Isn't that ridiculously easy to train for ? Like basic math operations, everyone should be able to do them easily given sufficient practice, I'd think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Printable View
Isn't that ridiculously easy to train for ? Like basic math operations, everyone should be able to do them easily given sufficient practice, I'd think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Controlling for such variables is standard these days. And the ability to do 'digits backward' does not vary with education in either black, white or Asian samples. That is precisely the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
The real bias is in one's unwillingness to acknowledge such facts. Echo-ing Spino, I fail to see what the big deal is or why the subject always had to be discussed in conspiratorial terms.Intelligence and morality are totally different categories and their equation in this sense is indeed useless. As to their relative importance, I refer to my remarks about not wanting to live in an IQ-based meritocracy in post #69.Quote:
To try to measure intelligence in an exact manner, resulting in a single numerical figure, is just as ridiculous as it would be to try to measure morality on a scale from 1 to 10 with two decimals.
Interestingly though, we do take man's moral measure every day in the courtrooms of this world. And criminologists, victimologists and epidemiologists infer the most interesting and detailed knowledge from the aggregate data, decimals and all.
Yes but it you give one group the training and mental tricks required to perform such an action more efficiently you also need to give it to the other groups in order to test them properly. In the end you'll probably wind up with the same performance gap. As with world class athletes they all pretty much use the same training techniques and follow the same strict diets and regimens. Given relative parity in these areas the end result always seems to be the same. Once in awhile an athlete of non sub-Saharan African ancestry manages to crack the top tier in speed & strength sports but it is so rare that it truly is the exception. Why should we refrain from testing intellectual endeavors in the same way we do athletic ones? If ethnicity or race is an artificial construct why is it that sub-Saharan Africans or those partially of that ancestry, as a group, seem to possess the best physical characteristics for speed & strength sports? We've already identified them as a distinct group by nature of their appearance, skin tones & hair, wouldn't the preponderance of short muscle fibers, testosterone levels, temperment, predisposition to certain diseases and afflictions, etc., further establish them as a distinct ethnic group?Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Basically I don't buy into the 'ethnicity/race as an artificial construct' argument, mainly because it smacks of intellectualized denial. Using that same logic you could also say there's no such thing as German Shepards, Beagles, Poodles, Rottweilers, etc. True, all those breeds I mentioned belong to the same species, share the same number of chromosomes and can readily interbreed with one another. But despite the fact that they're all canines each breed differs from one another not only in terms of their appearance but also by intelligence, behavioral traits, temperment, predisposition to certain ailment & diseases, etc. If you really wanted to stretch it we could say there are no fundamental differences between carbon based life on this planet because we're all made of the same organic stuff and share the same DNA. Why bother having biologists classify anything at all?
As I stated earlier, fear and human ego in our age has transformed intelligence and the human brain (in general, but especially as applied ethnicity, race or heck, phenotypes) into some unmentionable topic or the last bastion of indecipherable mystery and divine territory. It reminds me of the late Pope Jon Paul II and his appeal to Stephen Hawking to not investigate the Big Bang any further because that was 'the realm of god' or some such thing. Did the Pope feel compelled to appeal to Hawking because he felt he accurately represented will and desires of the creator or was he subconsciously fearful that modern science would finally and completely push creationism into the realm of absurdity, further undermining the grasp of Christianity on the modern world?
