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

Are there intellectual differences among different races? Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambio wechsel)
    'Among' yes, 'between' no.
    I'd disagree partially with that statement in that we do not know if there rae inherent differences (on average of course) between different races, because that research hasn't been done. Probably out of a worry that if it did reveal differences human nature could result in races being discriminated against because of this research.

    A more poignant example is a proposed genetic difference between men and women when it comes to men on average doing better in the Physical Sciences, mathematics etc. This research would never be done because the results may be used to discriminate against women if it were found they were genetically predisposed to be less successful in these areas. Personally I think this is wrong though. Science shouldn't be interested in any agenda or preconcieved notions it should be just there to look at the truth as objectively as possible. Irrespective of how others may react to it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    I'd disagree partially with that statement in that we do not know if there rae inherent differences (on average of course) between different races, because that research hasn't been done. Probably out of a worry that if it did reveal differences human nature could result in races being discriminated against because of this research.

    A more poignant example is a proposed genetic difference between men and women when it comes to men on average doing better in the Physical Sciences, mathematics etc. This research would never be done because the results may be used to discriminate against women if it were found they were genetically predisposed to be less successful in these areas. Personally I think this is wrong though. Science shouldn't be interested in any agenda or preconcieved notions it should be just there to look at the truth as objectively as possible. Irrespective of how others may react to it.
    Inherent differences on average? That is a paradox.

    Whatever confers intelligence clearly does not correspond with the traditional 'racial' delineations, so it cannot be said to be inherent to the members of a 'race'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I doubt there's any difference in terms of potential. But your IQ is effected by enviroment aswell as biology, and this world is still fairly racist in terms of enviroment <_<
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guybrush Sheepgood)
    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).
    +Rep.

    Lets remember that most of the "developed" countries outside of Europe had the vast majority of the populations completed decimated (North America and Australia) and replaced almost wholesale by those from the colonising source.

    Those areas that haven't been "developed" e.g. many parts of Africa, some areas of South America - have been those which are simply inaccessible and difficult to reach.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    We know that being unintelligent and a good [certain sort of] athlete are not concomitant with being [a certain sort of] 'black', so we know that these two traits are not related to 'race'.
    Who is "we"? You may "know" that, but I don't "know" it. You've expressed many times how you're utterly blind to any associations and linkages like this, so naturally you're unable to recognise it. It can't exist in your world as you haven't the required acceptance of statistical methods that reveal it.

    If you feel that you do have a comprehensive and quantitative dismissal of the whole idea, and it can be demonstrated "objectively" then you should honestly compile and refine it and probably make a PhD of it. Where I work there are a few dozen people working in one way or another with indirectly this sort of thing - only a handful I can think of who deal with humans, naturally - and the wider scientific community would be interested, I'm sure. It would turn the whole field of genetics and hereditary inside out - a lot of assumptions and framework that may be unjustifiable.


    (Original post by Oswy)
    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'.
    I don't really see the difference in practical terms. There can be as much fiddling around with the number and size of "ethnicities" as "races", seems like just a slightly less dangerous word to use.
    These things are indeed infinitely divisible and arbitrary, like lots of other things we work with.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    '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).



    Notwithstanding the socially constructed nature of 'racial groups', this is an ecological fallacy.
    Don't get hung up on the race concept as usual. Nobody can deny that there is such a thing as ethnicity and people tend to use the two words interchangeably. This is self evident, else two partners of the same ethnicity wouldn't always produce children of the same ethnicity and a scientist would be unable to classify differing people according to their biological make up.

    You know there are different groups of human beings.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NB_ide)
    Who is "we"? You may "know" that, but I don't "know" it. You've expressed many times how you're utterly blind to any associations and linkages like this, so naturally you're unable to recognise it. It can't exist in your world as you haven't the required acceptance of statistical methods that reveal it.
    I understand how people perceive 'race'; it would be quite a feat to have so many debates with various people on the issue and not even understand how they conceptualise it. :erm:

    I said 'we' because everyone I've seen who posits 'racial' differences in intelligence or athleticism adds the "on average" clause and acknowledges there are unintelligent East Asian people, intelligent 'black' people, 'white' and East Asian people who are good at sprinting, and 'black' people who are not good at sprinting.

    Unless you believe every East Asian person is more intelligent than every non-East Asian person, and every 'black' person is a better sprinter than every 'non-black' person. Do you believe this? I'm still waiting for you to explain how "on average" can be reconciled with your claim that there are necessary evolutionary differences as a result of having a particular ancestral lineage.
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by NB_ide)
      ...

