Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

black people are supposedly "intellectually inferior"? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ghanglish)
    Not genetically. If a certain sect of society don't do as well others, it's more likely to do with culture, family encouragement and opportunities.
    I think there is some evidence for a small genetic basis for intelligence - but conditions in the womb (arguably the most important environmental factor - and of course affected by social class etc.) are more important. As of course are the other factors mentioned.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So if you say black people are not as smart as white people, what good could possible come out of it? It is a stupid statement that will only promote racism and a sense of superiority among races.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undulipodium)
    I think there is some evidence for a small genetic basis for intelligence - but conditions in the womb (arguably the most important environmental factor - and of course affected by social class etc.) are more important. As of course are the other factors mentioned.
    I don't know if this has been addressed as I haven't read the thread but what do we actually mean by intelligence? Are we going by grades, IQ tests etc..?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undulipodium)
    What an ignorant viewpoint.

    You can't blithely ignore the possibility of a difference between races.

    Is it so inconceivable that, along with skin colour, hair type, body size, etc., races differ in intelligence?
    This idea of races being genetically different from one another is the ignorant notion.

    the human brain, hasn't changed much since the homo sapiens left Africa by the way.

    if your going to bring up the study about whites having larger brains than blacks.. *cough*

    nor is there a huge diversity between the different races, the obvious differences are merely their unique adaptations to their environments, i.e. skin colour, hair type, body size.

    give a logical reason why the white brain would evolve faster for the whites than the black races then you might have a argument, and no God chose the whites doesn't count.

    before you state that the obvious arguments i.e. look at all our scientific advancements, culture etc..

    watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3Ff0D-dWew

    if you don't understand what I'm trying to imply with the video, nevermind.

    p.s. if you look into African culture you'll discover astounding things, for example the mathematical system known as Ifa similar to binary, which was created centuries before Leibniz was even born.

    as to why you haven't heard of their positive aspects, it's the same reason as to why people don't realize that Islam was a mecca for scientific discovery and maths centuries ago..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undulipodium)
    I think there is some evidence for a small genetic basis for intelligence - but conditions in the womb (arguably the most important environmental factor - and of course affected by social class etc.) are more important. As of course are the other factors mentioned.
    Various behavioural genetics studies of twins, adoptees and siblings show that there is a significant genetic component. Check out this recent twin study by UCLA Neuroscientist Paul Thompson:

    By comparing the brain scans of twins, scientists discovered that the quality of the fatty tissue that insulates neural wires is largely inherited. The parietal lobe, which is involved in logic and mathematics, is 85 percent genetically determined, whereas the visual cortex is about 76 percent, and the temporal lobe, which is involved in learning and memory, is only 45 percent genetically determined.
    http://www.technologyreview.com/biom...e/22333/page2/

    Data from more than 8000 parent–offspring pairs, 25 000 sibling pairs, 10 000 twin pairs and adoption studies provide evidence that genetic factors play a substantial role in the variation of g (6), with heritability estimates ranging from 40 to 80%. This suggests that there are genetically influenced mechanisms that affect performance across a number of diverse cognitive measures.
    http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...ull/15/10/1563
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ghanglish)
    I don't know if this has been addressed as I haven't read the thread but what do we actually mean by intelligence? Are we going by grades, IQ tests etc..?
    Grades are a poor measure. They give a fairly good representation of the attitude towards education instilled in the child, but little else.

    IQ tests are a step up, but still measure a very specific type of intelligence.

    Nothing perfect exists as yet.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chi019)
    Various behavioural genetics studies of twins, adoptees and siblings show that there is a significant genetic component. Check out this recent twin study by UCLA Neuroscientist Paul Thompson:



    http://www.technologyreview.com/biom...e/22333/page2/



    http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...ull/15/10/1563
    Twins share conditions in the womb.

    Siblings born of the same mother will (in most cases) have had reasonably similar conditions in the womb because it's the same womb and the mother's lifestyle will probably not change significantly between children.

    Adoptees are born of a different mother to their siblings.

    All of these things support the statement that uterine conditions are significant.

    Until all genes contributing to intelligence are isolated, their various effects analyzed, and a sample population IQ tested/genetically tested it is impossible to say that genes are the most significant factor.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undulipodium)
    Grades are a poor measure. They give a fairly good representation of the attitude towards education instilled in the child, but little else.

    IQ tests are a step up, but still measure a very specific type of intelligence.