I'll grant the naysayers here that the human brain is truly complex and 'intelligence' hard to accurately test, especially as applied to ethnic or racial lines. However we're still dealing with an organ, the brain, which is comprised of the same organic material the rest of the body is made of. We're also dealing with our species which is governed by the same laws of nature that apply to all life on this planet. Modern day IQ testing may be in its infancy but the methodology that has gone into the creation of these tests is not meant to support any given ideology but is done in the spirit of curiousity and scientific research. Some people may not like where humanity may or may not take this research but should that negate the effort? Should we really attempt to railroad this kind of research because we don't like the uncertainty factor that accompanies it? Does it really matter what we think anyway? Throughout its history the human animal has consistently demonstrated a penchance for the invention and utilization of new tools which it deems to be conducive to its survival, regardless of their controversial nature. Should future generations in the near or far flung future deem eugenics programs, genetic based caste systems, or any relevant invention to be necessary to the running of their societies then that's their perogative. As the Bible and many other religious tomes and mythological tales tell us, knowledge comes with steep cost. Think how foolish it would be if you were able to build a time machine and go back in time to stop the invention of gunpowder, the splitting of the atom or the discovery of DNA? In the end our ideologies and beliefs, however popular or fervent, will probably have zero effect on what happens in the future. Those things change but basic human instinct does not. If future generations use this field of science and its technological by-products to dramatically change society then there's nothing we really can do about it. Welcome to natural selection.
I doubt they can ever be controlled fully, because of the complexity of measuring on human beings or human populations. What could we expect to be causally tied to IQ? Probably two things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
1. genetical ability to learn to improve your capabilities at solving IQ test like problems, and do such tests
2. to what degree your environment has stimulated your abilities to learn to solve, and solve, such problems
You can never control for variable no. 2, but only for various variables that it is your hypothesis will be causally related to, or correlated to, no. 2. Since you can't know to what degree they're causally tied to or correlated to no. 2, you can never control the study for bias in variable no. 2. You don't have any material to measure these correlations, since you don't know what is genetical and what isn't beforehand: that is the very thing you're trying to find out in the study! Thus you can never prove that you have avoided bias.
Surprisingly many studies fail to realize this fact, and many come with obvious known biases, others come with latent biases that are never found because the real biasing factors in the study are unknown.
Proving whether something is genetical or environmental is an almost impossible statistical problem. Unless you have non-statistical arguments for why a certain trait is genetical, or can demonstrate that humans have a non-beneficial trait that chimps don't have or can present similar arguments, you have very little support that it isn't culturally carried no matter how carefully you have worked according to the rules of statistics. Blacks and whites still have different culture and environment both in multicultural and integrated societies. You can never rule out the possibility that it is cultures, and not genes, that cause a particular observed difference. No statistical anti-biasing techniques at all can guarantee the result will be free of bias.
For above mentioned reasons I doubt any statistical study has the ability to demonstrate that this would be genetical. If, for some reason, it was found that there would be a genetical difference and this could be proven beyond all doubts (a highly doubtful assumption, of course), then I would accept that it is true - I'm not someone who denies politically incorrect truths because they're politically incorrect (as lying is seldom a good long-term way of solving any discrimination problems that may arise, there are better ways of ensuring discrimination is avoided, for example by pointing out the many aspects in which blacks are more skilled than whites according to similarly doubtful statistical methodology).Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I'm surprised that you fail to see the absurdity in measuring intelligence and morality on a single-dimensioned scale. There are so many vices and virtues within each concept, that a single measure is perverse. Even within the narrow field of IQ, which is a quite unrepresentative way of measuring intelligent capabilities, you can find different scales: ability to handle the visual puzzles, ability to handle the numerical puzzles, ability to handle the "which doesn't belong" problems, etc. A high-scoring IQ test subject may be worse than a low-scoring IQ test subject at numerical puzzles, but better in the other aspects, for example. A low-scoring IQ test subject may be able to solve all the problems, but he is slower than a faster-working but incredibly careless unskilled problem solver, and thus scores lower, etc. The IQ tests also completely ignore the motivations behind a choice. This is especially troublesome in cases such as the one I mentioned above, with the question where all answers should really have been correct, but only one resulted in scoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
In both intelligent capabilities, and in morality, it's easy to point out what is a virtue and what is a vice. But comparing vices with other vices, and virtues with other virtues, is ridiculous unless you have a logical motivation for the measure. Such a measure is highly application-specific, and driven by tastes, not by any pure objectivity. In law, moral weighing is done after the severity of the crime to survival and peace of innocent civilians: an application-specific measure, but also affected by tastes and guesswork on behalf of those who form the system. Law doesn't weigh in every vice and virtue, but only those that are known and suspected to be related to a particular crime.
