Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why is it taboo to consider race and intellect correlate in the general population? Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:


    Jussayin'
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavidCraig)
    We can accept that physically black people are superior in some respects. Kenyans are genetically gifted with more endurance muscle fibre whilst Jamaicans are genetically gifted with more high twitch muscle fibre for sprinting.

    Scandinavians are gifted with powerlifting genes etc etc.

    My point is:

    Why is it so hard to accept that some races (in general) are smarter than others? One day, when we begin to understand the brain, you're going to have to face the truth, so why hide from it?
    I think it depends on the environment and that people adapt to whatever environment they are in.

    there was a program about this about a year ago it was really interesting but i cant remember what it was called. :/
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I have no idea why it is a taboo subject, I was going to suggest it as a reason for the lack of black people in oxford but I thought it would be neg suicide. In an economics leasson we were discussing the gender pay gap and I but forward the possiblity women may be less intelligent. I made it clear that I hadn't looked at any reasearch into it and had no idea whether or not there is a link between intelligence and gender but thought it might be something to at least think about. All the female members of the class and the teacher were outraged and angry which seems silly, especially as I suspect they hadn't seen any evidence either.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavidCraig)
    We can accept that physically black people are superior in some respects. Kenyans are genetically gifted with more endurance muscle fibre whilst Jamaicans are genetically gifted with more high twitch muscle fibre for sprinting.
    Authentic.

    Why is it so hard to accept that some races (in general) are smarter than others? One day, when we begin to understand the brain, you're going to have to face the truth, so why hide from it?
    Spurious.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick Longjohnson)


    Jussayin'
    **** you you ****ing blowjob :ahee:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Making assumptions is not a sign of intelligence.
    It makes more sense than the 'East Asians are more intelligent because I say so' theory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavidCraig)
    Go watch the Olympics.
    Take a look at the NFL.
    Take a look at basketball etc....


    Ok that term was a bit general. White people are better at swimming. Nordic people are the best powerlifters.

    There have been studies showing black people have a greater proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibres (run faster) and a lower centre of gravity. Not that anyone with a shred of common sense would need it confirmed. (this coming from an Asian)
    I think technique , training and diet is the factor for winning or losing, take a look at judo the Japanese dominate the game . In this sport balance and centre of gravity is important so does that disprove that black people have lower centre of gravity? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    It makes more sense than the 'East Asians are more intelligent because I say so' theory.
    Comparing one assumption with another dosen't lead to the truth.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavidCraig)
    http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org...%20review).pdf


    For the most part yes, environment is the most prominent factor. However, everything about any creature's phenotype is influenced by genetics and environment. Why is intellect exclusively environment? I'm not saying at all that asians are the dominant race for intelligence or black people are the dumbest. What I am saying is why are people not prepared to even consider it as a possibility?

    Humans have more brain cells than dogs. Some humans have more brain cells than others. Why is is impossible for some humans to have been born with more brain cells than others?

    People who know what they are talking about do not use the term 'brain cell'. This speaks volumes as to why people are not going to take you seriously.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    I have no idea why it is a taboo subject, I was going to suggest it as a reason for the lack of black people in oxford but I thought it would be neg suicide. In an economics leasson we were discussing the gender pay gap and I but forward the possiblity women may be less intelligent. I made it clear that I hadn't looked at any reasearch into it and had no idea whether or not there is a link between intelligence and gender but thought it might be something to at least think about. All the female members of the class and the teacher were outraged and angry which seems silly, especially as I suspect they hadn't seen any evidence either.

    I think that the fact that there are far fewer black people that white people in this country accounts for that. Then bear in mind that these black people are third generation (at the most) immigrants as well, who will often still hampered by the impoverished nature of economic migrants' circumstances, giving them a poor starting position in terms of socio-economics.

    I.e. In this country, white people are more evenly distributed in terms of income brackets, whereas black people (as with any ethnic minority) are more concentrated in the lower income brackets, because relative poverty and being an economic migrant go pretty much hand-in-hand.

    So:

    - Fewer black people = fewer black people at a given uni.
    - The black British people are, on average, poorer than their white British peers = proportionately fewer black people make it to university due to lack of opportunity etc

    This results in a disproportionately low number of black people at a given uni, yes. However it does not suggest a correlation between race and intellect, it merely demonstrates how there is still endemic poverty in this country, because it restricts educational opportunity.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    - Fewer black people = fewer black people at a given uni.
    - The black British people are, on average, poorer than their white British peers = proportionately fewer black people make it to university due to lack of opportunity etc