    Nothing perfect exists as yet.
    My thoughts exactly. Which is why I'm skeptical about these kinds of statements. As somebody has said above, it probably doesn't matter all that much. Everybody has their own particular gifts and will hopefully go on to use them for a good cause.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wont provide a long rebuttal to a frankly overdone thread, I will say this though, I find it rather odd that the most genetically diverse race on the planet is somehow uniformly the "dumbest". If you care so much about this topic you either have a seriously flawed ego or you are just simply bereft of stimulating activities.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishamon)
    I wont provide a long rebuttal to a frankly overdone thread, I will say this though, I find it rather odd that the most genetically diverse race on the planet is somehow uniformly the "dumbest". If you care so much about this topic you either have a seriously flawed ego or you are just simply bereft of stimulating activities.
    Well said !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ignorance is Bliss, that goes both ways. To white people who just watch sky news and suddenly stereotype a race and black people who think because they're families are poor or they live rough they cant overcome those issues and succeed in life.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undulipodium)
    Twins share conditions in the womb.

    Siblings born of the same mother will (in most cases) have had reasonably similar conditions in the womb because it's the same womb and the mother's lifestyle will probably not change significantly between children.

    Adoptees are born of a different mother to their siblings.

    All of these things support the statement that uterine conditions are significant.

    Until all genes contributing to intelligence are isolated, their various effects analyzed, and a sample population IQ tested/genetically tested it is impossible to say that genes are the most significant factor.
    No one says that uterine conditions aren't significant up to a point. However, that issue has been closely investigated. See Frank Sulloway's comment in the NY Times:

    A large and impressive meta-analysis of 212 previous twin studies has nevertheless reached a different conclusion. Conducted by Bernard Devlin, Michael Daniels, and Kathryn Roeder, this study sought to determine the contribution of maternal (prenatal) environments to IQ by comparing the IQ scores of identical twins, fraternal twins, siblings, and parents and offspring.[7] Based on statistical models—which posited that differences in IQ relate to disparities in shared genes as well as in fetal environments—the authors attributed 20 percent of the similarities between twins, and 5 percent between siblings, to shared fetal environments. Unfortunately, these researchers did not attempt to distinguish monochorionic twins from dichorionic twins. Moreover, even with their substantial estimate for the influence of prenatal environments on cognitive development, the meta-analytic models still allotted a substantial 48 percent of the variance in IQ to heritability.

    There is nevertheless strong evidence that the approach used by Devlin, Daniel, and Roeder underestimates the heritability of IQ. Heritability can be calculated from data on twins in direct and indirect ways.[8] Direct measures are obtained by comparing the IQs of identical twins raised apart, which typically produces correlations in IQ of .70 or higher. By contrast, indirect measures are obtained by comparing test results for identical twins raised together and fraternal twins raised together, and typically yield heritability estimates of about .50. It is this 20-percent discrepancy between the direct and indirect estimates that the meta-analytic models of Devlin et al. exploited, since the models attributed the difference to the fact that fraternal twins do not share the same chorions and placentas, whereas identical twins do so (at least about two thirds of the time).

    Nevertheless, a substantial portion of the 20-percent discrepancy may have a very different explanation than the one Devlin et al. have proposed. Most studies of twins reared together are conducted on children and adolescents, whereas most studies of twins reared apart are conducted on subjects who have been reunited and tested only in adulthood. Measures of the heritability of intelligence tend to increase with the age of subjects, apparently because the influence of home environments during childhood is displaced, over time, by the cumulative consequences of genetic potential.[9] Given the systematic increase in heritability estimates with age, it seems likely that some of the 20-percent variance that Devlin et al. attributed to shared prenatal environments owes itself, more correctly, to the different ages of twins being compared in their study. Although Devlin et al. did address this important issue, their models did not attempt to include age as a covariate along with prenatal environments. The inclusion of such a covariate would presumably have reduced—perhaps by as much as half—their estimates for the influence of prenatal environments, thereby increasing their estimates for the heritability of IQ.