I can only imagine how a "morality test" made in the same way IQ tests are made would look...
I am surprised you don't read what I posted, for instance:Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Intelligence and morality are totally different categories and their equation in this sense is indeed useless. As to their relative importance, I refer to my remarks about not wanting to live in an IQ-based meritocracy in post #69.@Spino, good post about evolution. :bow:
At the very least it's hard to clearly define what makes a race different, and when we can actually talk about different races. I'm not denying that Africans are different from Europeans in more than skin colour. Hell, I'm not even doubting the intelligence tests (well, offering scrutiny, yes), I'm saying we should be careful with interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Depends on what you mean by denial. Like I said before, all that has real been discussed here is averages (of a sample, interpolated according to a certain model), which don't tell everything, and possibly all that much. Survival of a species is, on a genetic level, much more dependent on the variance, or range of difference in genetic make up that translates in difference in traits, than averages. It isn't proven that a black person can not achieve the same level of intelligence as any white person, in fact most people would think such a thing would be ridiculous, since there always are exceptions. But it's these exceptions that matter as much as the average. Take sickle cell aemenia (sp?), it's a mutation which isn't standard in humans, and probably started in just one or very few people (who developed the condition independently then) but because it gives a clear advantage it has rapidly spread throughout the African population. It didn't matter that the average African didn't have the mutation, it matter that a few had it, 'evolution' takes care of the rest.Quote:
mainly because it smacks of intellectualized denial.
So talking about races and averages is, frankly, ridiculous. prove to me that the entire bell curve is shifted compared to another race and then I might start paying attention. Averages of a Bell curve is what people use who don't understand statistics (unfortunately, too many scientists fall into this category).
The reason there is 'denial' is often because a serious interpretation of data is often discarded by 'the people'. When you talk about average intelligence difference you get people thinking all black people are dumber than all white people, or nearly that. Which is just stupid. But then some employer will be less likely to hire a black person because he thinks he won't be smart enough. It's silly that there has to be denial, but the fact is that the average joe isn't too aware of the principles of statistics and their interpretation of studies like this is often just plain wrong.
Your quote from your own post is not a response to the text you quoted from my post. I pointed out the absurdity of measuring intelligence on a single scale, and the absurdity of measuring morality on a single scale. Your response only addresses the issue of comparing intelligence and morality, a question which I didn't ask.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Do you or do you not agree that it is absurd to measure intelligence as a single number? And do you or do you not agree that it is impossible to determine with statistics alone whether a certain ability is genetical or environmentally caused (which implies any comparison of measures of intelligence between races is a pretty pointless search for controversy rather than search for any scientifically useful material)?
Okay, let me rinse and repeat my statements to make myself clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I said: measuring morality in the same way as IQ would be useless. Morality and IQ are different faculties. Morality involves capacities like judgment, empathy and courage, the measure of which is to a large extent subjective.
You can compare this to the difference between running and dancing. We can measure someone's capacity to run pretty precisely. But we can not measure whether a person is a good dancer, because 'good dancing' involves aesthetic judgment.
I also said: we do, however, try to measure all things criminal. Crime is one aspect of morality. Crime does not equal morality, I know that. But I find it interesting that we attempt to quantify and measure what sorts of (im)moral behaviour people are capable of.
And fo course you are right that statistics alone can not tell us to what extent a faculty is innate or environmentally determined. What it does tell us, however, is that many of the environmental determinants you mentioned (poverty, industrialization) don't explain IQ outcomes.
And by this, you mean you consider that you think it's sensible to measure intelligence with IQ?
