Black woman single cos the black men are in jail - would you marry outside your race?

Originally Posted by The Stranger

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_...lth_of_Nations

and if different "races" have indeed developed inequally in such a way that it can account for 40 points, what would be the reason for lets say hand-eye coordination or spatial coordination to develop so radically different?

and how can the difference between america and for instance germany be explained, many descendents of the germans live in america, many descendants of countries who score much higher on the test. is this because america is ethnically mixed and all this mixing results in an average of 98. or is it because they have so rapidly evolved (in the wrong direction)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_an...e#Flynn_effect

and when IQ can rise so fast in only 80 years, how can it possibly be evolutional?

If IQ is a good measure of intelligence, then that would mean that genes alone are not enough to explain differences in intelligence, but that is a hardly a surprise.

Originally Posted by The Stranger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_an...e#Flynn_effect

and when IQ can rise so fast in only 80 years, how can it possibly be evolutional?

It isn't, which is one of the points I have made.

Originally Posted by Viking

If IQ is a good measure of intelligence, then that would mean that genes alone are not enough to explain differences in intelligence, but that is a hardly a surprise.

Genes play little part, if at all, anything significant. Only when you look into genetic disorders then you actually see problems and genes playing any part, but any "differences between races" is hardly there at all.

Originally Posted by Beskar

Genes play little part, if at all, anything significant. Only when you look into genetic disorders then you actually see problems and genes playing any part, but any "differences between races" is hardly there at all.

There has not been done any serious amount of research on this topic, there is no room for making such claims.

but claims in the contrary can be made?

in the same fashion how can the difference between iq levels of black americans in usa (around 85 i thought) and africans in west africa be explained (around 60)? can a difference of 25 points be developed in only a few 100 years? and if there is any doubt as to wether the mixing with caucasians might have caused this then i 'd like to see the numbers of the afro-americans which have not or barely been mixed and compare those to that of west-africans. and if such numbers have are not available, i think such study ought to be done before anything conclusive might be said.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I guess I think of intelligence as: given two people with equal motivation, knowledge and resources (i.e. everything else being equal) who solves a problem faster, learns something faster, can understand something that the other person can't grasp? Like the equivalent of a 2 Ghz processor compared to a 1.9 Ghz processor, given the same task from the same program.

since this is barely ever the case, how can we still make an accurate estimate of someones intelligence. and how would we calculate the impact of these differences and changes on someones behaviour and intelligence if we would try to artificially recreate the circumstances to make them identical for said 2 persons?

Originally Posted by The Stranger

since this is barely ever the case, how can we still make an accurate estimate of someones intelligence. and how would we calculate the impact of these differences and changes on someones behaviour and intelligence if we would try to artificially recreate the circumstances to make them identical for said 2 persons?

Probably you do it over a large number of people and assume a normal distribution, and then run some statistics on it. Instead of trying to artificially create the circumstances.

Originally Posted by The Stranger

but claims in the contrary can be made?

in the same fashion how can the difference between iq levels of black americans in usa (around 85 i thought) and africans in west africa be explained (around 60)? can a difference of 25 points be developed in only a few 100 years? and if there is any doubt as to wether the mixing with caucasians might have caused this then i 'd like to see the numbers of the afro-americans which have not or barely been mixed and compare those to that of west-africans. and if such numbers have are not available, i think such study ought to be done before anything conclusive might be said.

No, not necessarily; and that's why you'll see that I never made such claims either; I have merely opened for the possibility. I don't think assessing intelligence differences due to genetics is a simple task, otherwise we know how the genes work. The impact from the enviroment also makes the tasks harder, as you point out.

Given that we can't even unambigiously define intelligence...

Originally Posted by Furunculus

looks like we'll be burning the new galileo's just like we burnst the original.

FAIL.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Probably you do it over a large number of people and assume a normal distribution, and then run some statistics on it. Instead of trying to artificially create the circumstances.

like the way they did in cases of Kyrgyzstan? which seems like artificially recreating circumstances to me.

Originally Posted by Watchman

Given that we can't even unambigiously define intelligence...
FAIL.

why?

Originally Posted by Furunculus

looks like we'll be burning the new galileo's just like we burnst the original.

I agree with what you say. Although I prefer a comparison with Darwin's reception 150 years ago.