    In conclusion, while Professor Agin is absolutely correct to assert that fetal environments are potentially important for understanding heritability, his claim that "the controversy about the inheritance of intelligence is really vacuous" fails to take into account the results of the many twin studies on the subject. This accumulated evidence strongly suggests that the heritability of IQ is somewhere between a low estimate of about .48, provided by Devlin et al.'s impressive but nevertheless still inconclusive meta-analysis, and the more usual estimates of .60–.70 derived from classic twin methods. It is testimony to the remarkable progress of research that the question of prenatal influences on IQ can be narrowed down to a debate over 20 percent, and probably much less, of the overall variance.
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20731
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know if this is True or False but depending on the outcome i'm either half dumb or one and a half times smart, ROFL !!:woo::eek3::rofl: :woo::eek3::rofl: :yep: :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishamon)
    I wont provide a long rebuttal to a frankly overdone thread, I will say this though, I find it rather odd that the most genetically diverse race on the planet is somehow uniformly the "dumbest". If you care so much about this topic you either have a seriously flawed ego or you are just simply bereft of stimulating activities.
    Diverse, but also the most genetically distinct from other groups who left Africa. You can see the clusters shown here, and genetic distances.

    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/06...-progress.html

    Also, groups overlap in terms of traits. For phenotypes (examples: height or IQ, which are both fairly heritable, except in cases of extreme environmental deprivation), there is significant overlap between different population distributions. That is, Swedes might be taller than Vietnamese on average, but the range of heights within each group is larger than the difference in the averages. Nevertheless, at the tails of the distribution one would find very large discrepancies: for example the percentage of the Swedish population that is over 2 meters tall (6"7) might be 5 or 10 times as large as the percentage of the Vietnamese population. If two groups differed by, say, 10 points in average IQ (2/3 of a standard deviation), the respective distributions would overlap quite a bit (more in-group than between-group variation), but the fraction of people with IQ above some threshold (e.g., >140) would be radically different. It has been claimed that 20% of all Americans with IQ > 140 are Jewish, even though Jews comprise only 3% of the total population.

    The reason for the average differences are because genes occur in different frequencies across groups.

    There are readily identifiable clusters of points, corresponding to traditional continental ethnic groups: Europeans, Africans, Asians, Native Americans, etc. (See, for example, Risch et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 76:268–275, 2005.)

    This clustering is a natural consequence of geographical isolation, inheritance and natural selection operating over the last 50k years since humans left Africa...

    We see that there can be dramatic group differences in phenotypes even if there is complete allele overlap between two groups - as long as the frequency or probability distributions are distinct. But it is these distributions that are measured by the metric we defined earlier. Two groups that form distinct clusters are likely to exhibit different frequency distributions over various genes, leading to group differences.

    This leads us to two very distinct possibilities in human genetic variation:

    Hypothesis 1: (the PC mantra) The only group differences that exist between the clusters (races) are innocuous and superficial, for example related to skin color, hair color, body type, etc.

    Hypothesis 2: (the dangerous one) Group differences exist which might affect important (let us say, deep rather than superficial) and measurable characteristics, such as cognitive abilities, personality, athletic prowess, etc...

    Finally, it is important to note that group differences are statistical in nature and do not imply anything about particular individuals. Rather than rely on the scientifically unsupported claim that we are all equal, it would be better to emphasize that we all have inalienable human rights regardless of our abilities or genetic makeup.
    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01...nomes-and.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The fact that there has been extensive and somewhat inconclusive research on this shows that any difference in intelligence is negligable.

    There are lots of people in the world of different races and IQ and size and strength and everything else. Let's not put people into a big category and label them, yeah?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chi019)
    Diverse, but also the most genetically distinct from other groups who left Africa. You can see the clusters shown here, and genetic distances.

    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/06...-progress.html

    Also, groups overlap in terms of traits. For phenotypes (examples: height or IQ, which are both fairly heritable, except in cases of extreme environmental deprivation), there is significant overlap between different population distributions. That is, Swedes might be taller than Vietnamese on average, but the range of heights within each group is larger than the difference in the averages. Nevertheless, at the tails of the distribution one would find very large discrepancies: for example the percentage of the Swedish population that is over 2 meters tall (6"7) might be 5 or 10 times as large as the percentage of the Vietnamese population. If two groups differed by, say, 10 points in average IQ (2/3 of a standard deviation), the respective distributions would overlap quite a bit (more in-group than between-group variation), but the fraction of people with IQ above some threshold (e.g., >140) would be radically different. It has been claimed that 20% of all Americans with IQ > 140 are Jewish, even though Jews comprise only 3% of the total population.

    The reason for the average differences are because genes occur in different frequencies across groups.