More kinds of measurements are a good thing, it doesn't however invalidate the test itself. Compare it with measurements that are used for health. Body fat %, cholesterol (good and bad cholesterol count), BMI, lung capacity etc One thing by itself will only give part of a picture, several will give a clearer one.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
But any single one will give a gross statement about the relative health between two individuals. On average a person with a BMI of 23 is going to be more healthy that someone with a BMI of 29 all other things about the individuals being equal. More data will give a more precise picture.
IQ would have to be only part of the equation of someones brain power, things like Musical ability (which can have a synergy with IQ as apparently playing musical instruments will increase ones IQ), different forms of maths (not all maths is equally easy for all mathematicians), artistic ability, empathy etc all are functions of mental ability. So IQ alone is not the sum of ones mental capacity, it is a very narrow part of the human minds spectrum. However it does show very good correlations to the abilities of the person with respect to what it is measuring... high IQ people tend to have similar traits/abilities.
Yes, but I'm opposed to using IQ as a general measure of symbolic and numerical processing capabilities, or as a test of innovativeness, or survival capability in the military, or ability to make money for a company, and any other ways IQ tests are abused. If you want a good test of work capabilities, make an as application specific test as possible! Using IQ to test what you really want to test, is a slippery slope fallacy: "A is weakly correlated to B, B is weakly correlated to C, therefore A => C". To reason in such a way is a huge fallacy and a good source of discrimination. If you show a quite strong correlation between IQ and race, then a quite strong correlation between IQ and capability of performing a particular work, and then end up not employing people of a race that has lower average IQ, you are by definition racistic, since you ignore the individuals that don't follow the pattern of the averages. To discriminate people based on IQ is quite as abusive: IQ is weakly correlated to work capability, so you discriminate a lot of individuals for no other reason than the fact that on average, people who happens to have a similar personality aspect, tend to be slightly worse performing than those who haven't got it.
The IQ test is made even more useless because of the reasons I mentioned in the previous post. For instance you can practise IQ tests themselves, and improve you score by between 15 and 80 points, so you can go from debile to genius on their scale in less than a few hours of practise :dizzy: Yes, IQ test along with several other tests weakly correlated to intellectual abilities can together out of pure probability reasons, give a quite decent picture. But IQ is IMO so unrepresentative of any intelligence people want to test, that it should probably not even be included in such a pool of 10 tests.
AdrianII mentioned in a previous post that:
"You can compare this to the difference between running and dancing. We can measure someone's capacity to run pretty precisely. But we can not measure whether a person is a good dancer, because 'good dancing' involves aesthetic judgment."
A runner's skill is defined unambiguously and exactly as how fast he runs a specific distance. Since we have no exact definition of intelligence, measuring intelligence would be more like judging dancing skills, than testing running skills. Even if we are to accept "ability of symbol processing" as a definition of intelligence, we run into problems with inexactness and subjectivity. What is symbol processing capability? Is it the ability to know what comes next in a very unnatural series of numbers? Or is it the ability to learn how to perform integral calculus? Is it the ability to just learn a pattern, or also the ability to understand it deeply and abstractly, so you can draw complex conclusions?
In my experience, almost all real life problems I come across involve learning patterns and drawing conclusions in very complex systems, whereas the IQ tests only tests the ability to quickly recognize patterns in very small and uncomplicated systems. There are more problems with IQ tests. Many of the "what comes next" problems are easiest solved by in turn testing all systems you know most frequently occur in IQ tests. If you have never seen an IQ test before, and are very intelligent, you are probably likely to be able to think of many more possible patterns to test for than if you're slightly less clever, and it's not certain that you test them in the right order to minimize time consumption, if you don't know from before which patterns IQ test creators are most fond of. Higher intelligence and creativity can thus slow you down: since the tests are timed, you will score lower. The timing of IQ tests has also resulted in another quite funny observation: once you pass the age of 15 years, your IQ starts decreasing, because you get slower. When you're just about passing the age of 15, your slowness can't be explained by aging :laugh4:, but rather by the above-mentioned phenomenon: you have more options to test, because you are more creative, experienced and intelligent. Attempts to correct this effect by multiplying the score by an age-dependent factor fails, because different people increase their amount of known patterns to test to the turning point at different ages. For some people, it may occur at an age of 30, for others, it may occur at 12.