To this day, creationists have not come to terms with the implications of evolution for the understanding of the human being. Another group that stubbornly refuses to accept evolution's consequences, is precisely the most outspoken critic of creationists: liberal Western thought, which never passes up an opportunity to ridicule the attempts by creationists to put the genie of Darwin back in the bottle.

Originally Posted by Beskar

Nope, we are keeping of the ghosts in the past sealed and shut in the cupboard. We are to learn from History, not repeat it.

Heritable properties play a minimal effect compared to that of the environment, as if you go to a bad school, your grades would be significantly lower than if you went to a good school, no matter what genes you have. Even then, genetic disorders which affect performance can already be tested (down symdrone, for example), and thus we should help enable them reach their potential.

Ultimately, you are trying to open up a can of worms. Trying to find something in the dirt that really isn't there.

Edit:

Reminds me of when I was doing reading and came across what is called "Law of the Instrument", basically they used to perform these tests on discriminated minorities to reinforce negative stereotyping, and it turned out it was pretty much a case of "the shoe doesn't fit the foot, therefore, there is something wrong with the foot". They neglected the situations and the other variables, and it turned out that these discriminated minorities didn't have problems at all, since those in the exact same situations had effectively the same exact scores.

These occured around the 1960's.. which would make your "new galileo" 50 years behind the times.

so on the one hand, you admit that intelligence is a heritable property, but on the other we still can't admit that or talk about it even if it is to point out as i did:

Originally Posted by Furunculus

why is it ridiculous?

this is not to say that any evolutionary difference is significant

that the variation due to evolution is much less important than variation due to social and educational factors.

but why is it ridiculous to make that statement, is it becuase it frightens you?

but never mind science or progress, or even just plain old honesty, it's just too dangerous so we'll invent double-speak and pretend it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Furunculus

why?

"Why" what ? The definition of intelligence or the failure of your Galilei reference ? Because AFAIK nobody's yet come up with a comprehensive, unambigious and universally applicable definition for intelligence and because Galilei was't burned but rather put under house arrest, that's why.

I don't see the need to divide intelligence into all sorts of categories.

While there are prodigies and people who might have great abilities in one respect, but be dumb on the whole, for the most part, people tend to be either generally clever or generally thick.

Surely, everything that goes on in our brain is a sort of calculation. Intelligence would simply be how effectively we can carry those out. Hand-eye coordination is based on calculations. For example, to catch a frisbee, you have to work out how fast it is travelling, then consider the length of your arm, the speed to move it to reach the frisbee as it arrives etc. Over time, as you make more of these calculations, your brain starts to learn the patterns, it takes on board past experiences and stores information away so your reactions in future become instinctual. It's the same with playing an instrument, there's no special 'creative' intelligence, its just recognising patterns till you can play a piece of music. When that information is efficiently stored away, you can play the piece without doing all the calculations and do it barely thinking about it.

Originally Posted by Watchman

"Why" what ? The definition of intelligence or the failure of your Galilei reference ? Because AFAIK nobody's yet come up with a comprehensive, unambigious and universally applicable definition for intelligence

and because Galilei was't burned but rather put under house arrest, that's why.

so what, can we not look at these matters using the measures for intelligence that already exist? i can well imagine that doing so would do far more to expose the flaws in current intelligence tests than any great variation in intelligence resulting from heritability. the important thing to ask the questions, to explore, to scientifically observe, not to close down debate because you feel uncomfortable.

allegory.

Originally Posted by Furunculus

so what, can we not look at these matters using the measures for intelligence that already exist? i can well imagine that doing so would do far more to expose the flaws in current intelligence tests than any great variation in intelligence resulting from heritability. the important thing to ask the questions, to explore, to scientifically observe, not to close down debate because you feel uncomfortable.

It's so much easier to dismiss all measures of intelligence, throw his hands in the air, and yell FAIL at you. Seems to be a common theme in this thread.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I don't see the need to divide intelligence into all sorts of categories.

While there are prodigies and people who might have great abilities in one respect, but be dumb on the whole, for the most part, people tend to be either generally clever or generally thick.