      I don't really see the difference in practical terms. There can be as much fiddling around with the number and size of "ethnicities" as "races", seems like just a slightly less dangerous word to use.
      These things are indeed infinitely divisible and arbitrary, like lots of other things we work with.
      In practical terms the benefit is that humans are not being arbitrarily designated as being a member of this 'race' or that 'race' while at the same time the term recognises the very real geographic variation people inherit and is more compatible with the scientific fact - that human biological variation is clinal and manifest across a complex matrix of non-coterminous characteristics. Many, if not all, forms of categorisation can be problematised, but some are more obviously problematic, and more obviously misleading, than others.

      Here's a short article which might help:
      Attached Images
    • File Type: pdfCONCEPTUALIZING HUMAN VARIATION article.pdf (101.5 KB, 40 views)
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Zürich)
      Don't get hung up on the race concept as usual. Nobody can deny that there is such a thing as ethnicity and people tend to use the two words interchangeably. This is self evident, else two partners of the same ethnicity wouldn't always produce children of the same ethnicity and a scientist would be unable to classify differing people according to their biological make up.

      You know there are different groups of human beings.
      What does this even mean? Somebody who is homozygous or homozygous recessive for any given gene will always transmit this homozygosity to their offspring, assuming they procreate with a homozygous or homozygous recessive partner, respectively. By this criterion, 'ethnicity' can mean eye colour, hair colour, possession of the Tay-Sachs disease allele, sickle cell, or any heritable trait.

      Like 'race', ethnicity is a polysemous term that encompasses a range of things. There is nothing that makes any given biological trait intrinsically more important than any other trait.

      and a scientist would be unable to classify differing people according to their biological make up.
      I can classify anything according to any number of criteria.

      You know there are different groups of human beings.
      I know there are biological differences between individuals.
      • Offline

        13
        (Original post by Zürich)
        ...

        You know there are different groups of human beings.
        The issue is that it's too easy, using the concept of 'race' to group humans any way you choose. How many 'races' are there in sub-Saharan Africa? One, Three, Twenty-Seven? Depending on how you set out your criteria for difference and division you can more or less divide humanity into any number of races - it's a deeply flawed idea. Ethnicity, as a concept, recognises variation but does not impose the idea of discreet division. Ethnicity changes, for example, in a straight line from Western Europe all the way to the Pacific but there's no actual biological division, the changes are complex, clinal and non-coterminous. That's the science.
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by whyumadtho)
        What does this even mean? Somebody who is homozygous or homozygous recessive for any given gene will always transmit this homozygosity to their offspring, assuming they procreate with a homozygous or homozygous recessive partner, respectively. By this criterion, 'ethnicity' can mean eye colour, hair colour, possession of the Tay-Sachs disease allele, sickle cell, or any heritable trait.
        .

        I agree.

        But at least you are able to acknowledge that there are distinct biological differences between different groups of humans. So trying to end any debate by saying ''well, race doesn't actually exist'' is evasive to say the least. I dont know whether there are differences in intellect between groups, but if different groups can on average have different heights then I would say it is entirely possible. I would be amazed if every group had precisely the same IQ. What annoys me are weasels who try to avoid debate entirely, for whatever reason.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        They're stupid because they are uneducated,not because of the colour of their skin.
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Zürich)
        I agree.

        But at least you are able to acknowledge that there are distinct biological differences between different groups of humans. So trying to end any debate by saying ''well, race doesn't actually exist'' is evasive to say the least.
        I've never denied there is no biological variation; this position is not incompatible with 'race' being a social construct. Given all of these things can be 'racial', and they have non-coterminous distributions, it is apparent that choosing one whilst pretermitting the rest is an arbitrary process informed by socially constructed meaning. This acts as a metaphorical explanation of my position:

        "Given the multitude of dimensions along which people and objects might be perceived as either dis-similar or similar, the question remains why some dimensions become salient and important for categorisations and others do not. For instance, Medin and Wattenmaker (1987) point out that plums and lawnmowers are unlikely to be categorised together, even though they are clearly similar on a number of dimensions (both weigh less than 1000 kg, both cannot hear, both have a distinct smell, both can be dropped). It is not the case that one comparison dimension is objectively more relevant than another one, and that empirical reality would dictate which dimension should be attended to. Rather, the choice of comparison dimensions is informed by socially constructed meaning. However, if the choice of relevant dimensions is subjective rather than objective, judgements of relative similarity between objects are necessarily subjective too. Thus, again, perceived similarity does not straightforwardly stem from objective similarity – there is a disjunction between the two" (Zagefka, 2009).
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Zürich)
        I dont know whether there are differences in intellect between groups, but if different groups can on average have different heights then I would say it is entirely possible. I would be amazed if every group had precisely the same IQ. What annoys me are weasels who try to avoid debate entirely, for whatever reason.
        Reconcile the notion that there are inherent differences between 'groups' with the claim that there are average differences between 'groups'. These are incompossible positions. It it either inherent to the 'group' or it isn't: if you have to rely on the "on average" clause, it is evident that it isn't.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by NB_ide)
        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.
        I think geography has a lot to do with it.. If one wants to argue that certain races are "intellectually inferior" then simply look at any case where people from those races have been removed from their natural geographical location and have thrived.

