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

Are there intellectual differences among different races? Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jack93o)
    maybe their parents did have the ability to become olympic sprinters and simply never took it up for whatever reason.
    Or, like everyone else, they lacked the speed and athleticism. It is quite bizarre that you have completely forgotten what you said in your previous post. If, maybe, their parents are potential world-class athletes but simply didn't want to go into athletics, why are you not also considering the possibility that every non-West African person is also a potential world-class athlete, but simply didn't want to enter that field? :indiff:

    Or maybe that ability was only a recessive gene in the father for example. Its like you can have two blonde hair parents giving birth to a ginger baby.
    Whether or not someone is one of the best athletes in the world is not determined by a single allele. :erm:

    I'm not assuming that the answer is genetic differences in people of different descent, but I do think it is possible there is some truth to that and this is my hunch.
    Notwithstanding the invalidity of the concept of 'race' (my argument to you is hypothetical), it is already clear that 'race' does not have any intrinsic impact on somebody's intelligence or athleticism.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jack93o)
    so what are you saying?

    that race is a concept only if the features applies to everyone in a given race
    Yes. 'Some' does not become equivalent to 'all', which I explained in my first post to you.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    'Among' yes, 'between' no.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jack93o)
    is evolution supposed to be 100% uniform and flawless in changing a population's characteristics?

    I would've thought for something which takes 100s/1000s of years to take effect, that such 'exceptions to the rule' are to be expected
    But when exceptions begin to pile up, the rule becomes more and more shaky until it is no longer credible. "Oh, look, lots of stars are yellow. Then a red one starts to appear. Then another red one. Then another red one. Then, gosh, a blue one..." You see what I'm saying?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Or, like everyone else, they lacked the speed and athleticism. It is quite bizarre that you have completely forgotten what you said in your previous post. If, maybe, their parents are potential world-class athletes but simply didn't want to go into athletics, why are you not also considering the possibility that every non-West African person is also a potential world-class athlete, but simply didn't want to enter that field? :indiff:

    Whether or not someone is one of the best athletes in the world is not determined by a single allele. :erm:

    Notwithstanding the invalidity of the concept of 'race' (my argument to you is hypothetical), it is already clear that 'race' does not have any intrinsic impact on somebody's intelligence or athleticism.
    I don't know, probably because there are definitely plenty of willing white and asian sprinters, more so than black spinters at the start up/amateur levels in many european countries, yet some how when you get to the higher levels, those black spinters who've originated from west africa are the ones who rise to the top and end up dominating at the pros circuit.

    It doesn't seem to make sense to me, to assume that only west african guys are attracted to sprinting as a career - I can only base this on anedoctal evidence as I haven't conducted a survey of sorts. However, I don't doubt that given their history of success, it almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in inspiring the next generation of west african descent athletes, but I would think this nowhere near enough of a reason to explain the total dominance of guys from that small part of the world for several decades now (since the whole movement against segregation and discrimination against non whites)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£)
    But when exceptions begin to pile up, the rule becomes more and more shaky until it is no longer credible. "Oh, look, lots of stars are yellow. Then a red one starts to appear. Then another red one. Then another red one. Then, gosh, a blue one..." You see what I'm saying?
    true
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Race? No. Culture? Yes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£)
    And yet such concepts and whatnot are undermined when you get many exceptions to the rule (e.g. physically robust white people who find sprinting and whatnot effortless, intellectually formidable black people who effortlessly succeed academically, intellectually and financially).
    I don't find that to upset the general idea of things. Some people take the view of our colleague yumadtho and deny that anything at all can be justifiably classified in any sense. Presumably he is kept safely in a padded cell somewhere, unable to function at all in day-to-day life where we continually recognise and utilise best-guess judgements against people, objects and situations according to generalisations and averages.

    Others generally don't have a problem with it in 99% of cases, only objecting when the subject is politically sensitive, as here.

