
Original post by Freier._.lance
Correct, Although I believe not as far east as you may think. The earliest science is likely to originated from ancient Mesopotamia or India.
That depends on how you define science. But yeah...
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- question for british girls
- Would east asian guys go for european girls
- Indian men
- Do Japanese/ Korean girls like Indian/ Pakistan/ Bangladesh guys?
- do Indian guys like mixed race girls
- George Takei should have been a journalist!
- Why British Girl/ Men do not date Indian Boy/ Men and prefer Black Men/Boy?
- do girls like brown guys
- I feel like people don't want to date me because of my race
- Was I being rude or was the person being racist?
- Language degrees
- Exchange to the UK
- Asian and Middle Eastern Studies (AMES) at Cambridge
- fellow asians of the UK rise up
- asian girls
- (A Level Politics / Feminism) Help with 2 questions
- Is Elon Musk right? AI will replace all jobs?
- Crush on black girl at uni ? (Uofg)
- Relationships and ethnicity
- Girls rank in order of importance for dating a guy - vice versa for the guys.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UKTrending
Last reply 6 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UK