Hey, I'm white and proud, I'm all about the white race being better.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I know I'm coming into this rather late and I apologize for taking my time digesting the 4 pages of commentary already laid out on this topic, but I would like to discuss a sub-argument with Adrian & Spino that went unchallenged when they posed it, that of race being an artificial category (and their conclusion that it's bunk, race is a valid differentiator).
I might possibly buy into this where you have homogenous genetic groupings like parts of Papua New Guinea or Iceland.
But how can you possibly account for the vast gradiation within supposed racial groups? What does it mean to be black in anything but a cultural sense? Or white for that matter? For the longest time, Irish weren't considered white... not because of any arguments based on genetics or origins, but because of their religious preferences.
Race has less than zero meaning to me. I understand that not all who invoke it have nefarious aims, but it has been so misused and abused it has lost any pretext of valid sociological study.
I also would like to touch on Adrian's 'we can dial that out in the grading of standardized tests' assertion. How? How do you account for living in a high crime neighborhood, having to wake up every morning at 5AM so your mom can take you to daycare? For not having your parents read to you?
Let me put it another way... using your terms... Norway is very white. If you took an IQ test on the residents of the worst slums of Bergen (are there any) and you compared the results to a class of schoolchildren from inner city Philadelphia, do you really expect that the results would favor the Bergen welfare kids? Do you have data to support this assertion?
I'm not trying to be confrontationalI'm just always surprised that intelligent people continue to revisit this argument.Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Genetics has given a new lease of life to the concept, albeit under the label of genetic lineage. Sets of genetic markers can be attributed with great accuracy to people hailing from the five main continents. These markers also correlate highly with subjects' racial self-identification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
As for your other question: intelligent people bother with interesting subjects and differences between people are a major part of what makes this world interesting. Differences between men and women, between young and old, between people from various cultures. The resulting knowledge can be abused, of course, but it can also show us the way forward to a (somewhat) better world. Our knowledge of genetic variety and genepools may even enable us to rescue mankind some day, who knows.
One subject which I think should be explored further is the question in which (manifold) ways culture is genetically determined. Underneath the surface of day-to-day events (history as we have come to call it) there lies a different time-scale called Big History, a theme explored by historians who argue that the proper time-scale for the study of history is the whole of time, nothing less. People like William McNeill (U.S.), David Christian (Australia) and Dutchmen Fred Spier and Johan Goudsblom (the latter did a beautiful book on the uses of fire in human culture).
I am a convert to Big History, which is a viable alternative to sociobiology and social evolutionism which I think are too narrow in scope. Why? Because we humans are animals, sure, but we are also conscious animals. We are a species that becomes aware of evolution as a process and is capable of influencing the process, even overcoming it in the sense that our genetic make-up is not our destiny.
EDIT
Dang, I am trying to be confrontational but I just can't get it right. Backroomers are a much nicer and smarter breed than they are rumoured to be, and I can't bring myself to do a Chuck Norris and give someone a roundhouse kick in the kisser.
Sorry Louis. :shame:
So, basically what you're saying is that I should be seeking to mate exclusively with Asians, as this will increase the likely intelligence of my progeny. I think that's ridiculous (not the mating with cute Asians, the rationale for it). Personally, I believe more heavily in the nurture over nature component of intelligence. That being said, I realize my last line came off as a crack and for that, I apologize. I didn't mean it in that sense. I meant to say that I find the need to find linkages between intelligence or other positive value traits and IMHO rather arbitrary categorizations like race seems fruitless.
One interesting study that would change my nature versus nurture views. Rather than random samples of 'white' and 'black' and 'yellow', has anybody gone through and spent some time carefully controlling and varying the data for any one category? Example, how do the Irish compare to people from Brittany? They're mostly genetically indentical, though they have different cultural upbringings.