    This results in a disproportionately low number of black people at a given uni, yes. However it does not suggest a correlation between race and intellect, it merely demonstrates how there is still endemic poverty in this country, because it restricts educational opportunity.
    Poverty? Please, no one in the UK lives in poverty. Relative poverty maybe, but who isn't poor compared to Richard Branson and Phillip Green?
    All children in this country have free education until 18, and student loans to get them into uni. 'Poverty' creates distractions, like crime and gang culture, but if you give into peer pressure and don't pay attention in school then frankly that's your own fault.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Comparing one assumption with another dosen't lead to the truth.
    What is a theory other than an assumption? Until someone actually brings some hard evidence to the table we are left with assumptions, and I'm going to be following the one that makes most sense.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Poverty? Please, no one in the UK lives in poverty. Relative poverty maybe, but who isn't poor compared to Richard Branson and Phillip Green?
    All children in this country have free education until 18, and student loans to get them into uni. 'Poverty' creates distractions, like crime and gang culture, but if you give into peer pressure and don't pay attention in school then frankly that's your own fault.
    I did actually say relative poverty in my post...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    What is a theory other than an assumption? Until someone actually brings some hard evidence to the table we are left with assumptions, and I'm going to be following the one that makes most sense.
    A theory is not an assumption. There is the theory of relativity, there is no assumption of relativity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It may be considered "taboo" because it has connotations of an existence of a "natural", absolute INequality. To say that certain combinations of genetic makeup "rewards" those with a physical or mental advantage is to imply that those people are "genetically superior", and if that becomes "true" (empirically or otherwise), there will be immense consequences for the foundations of human equality as those with the "superior" genes may begin to feel that they are entitled to certain things, or segregate themselves from others as a result of antagonism from those without such genes. The potential end result may be disastrous. It would be difficult to "entertain the idea" as you said because doing so would potentially wreck the Rawlsian idea that people do not deserve compensation based on things such as innate talent or luck, this idea, among many, represents the cornerstone of democratic egalitarian philosophy. Of course, I am also theorising to a large extent, but the logic here is not completely fanatical...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Implying that someone is 'superior' is WW2 all over again.........
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    A theory is not an assumption. There is the theory of relativity, there is no assumption of relativity.
    Yes, and the theory of relativity is a theory because it has not been proven, otherwise it would be a law. A theory is merely a technical term for speculation, an assumption.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    I did actually say relative poverty in my post...
    No, you said there was endemic poverty in the UK. Endemic means 'belonging' or 'characteristic of', thereby implying that poverty is widespread in the UK, or that the UK is an extremely poor nation, neither of which it is true. The UK is one of the most developed and wealthiest countries in the world and someone who lives in 'poverty' in the UK is still wealthier than the middle and upper classes of Africa. The only reason the UK has a high level of relative poverty is because our rich are so rich, but that doesn't change the fact that our poor are better off than the poor in other countries that have less relative poverty. There is little excuse for failing in the UK, end of. People in the developing world would give their right arms for the opportunities that British people have and waste.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavidCraig)
    We can accept that physically black people are superior in some respects. Kenyans are genetically gifted with more endurance muscle fibre whilst Jamaicans are genetically gifted with more high twitch muscle fibre for sprinting.

    Scandinavians are gifted with powerlifting genes etc etc.

    My point is:

    Why is it so hard to accept that some races (in general) are smarter than others? One day, when we begin to understand the brain, you're going to have to face the truth, so why hide from it?

    Your argument is void! Kenyans are not 'genetically gifted' with more muscle endurance. It is simply because of where they live, the vast majority of Kenya's long distance athletes were born and raised at high altitude. Running at higher elevations builds greater lung capacity, because athletes grow accustomed to the thinner air. If an English man went to live in Kenya for 5/10 years,I suspect he would also become good at long distant running.

    Your point about Jamaicans is also incorrect. Jamaicans are not more likely to high twitch muscle fibre....But black people as a whole are more likely to have high twitch muscle fibre. In my opinion,the reasons why Jamaicans are typically so good at athletics is a mixture of social and biological factors. In Jamaica,there is a heavy importance placed on athletics,hundreds and thousands of people will come to watch inter school athletics and it gets shown on TV,as well of scouts turning up to offer scholarships. These SOCIAL factors,increase the importance of athletics as obviously young people want to get a scholarship to study in America or the UK.

    As a black female,this post angers me! I have read about several Scientists and watched many documentaries. They often try to prove that black people are 'thicker' then other races. The funny thing is,they have never come up with any credible evidence. (Please show me a link if you find something to be sufficient)

    I believe generally speaking it is impossible to say once race is smarter than the other. It is all about social factors.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I also want to say something about there being fewer black people in Oxford,I dont know who bought up the topic first so I cant quote you,sorry....Yes,I know that there are fewer black people in England blah blah blah. But really,is it acceptable that only ONE black person got accepted into Oxbridge last year. Does somebody want to explain that to me? Is it because there are fewer black people in the UK? Did not enough black people apply too Oxbridge last year? Did only one black person achieve straight A*s throughout the whole of Britain? Or is it simply institutional racism?

    TWO African-Caribbean boys in my sixth form applied to Oxbridge last year. One was predicted straight A*s,he also did his bit for the community and had all those extra curriculum things that they typically look for. The other boy was doing the IB and I'm guessing he had reasonably good grades if he even thought about applying to Oxford......They both got through to the interview at Oxford.....however they both got rejected afterwards. I'm not saying that that makes Oxford racist but when they asked for feedback from the interview they both got no reply......a white female in my class got rejected from the interview,and asked for feedback (as suggested by the teacher) and she got a long email in response. Coincidence? Unlucky? Or perhaps Oxford want to keep their establishment 'white',and didn't know how to put, 'We rejected you because you're black' into a suitable format.....Just my opinion! I'm talking about from personal experiences,what I've witnessed!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.