    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01...nomes-and.html
    Distinct, yes, but how does this confirm a lack of intelligence across the board? Look, I'm just tired of arguing this incredibly counterproductive argument, scientist have looked into our genetic differences extensively. There is still little conclusion to be drawn upon and many of the "facts" have been called into question within recent years, even the notion of intelligence differentiation on the grounds of cerebral size are said to be nonsensical by some in the scientific community. I'm getting tired of being told the colour of my skin dictates so many aspects of my existence, especially when you are of African origin. These threads serve no purpose, examine little, verify nothing and only serve as a pulpit for apologists and racist idiots.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by supremebeing)
    The fact that there has been extensive and somewhat inconclusive research on this shows that any difference in intelligence is negligable.
    ?
    There is a 1 standard deviation difference between the b & w averages, while Ashkenazi Jews average about 2/3 of stdv above other whites. This might not sound like a big difference, but it does have implications for those who think that there should be equal representation across groups. Instead, based on those differences you'd expect about 16% of the euro population to score 115+ on iq (say for a professional role) but a group with an average in the mid-high 80's would be about 3%.

    Page 134 of this paper by Linda Gottfredson sets out the ability needed for different occupations and the implications of different group averages.

    Gottfredson, Linda S. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol 6(1), Mar 2000, 129-143

    http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson...skillsgaps.pdf

    I agree that people shouldn't try to categorise others, but it is relevant when people start blaming disparities on unfairness or discrimination. Consider MIT - they have a goal to have equal representation on faculty.

    However, some ethnoracial groups such as Jews, high-caste Indians (e.g. Brahmins), and East Asians (Han-Chinese, Koreans, Japanese) have average IQs in the 106 to 115 range, thus they will tend to have far higher proportion of super smart people in the 130 and over range relative to non-Jewish Whites. So these higher IQ ethnoracial groups are "over-represented" (by 5 to 10 fold) at elite universities such as MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Caltech etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishamon)
    Distinct, yes, but how does this confirm a lack of intelligence across the board? .
    It doesn't. There are smart people from every group & idiots from every group. It's only relevant to the extent that some people start attributing all differences simply to unfairness (see post above). When if you have different distributions then you might get average differences.

    As Steve Hsu points out
    it is important to note that group differences are statistical in nature and do not imply anything about particular individuals. Rather than rely on the scientifically unsupported claim that we are all equal, it would be better to emphasize that we all have inalienable human rights regardless of our abilities or genetic makeup.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Looooool these kinds of debates ( if ur can eve be called that) always pop up once in a while, and most likely have the desired effect (to start war!! ;D) honestly though people should not generalize, the research that's been conducted testing intelligence amoungst different races does not represent evey black person out there and nor are they 100% correct. Anyway about black people having no heritage!!! You must be kidding me, ifit isn't already obvious I can tell you now that I certainly have a heritage to be very much pround of and I am very patriotic!!! And not being hard workers!!! Well I think for my people this is very much untrue as I come from a community which not only encourages hard work but rewards it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undulipodium)
    Source?

    I haven't actually seen any evidence that I'd call conclusive, so I'm really just playing Devil's advocate, but when you talk about a group of people being less/more intelligent on average, it doesn't mean that individuals won't vary.

    Another point worth considering is the social makeup of any immigrant group - if that group comes from a particularly poor country, those with money will be those who are hardworking/intelligent.

    To be honest, I sincerely doubt that any empirical evidence will be found - or even sought - within our lifetime. Maybe in 2540 :rolleyes:
    http://www.census.gov/population/cen...59-nigeria.pdf
    And for those who do not want to read all of that here is an excerpt from the 2000 census

    According to an analysis of Census Bureau data by The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma.[17] This is slightly more than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., nearly double the rate for native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate for native-born African Americans. In an article by Clarence Page for the Chicago Tribune 43.8 percent of African immigrants had achieved a college degree, compared with 42.5 of Asian Americans, 28.9 percent for immigrants from Europe, Russia and Canada and 23.1 percent of the U.S. population. The article beginning with the lines "Do African immigrants make the smartest Americans?" was meant to call attention to the dubiousness of affirmative action.[18]

    Similar to the Asian American population, attainment rates vary widely between countries. While some African immigrants to the United States such as Nigerians,[19] Out of sub-Saharan Africans, Nigerians have both the largest number of immigrants as well as the highest educational attainment and income statistics.[19]


    SOURCE: 2000 US CENSUS
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 22, 2010
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.