Anyway, let's just suppose somebody comes up with a better set of experiments and actually proves that asians are smarter than whites who are smarter than blacks. What do we do with that information? Discourage blacks from higher education and more carefully screen whites, while forcing asians to attend?
Excuse me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
How can you read a breeding program in my posts? Dems fightin words, buddy. Wanna step outside and see who's right, huh?
God, if this is controversy I suck at it...
we are all different.
the idea that we are all different except where political correctness demands we are the same is lunacy.
how great that difference is as a percentage i have no idea, although i fairly sure it is small when we are talking about ethnic groups.
the greater variance in intelligence is exhibited further down the tree, by individuals rather than groups.
i had read that there had been research that indicated the following -
Intelligence:
good > asian - cauc - black < poor
Physical:
good > black - cauc - asian < poor
but this rather depends on how one defines intelligence and physical ability. given that the research was probably western in origin, it would be framed in terms of what westerners consider to be ideals of intelligence and physical ability.
that however does not change my belief that ethnic groups will mildly vary in their aptitude towards various disciplines regardless of what the PC cretins might believe.
at the end of the day, group ability makes very little difference to the total ability of the individual given that individual variation is at least an order of magnitude greater in effect than any study has ever proven group ability to effect with regards intelligence in particular.
I voted yes, statistically whites do better than blacks on IQ tests and other similar test. Seems like more of a social issue than anything else.
One argument about this that I don't agree with but is interesting to me is, comparing human races to dog breeds. IE some dog breeds are smarter, some are stronger, some are bigger etc. Maybe humans are the same?
The majority of poor in the US are white.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Ive resigned to the fact that culture determines the status of the masses... although I have my doubts from viewing the daily actions of the blacks around me.
Race has exposed to me the fact of how easily culture morphs the masses. The same oddness that the blacks suffer could logically happen to any race if the circumstances are correct. I look down on blacks for this, yet the idea of what culture can do gives me doubts. Ive meet about one or two blacks in my life I respect, when I meet them, I forgot entirely of their skin color. The rest... guilty until proven innocent.
If "intelligence" is defined as school scores, then yes, white (beyond rednecks and the sort) culture is a superior complex for producing better grades.
Sometimes its just mind blowing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiji
I watched two blacks beat up a mentally disabled kid once. As you know, blacks have a tendency to say "nigga". Well, the mentally disabled kid obviously didn't know any better, and said the word "nigga." The blacks decided this was offensive, even though their own actions started it. Of course, a situation like this is possible in any race, culture in america simply puts it on the side of the blacks. In my opinion, the word "Nigger" (this will probably get deleted), is a major source of separation. A simple word, no more, has an unjust amount of power. By using the word on this forum, I've probably violated some rules, although it was not used in a harmful manner, hence it should be used as a word, nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
That should surprise me but it doesnt. Its all a culture of victimazation. Im so with Chris Rock on this issue. You see them and you just want to grab them and yell at them to get a job and stop comlplaing about there lot in life and how every white person is out to get them but in reality they should know we dont give a rats bottom its only when they cuase they seperation that people take noticeQuote:
Originally Posted by Hiji
It's a strange world we live in.
Blacks can say the N word without repercussions, while whites who say it will be called racists.
Blacks can say they have black pride, but when we say we have white pride, we're racists.
Black History is now a required course in some colleges. Funny, I thought it was supposed to be a part of WORLD history or US history.
They can get college funding by the American Negro College Fund, but where's my American European-Descendants College Fund?
They talk about how slavery is bad and how Europeans and Americans are bad for having ancestors who practice it, yet a vast majority of past cultures in Africa, particularly the Egyptians, practiced slavery long before the development of civilization in Europe.
All men are created equal, yet it just seems that the government gives money to some to make them more equal than others.
