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

Are there intellectual differences among different races? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    "White" countries (US, UK, Australia, Norway etc.) and "East Asian" countries (Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan) seem to be more developed than "Black" countries (African countries) or "South Asian" countries (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka etc.) If there were intellectual differences among the races, that would explain this difference in development.

    Many academics claim that there are no intellectual differences among races. However, I suspect this is actually due to a deep-seated fear that claiming otherwise will inevitably lead to racism, which I don't think is completely valid.

    What are your thoughts? (Don't neg for no reason; I'm Indian for what it's worth.)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well I definitely don't think a lack of development is due to a difference in intellectual ability :/
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgasm19)
    Well I definitely don't think a lack of development is due to a difference in intellectual ability :/
    What is it due to, then?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Depends, because there are plenty of factors to take into account.

    The standard of living;
    The standard of education within that country;
    Civil & international wars that have taken place, furthermore how long ago they were.

    You find a better standard in living, education and lack of wars within countries, as the UK, USA, Germany, etc.
    Whereas in other countries, this is substantially lower due to various different socio-political/economic factors.

    But if everyone was given the same chance, then I'd agree with the research.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thomaskurian89)
    What is it due to, then?
    With African you have factors such as the environment to take into account, as well as colonial legacies as well as war and strife all of which hold back development.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As all the above posters have said, combined with the fact that in many developing countries development is prevented by government corruption. Governments in these countries are not necessarily interested in lifting their people out of poverty and developing the economy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgasm19)
    As all the above posters have said, combined with the fact that in many developing countries development is prevented by government corruption. Governments in these countries are not necessarily interested in lifting their people out of poverty and developing the economy.
    But couldn't government corruption itself be due to intellectual differences?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thomaskurian89)
    But couldn't government corruption itself be due to intellectual differences?
    Well, I would argue that intellectual ability and morality are separate, the government may well be capable of wealth distribution, but have a vested interest in their country not developing, and receiving aid in the form of money.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thomaskurian89)
    "White" countries (US, UK, Australia, Norway etc.) and "East Asian" countries (Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan) seem to be more developed than "Black" countries (African countries) or "South Asian" countries (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka etc.) If there were intellectual differences among the races, that would explain this difference in development.
    I don't think it would really. It may be the case now that those countries are the developed ones. But then how do you explain the fact that once upon a time, it was the Arab countries that were the most developed and academically advanced, while the "white countries" in Europe were going through a period we call the "Dark Ages", due to cultural and economic deterioration? Or the fact that before the rise of the manufacturing industry, Taiwan and Japan were nowhere near as developed as they are now? Or that before the Roman invasion of Britain took place, this was a country described by them as being full of "uncivilised barbarians"?

    Economies and empires go through cyclical periods of rise and decline, whereas the racial make-up of those countries remains relatively constant in comparison. So there must be far more to the story than just race.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    If there are quantitative differences, I'm sure they are incredibly marginal.

    The West and the Orient appear intellectually superior because of several reasons, such as national wealth, natural resources, lack of corruption, a less oppressive state (China exempt), less crime/more order, less inequality, stronger state infrastructure (schools, hospitals, transport, etc.) and less war.

    By comparison, Africa is arguably still suffering a colonial hangover, has a difficult climate, is wracked by bloodthirsty dictators, has very little religious homogeneity (there is a school of thought that some faiths encourage values that enhance economic development; Max Weber described Calvinism as the 'spirit of capitalism', and post-confucianism in China, Pentecostalism in Latin America and Hinduism in India have all been likened to it), has very weak state infrastructure and a fair bit of AIDS.

    Apparent differences are societal and structural, not biological.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    'Race' is a social construct and studies that use this variable are heavily fragmented:

    "But how could researchers in such an otherwise rigorous field be so tolerant, even embracing of variables with so little precision? We argue that in part, it is precisely this imprecision that sustains itself. The wide use of this vague and unsystematic terminology results in a semantic illusion of consistency between very different types of research. For example, those we interviewed were working on a wide assortment of types of genetic studies, ranging from DNA sequencing, population modeling, to linkage studies. Their target populations were equally varied, depending on the goals of their project: some chosen because of their geographic isolation, others for their disease characteristics, and others for their mere availability. However, when all are labeled with the same simplistic set of terms, it may seem that there is a growing body of data about specific racial populations, when in fact there is no reason at all to presume they belong to a "group" of any kind, beyond their being subject to having the same label affixed to them. In other words, the only equivalence that can be presumed between these groups is that they are subject to equivalent terminology" (Hunt, 2008).

    (Original post by thomaskurian89)
    But couldn't government corruption itself be due to intellectual differences?
    Notwithstanding the socially constructed nature of 'racial groups', this is an ecological fallacy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I presonally don't think there's any inherent differences in intellect among races, although a few things result in intellectual differences due to work ethic & equal opportunites, for example people are more likely to be more intelligent in more devloped nations such as the UK & the USA then countries in Africa due to having a superior education system, also asians seem smart because their parents really push them to study & have a high work ethic as they probs emphasise the value of education more than western families although they can be just as intelligent if they really wanted to.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Easy to work out: White countries have had more technological advances. India has had its own development being put back but being brilliantly academical in its education, it has an excellent superior education system than most countries out there, Japan would go next to it as well. The Asian countries learn from the white countries and use it to their own advantage. But they are held back due to corruption and lazy law enforcement, so white countries at the moment are top, but China and India will soon catchup and the Asian countries( if they remove the corrupt governments first) will be able to develop and become like the white countries.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    While you might be able to make a case for intellectual differences in specific ethnic groups, it doesnt hold for races.