    Are you as confused by the existence of short men and tall women? Or children who are more intelligent than adults, towns in Africa that are wealthier than towns in Europe, Chinese people with better English skills than native English speakers, cars that can't go faster than a bicycle, cats that are bigger than dogs, poodles with more aggression that a pit bull, heavy smokers who never get cancer, ...

    Where is the legacy of evolution in those circumstances?
    I'm not sure quite what this question means. As I don't in any way feel that evolution is "supposed to" render all people identical or perfect, it's not an issue to me. Consider that there are a whole host of far more damaging inclusions in modern humans (diseases and severe defects) than someone whose healthy phenotype differs marginally from the average of their kin.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£)
    But when exceptions begin to pile up, the rule becomes more and more shaky until it is no longer credible. "Oh, look, lots of stars are yellow. Then a red one starts to appear. Then another red one. Then another red one. Then, gosh, a blue one..." You see what I'm saying?
    Yes, quite - it depends how finely you look into things. You start to categorise stars by their colour and consider why they're different colours in the first place, are they of different temperatures, different sizes? And why, what can we learn about the processes involved, how they were formed, what their fate will be? Are there other linked characeristics? Most of the time, all of the time? Do they only exist in certain settings, at certain times? etc etc

    Some sensitive astronomers at this point might object to differentiating between stars in this manner, pointing out that other factors can affect star colour and there's a gradient of possibilities anyway, and linked characteristics don't always apply - so we should just accept that all stars are twinkly and bright and move on.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JLD93)
    Race? No. Culture? Yes.
    Since human culture in general arises (or arose) from our perceptions and outlook, our general psychological set up, could a certain culture have arisen in a population because of differences in their general psychology compared with another population's, whose culture and ways are different?

    No doubt the "geographical" circumstances in which a population found itself have an important role in developing culture, too.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NB_ide)
    I don't find that to upset the general idea of things. Some people take the view of our colleague yumadtho and deny that anything at all can be justifiably classified in any sense. Presumably he is kept safely in a padded cell somewhere, unable to function at all in day-to-day life where we continually recognise and utilise best-guess judgements against people, objects and situations according to generalisations and averages.
    There is nothing wrong with recognising the fact that virtually all categorisation systems rely on arbitrary and/or subjective systems. I feel I have demonstrated this in the case of 'race' and species.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    There is nothing wrong with recognising the fact that virtually all categorisation systems rely on arbitrary and/or subjective systems.
    Of course they are - few would deny it. But we established them for their predictive power, basically. Everything from which berries are probably safe to eat vs. which are probably not, up to what functions prototype drugs are likely to have in a patient - or, even better, in a certain patient, arbitrarily classified.

    --

    When one takes issue with the actual predictive power of a certain generalisation or categorisation, that's quite a different argument - and the one that most other objectors in this thread would like to see upheld.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NB_ide)
    Of course they are - few would deny it. But we established them for their predictive power, basically. Everything from which berries are probably safe to eat vs. which are probably not, up to what functions prototype drugs are likely to have in a patient - or, even better, in a certain patient, arbitrarily classified.
    There comes a point where causality is established and the categorisation systems that act as proxies for knowledge are rendered redundant (as 'race' is in terms of describing genetic diversity). We know that being unintelligent and a good athlete are not concomitant with being 'black', so we know that these two traits are not related to 'race'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There are traits associated with people from different regions of the world which includes a variation in intellectual capacities but there is no superior groups of people. Some people are better than other people at certain things, but where one lacks another prospers. While there might be certain common traits associated with people from different regions of the world, every region has people with exceptional abilities and common traits of one area do not prevent individuals in that area from having intelligence in a capacity uncharacteristic of the area.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NB_ide)
    When one takes issue with the actual predictive power of a certain generalisation or categorisation, that's quite a different argument - and the one that most other objectors in this thread would like to see upheld.
    There is nothing wrong with noticing repeated 'exceptions' to the 'rule' and questioning whether we are using the right variables/categories at all. The distribution of intelligence and athleticism is not governed by 'race'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jack93o)
    I don't know, probably because there are definitely plenty of willing white and asian sprinters, more so than black spinters at the start up/amateur levels in many european countries, yet some how when you get to the higher levels, those black spinters who've originated from west africa are the ones who rise to the top and end up dominating at the pros circuit.
    This hasn't answered my question. You have stated the parents of these world class athletes "[may]" also have the same potential as their offspring, but simply didn't want to go into that field. How do you know these 'white' and Asian sprinters had enough will and determination to enter the world stage?