Surely, everything that goes on in our brain is a sort of calculation. Intelligence would simply be how effectively we can carry those out. Hand-eye coordination is based on calculations. For example, to catch a frisbee, you have to work out how fast it is travelling, then consider the length of your arm, the speed to move it to reach the frisbee as it arrives etc. Over time, as you make more of these calculations, your brain starts to learn the patterns, it takes on board past experiences and stores information away so your reactions in future become instinctual. It's the same with playing an instrument, there's no special 'creative' intelligence, its just recognising patterns till you can play a piece of music. When that information is efficiently stored away, you can play the piece without doing all the calculations and do it barely thinking about it.

yet why is a person like einstein considered intelligent then, lets assume he did all that he did, only he was bad at languages, bad at any kind of physical activities, bad at social contact etc. we might say he was a savant, but we would not deny his intelligence. yet his intelligence only flourishes at one field. so much is clear. yet when the intelligence flourishes more in the bodily part, the athletic sportive part, than in the mental scientific part(reading, maths, analytics, knowledgable) people are not as fast considered intelligent.

while in school/uni though ive met alot of knowledgable people, who werent exactly intelligent. and they are found on the highest educational levels of one of the most intelligent (according to the IQ tests) in the country. and I went to an fairly elite school (in both the sense of rich white kids and level of education). there is a obvious double standard, and a bias towards certain "forms" of intelligence.

and to go more deep into your definition of intelligence, for as far as i understand it, i think i agree with you though mostly, and what qualifies one as more or less intelligent is with what ease and speed of person learns these patterns as opposed to another person (or actually a whole bunch of other persons). but as said before, at least in day to day life who attribute intelligence mostly only to the artificial, wholly mental and "self"conscious activities, such as reading, writing, stating facts, etc.

Originally Posted by Watchman

Given that we can't even unambigiously define intelligence...
FAIL.

IQ test comes pretty close, problem is that it's snapshot. And something isn't fail just becaus you dismiss it, can't just decide these things this isn't the DDR's ministry of truth.

So wait...according to this thread, the wide spread of genital herpes within the black american society is some form of natural selection, of evolution?

I admit I'm kind of lost here :-?

no, sadly we have gone off on a tangent, and should return the thread to its proper course which is;

how much of a role does ethnic identity play in defining the attractiveness of a partner?

Not that much probably, we all have preferences. More likely we want as broadly a pool to fish from by instinct but the reluctance to do so is cultural.

Originally Posted by Furunculus

how much of a role does ethnic identity play in defining the attractiveness of a partner?

Well, that depends on what "type" turns you on, which is an idiosyncratic phenomenon if ever there was one. How do we awaken sexually and discover what/who arouses us? If you thought the intelligence debate was bad ...

Then there is the argument about the media telling us "what is attractive or not" and society standards affect us.

granted, but i think i have my answer in the poll results as much as anything else.

I was about to post some tedious joke along the lines of "Lolz what iz teh race?" but then realise that i really don't want to cause this thread to go down that route. I was intrigued though by the choice of "race" as the determining factor here, is that just PC for "looks different"? Race is a fair old quagmire of a term...

Man I am such a namby-pamby liberal.

Originally Posted by alh_p

I was about to post some tedious joke along the lines of "Lolz what iz teh race?" but then realise that i really don't want to cause this thread to go down that route. I was intrigued though by the choice of "race" as the determining factor here, is that just PC for "looks different"? Race is a fair old quagmire of a term...

Man I am such a namby-pamby liberal.

I already did that on the first page. Talking about how I was more of a 100 metre race person, and I don't think I could get along with a 250 metre race follower (talking olympic running races). Unfortunately, it was lost on Furunculus, as he replied with "huh?".

Originally Posted by Beskar

I already did that on the first page. Talking about how I was more of a 100 metre race person, and I don't think I could get along with a 250 metre race follower (talking olympic running races). Unfortunately, it was lost on Furunculus, as he replied with "huh?".

Ooooooh, now I get it!

i never really understood why people would actually drop one word for another when the context and content stays the same. its just potatoes patatoes then... race or ethnic groups... really...?

Originally Posted by The Stranger

i never really understood why people would actually drop one word for another when the context and content stays the same. its just potatoes patatoes then... race or ethnic groups... really...?

They changed race to ethnicity, and racism to ethnocentrism. But if they want to insult someone, they still call them a racist

Originally Posted by Beskar

I already did that on the first page. Talking about how I was more of a 100 metre race person, and I don't think I could get along with a 250 metre race follower (talking olympic running races). Unfortunately, it was lost on Furunculus, as he replied with "huh?".

Originally Posted by Husar

Ooooooh, now I get it!

I totally missed it, too. I don't think I've ever used a distance as a name for the person who runs that distance, so the connection to something you could marry didn't hit home for me. Now I feel sad that I didn't get the joke until it was explained to me nine pages later.

Ajax