    Because there are vast differences within races, it would be infeasible that there exists genetic factors which apply to only those within the race. This might however, be true for smaller isolated ethnic groups. However, I'm not aware of any studies into this which have shown anything.

    As for the differences between advancements in countries? Your original premise is completely wrong. India was probably the home of the first cultural explosion, following by Mesopotamia. India remained one of the most advanced cultures in the world, alongside China and Greece for a long time. Africa also had it's share of major accomplishments (such as the Egyptians), although a lot less is know about this, for similar reason to why Native American accomplishments are not well known or documented.

    Outside of the Greeks and Roman cultures, the Europeans mainly become dominant after the enlightenment, and managed to do so through tactics of warfare and use of iron. And also bad luck on the part of the indigenous populations (as with the Native Americans).

    To say that South Asian and African cultures were backwards is Historically wrong. It seems to be a mix of the fact that cultures rise and fall to power all the time, Western European culture happens to be one of the most dominant at the moment. And it's dominance over the world helped stifle the advancements of subjugated cultures.

    It otherwords, it has nothing to do with the intelligence of the races.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    With African you have factors such as the environment to take into account, as well as colonial legacies as well as war and strife all of which hold back development.
    Colonialism did NOT hold back Africa.

    Colonialism advanced Africa. Before Africa was colonised subs sharan Africans were living in the stone age.

    Colonialism introduced modern science, engineering, industry, technology, infrastructure, medicine, knowledge.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Islander)
    Colonialism did NOT hold back Africa.

    Colonialism advanced Africa. Before Africa was colonised subs sharan Africans were living in the stone age.

    Colonialism introduced modern science, engineering, industry, technology, infrastructure, medicine, knowledge.
    As someone who has studied the subject pretty extensively I can tell you that is really not the case. Colonialism pushed economies into being dependent on one or two cash crops causing huge economic damage when the prices of these crops dropped. Built infrastructure that was only useful for exploitation, and built much of this with forced labour in some cases leading to hundreds perhaps thousands of deaths. Much of the technology was kept in the hands of the colonial authorities or run by colonial officials rather than indigenous people. Medicine was a joke whilst there was vaccination programs in places like the old Gold Coast hospitals and the best medical facilities were only for whites with very few hospitals and doctors for the local population. Colonialism led to populations being divided up, creation of artificial borders has led to some of the worst wars in Africa.

    Then to cap it all when colonial powers left especially the French they made sure to dismantle the administrative facilities so as to do maximum damage to the incoming independent government, to the point where phones were ripped out of walls in certain countries. The legacy of colonialism has done a hell of a lot of harm and cannot be over looked when considering why Africa has not developed very well. Again emphasis added on to the word LEGACY of colonialism

    As I said as well the environment must be considered as well. The abundance of good arable land in Europe was key to its development. The lack of good farm land in parts of Africa is one reason its held back.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    As someone who has studied the subject pretty extensively I can tell you that is really not the case. Colonialism pushed economies into being dependent on one or two cash crops causing huge economic damage when the prices of these crops dropped. Built infrastructure that was only useful for exploitation, and built much of this with forced labour in some cases leading to hundreds perhaps thousands of deaths. Much of the technology was kept in the hands of the colonial authorities or run by colonial officials rather than indigenous people. Medicine was a joke whilst there was vaccination programs in places like the old Gold Coast hospitals and the best medical facilities were only for whites with very few hospitals and doctors for the local population. Colonialism led to populations being divided up, creation of artificial borders has led to some of the worst wars in Africa.

    Then to cap it all when colonial powers left especially the French they made sure to dismantle the administrative facilities so as to do maximum damage to the incoming independent government, to the point where phones were ripped out of walls in certain countries. The legacy of colonialism has done a hell of a lot of harm and cannot be over looked when considering why Africa has not developed very well. Again emphasis added on to the word LEGACY of colonialism

    As I said as well the environment must be considered as well. The abundance of good arable land in Europe was key to its development. The lack of good farm land in parts of Africa is one reason its held back.
    WHAT ECONOMIES ?? The subs sharan Africans were living a nomadic stone age existance, what on earth are you talking about.

    I simply do not agree with you. colonialism advanced societies all over the worlsd, and some societies were advanced by thousands of years in terms of technology, industry. And what on earth are you talking about saying medicine was not advanced. Britain was still ruling a lot of the world right up to the forties.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Are you serious ask a historian why the situation is the way it is.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Islander)
    WHAT ECONOMIES ?? The subs sharan Africans were living a nomadic stone age existance, what on earth are you talking about.

    I simply do not agree with you. colonialism advanced societies all over the worlsd, and some societies were advanced by thousands of years in terms of technology, industry. And what on earth are you talking about saying medicine was not advanced. Britain was still ruling a lot of the world right up to the forties.
    Someone struggles to read.... LEGACY, LEGACY, LEGACY.

    What aren't you getting here? The state the colonial powers left some of the African nations in is one of the key reasons for their lack of development.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Someone struggles to read.... LEGACY, LEGACY, LEGACY.

    What aren't you getting here? The state the colonial powers left some of the African nations in is one of the key reasons for their lack of development.
    I disagree completely. Africa today uses technology contributed to the continent by Europe, they use an infrastructure left by europeans, they feed themselves using agricultural techniques contributed by Europe.

    I completely disagree with you
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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

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