I'm not racist, but it seems to me like the world views me as being a racist.
¯\(°¸ó)/¯
Well the n-word started as an insult, and the blacks 'adopted' it. It is still an insult, underdog thingie. Not really annoyed by blacks complaining about racism and slavery, politically correct white fundamentalists who are too willing to listen to that crap on the other hand.....
Just a word of guidance.
Discussing words that may have racist meanings is allowed as long as the discussion stays neutral and objective. As has been noted, words may have different offense values depending on context and we don't want to stifle discussion.
Nonetheless, this is not an invitation to bandy such words about to test the limits of acceptability, nor to introduce or repeat as many such words as you can think of to provoke reaction.
If you have to use such words, make it very sparing, and check very carefully whether you need to use the word at all - and how you have used it. In Hiji's post above, almost the same meaning could have been conveyed by referring to the "n-word" which whilst not elegant, is understood by most.
The thread is straying into dangerous territory - please be very sure that what you post is respectful of other posters and both the letter and spirit of the forum rules. Not everyone who is reading your post is likely to share your world view or race.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
It's certainly not impossible to do that with humanity, the question is exactly what made the dirt poor farmer (your average person) in Asia needing more brain power that the poor peasant in Europe, while needing even more brain power compared the sub-Saharan version.Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter_the_shooter
I'm not avare of any massive breeding project running for at least a few centuries.
I must admit that I have had a rather different experience with blacks than that described by some earlier posters in this thread. I think that it is incorrect to take an impressive experience with one or two bad individuals and generalize it across a group, just as it is incorrect to excuse the bad behavior based on group membership.
I cannot say that I have known personally a large number of black people. The ones I have known I can say that I did sense a certain... distance. This distance is natural between two people who may not completely understand where each other are coming from. One thing I would like to do someday, now that I have travelled and become fairly comfortable with some foreign cultures, is return to the states and get to know black culture from the ground level.
I will say that the negative aspects of cultural division in the United States do worry me. Those who exacerbate these problems should be attacked on an individual basis, if our goal is cooperation and understanding.
On the original topic:
It seems probable to me that there the phenotypical differences between different bloodlines are not limited to those which are superficially observable. As always, though, individual variation far and away trumps these trends.
Because if you are not living in their country of origin you are quite probably not comparing averages for starters, you are comparing against a cultural subset.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
The people who set out for a better life have had to be either some or all of these:
more tenacious,
hard working,
motivated then their compatriots to make enough money to then send their family overseas.
Now some of this might be genes but a lot of it is attitude of the individual and/or family.
You will find first and second generation immigrants are very hard working in comparison with the third and fourth generation.
Have you lived in America? If so, for how long and where?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Nope, visited though. But we have the same word here, just spelled differently, and used in the same way by blacks and whites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiji
It's about wether whites are smarter than blacks not wether Americans would be smarter than Europeans.:egypt:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiji
Anyway, I think most of it is culture and enviroment, really. For example someone mentioned that there were a lot of Jewish scientists and intellectuals, however that has more to do with jewish education than anything else IMO. Jews learn everything the average western kid learns in school plus a few more hours everyday about Jewish subjects (Tora,...). They spend much more time in school when young, which makes them physically not that great, but they have to learn paying attention longer and learn to learn more and at a younger age.
Everybody says Asians are damn smart... Well, asians spend much more time in front of their cpu's and have a really different school enviroment ( a lot more computerized dunno of this is good or bad). And if we look at the results of Koreans (South) and Japanese we see verry good results. Being the number one and two of the world. However if we got to china, India,... we don't see this.
Does this mean Asian are stupid, no. It must mean it ain't genetics.
Blacks aren't stupid either. However they are moree prune to less education. And education gives higher IQ values and helps developping the brains and education will help you solve problems more easily. Why are they physically stronger? That's simple, they tend to sport more, those who still are in Africa are usually hardened as they have a tough life and over there it's still a bit the survival of the fittest.