        It's the culture one is raised in that determines how intellectual one can be.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by JLD93)
        I think geography has a lot to do with it.. If one wants to argue that certain races are "intellectually inferior" then simply look at any case where people from those races have been removed from their natural geographical location and have thrived.
        That's not a valid approach, but yes adoption studies have been done and you can read about the results online. I won't like you to anything, to avoid bias.
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Oswy)
        The issue is that it's too easy, using the concept of 'race' to group humans any way you choose. How many 'races' are there in sub-Saharan Africa? One, Three, Twenty-Seven? Depending on how you set out your criteria for difference and division you can more or less divide humanity into any number of races - it's a deeply flawed idea. Ethnicity, as a concept, recognises variation but does not impose the idea of discreet division. Ethnicity changes, for example, in a straight line from Western Europe all the way to the Pacific but there's no actual biological division, the changes are complex, clinal and non-coterminous. That's the science.

        I agree that its not clear cut. I'm half Dutch and half English so what ethnicity am I? Well I'm half Dutch and half English, whatever that means.

        I know almost nothing about biology but I can understand how a scientist would demand rigor and conclusive theories, which as you say are hard to pin down if even possible at all. But having said that I don't understand how anyone can say ''well actually you cant conclusively pin down ethnicity so therefore there are no differences''. Dutch people are much taller on average than the Japanese. Does that imply that all Dutchmen are taller? No. Could a scientist define a Dutchman? No. Does it imply that there are inherent biological differences between the two? Yes, only a fool or a liar would say otherwise.
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by whyumadtho)
        Reconcile the notion that there are inherent differences between 'groups' with the claim that there are average differences between 'groups'. These are incompossible positions. It it either inherent to the 'group' or it isn't: if you have to rely on the "on average" clause, it is evident that it isn't.
        So why do different groups have different average heights? Its a reoccurring phenomenon and is obviously biological.
        • Offline

          13
          (Original post by Zürich)
          I agree that its not clear cut. I'm half Dutch and half English so what ethnicity am I? Well I'm half Dutch and half English, whatever that means.

          I know almost nothing about biology but I can understand how a scientist would demand rigor and conclusive theories, which as you say are hard to pin down if even possible at all. But having said that I don't understand how anyone can say ''well actually you cant conclusively pin down ethnicity so therefore there are no differences''. Dutch people are much taller on average than the Japanese. Does that imply that all Dutchmen are taller? No. Could a scientist define a Dutchman? No. Does it imply that there are inherent biological differences between the two? Yes, only a fool or a liar would say otherwise.
          But the rejection of 'biologcal race' as a legitimate concept is not the rejection of human biological variation as a concept, and as often identified through the term 'ethnicity'. Yes, there are variations in human biology relating to geographical origins, this explains how we can recognise that someone has native ancestry from, say, China rather than Europe or Africa rather than North America. I'm not here denying differences between humans but rather denying that these differences can be boxed-up into so-called 'races' implying that we must, or should, somehow accept our arbitrary division into discreet groups. The science simply does not support the idea of us being members of such discreet biological groupings.
          Offline

          17
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Oswy)
          But the rejection of 'biologcal race' as a legitimate concept is not the rejection of human biological variation as a concept, and as often identified through the term 'ethnicity'. Yes, there are variations in human biology relating to geographical origins, this explains how we can recognise that someone has native ancestry from, say, China rather than Europe or Africa rather than North America. I'm not here denying differences between humans but rather denying that these differences can be boxed-up into so-called 'races' implying that we must, or should, somehow accept our arbitrary division into discreet groups. The science simply does not support the idea of us being members of such discreet biological groupings.
          Agree entirely. But its a common tactic among many to use the rejection of race to reject biological differences. It just doesn't follow.

          I don't really understand why its a controversial topic. An idiot is still an idiot, regardless of the intelligence of others of his 'ethnicity' and a genius is still a genius. I know what my own IQ is, if someone proved that Dutch people had on average a low IQ, then this would not impact me at all.
         
         
         
      • 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.