    It doesn't seem to make sense to me, to assume that only west african guys are attracted to sprinting as a career - I can only base this on anedoctal evidence as I haven't conducted a survey of sorts. However, I don't doubt that given their history of success, it almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in inspiring the next generation of west african descent athletes, but I would think this nowhere near enough of a reason to explain the total dominance of guys from that small part of the world for several decades now (since the whole movement against segregation and discrimination against non whites)
    I would attribute it to their individual biological profiles and effort—it is apparent that neither one is governed by 'race'.

    It's worth noting that assuming the Olympic sprinters belong to a 'race' (or a particular genetic pool) presupposes the validity of 'race'.
    • Offline

      13
      There are no human 'races' if by this is meant some meaningful biological division of humanity into discreet 'racial' groups. Human geographic variation is manifest through a complex matrix of non-coterminous clinal differences.

      The easy way to critique the idea of biological race is to posit the fact that among those who believe in it there has been, and continues to be, disagreement as to how many races there 'are' and which criteria is appropriate to determine the divisions. Are there 32 races or 3? Are there 56 races or 5? Depends on who you ask. Who gets to decide what, specifically, counts as the factor or factors which make someone a member of one 'biological race' or another? If some simple notion of genetic relatedness is applied then we could just as easily posit a family of parents and offspring as a 'race' as we could a whole continent. Better is the concept of 'ethnicity' which recognises ancestral geographic variation but doesn't fall into the trap of shoehorning everyone (or almost everyone) into a small number of discreet 'races'.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ilickbatteries)
      If you're not studying A2 Sociology - Beliefs in Society, I will eat my hat young man. Eat. My. Hat.
      Guilty. Exam's next monday
      Offline

      11
      ReputationRep:
      Comparatively undeveloped places:

      Majority of Africa: Tribal communities pre-colonisation. Many lived in peace with one another. Subsistence farming. Many lived far apart in isolated villages. No need to develop cities. Would have developed mechanisation and industrialisation eventually. Europeans came and demolished any sense of community, imposing their own economic structure (and new territories) to rape African countries of their resources, permanently damaging their development.

      Areas of South America: Tribal communities. Subsistence farming. Many lived far apart in isolated villages. Began to develop mechanisation to build cities and monuments. Took longer than Europe because of inaccessible terrain.

      Areas of Middle East: Was at one point a thriving Arab empire.

      Comparatively Developed Places:

      Areas of China: Thriving empires have risen and fallen over time. Societies had to develop warfare and defense very quickly (e.g. Castles, Crossbows) leading to technological advances. Far more developed than Europe for most of history. Would have completely dominated Europe but too far apart and separated by inhospitable terrain. Now returning to what is arguably the natural, inevitable state of political domination due to its huge population, land mass and labour source.

      Europe: Easiest place to develop cities due to temperate climate and abundant resources. Many civilisations living in close proximity and easy access meant that societies had to develop warfare and defense very quickly (e.g. Vikings, Normans; Lots of Castles), leading to technological advance. For much of history was not developed at all.

      North America: Native Americans lived on subsistence farming. Europeans with industrialisation (due to warfare) came and slaughtered them.



      Conclusion: Race is irrelevant. Geography is everything.

      Technological Progress originally is by and large, a result of war. Europe: most war ridden area of the planet - most developed up until 21st century (except for US).
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      scientists now have the tools to investigate the genetic differences of IQ in different races but are unlikely to obtain funding for such politically incorrect investigations.

      Prof. Bruce Lahn carried out such research in 2005 but has since abandonded it for less controversial topics:

      http://www.amren.com/ar/2005/12/#article3
     
     
     
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  3. 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.

  4. 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.