Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Saying that a person's skin color dictates that person's level of intelligence sounds pretty damn racist to me.
At least we both can agree on that.
Sidebar note to everyone.
It's strange how often super genius is attached to mental abnormalities, Srinvinista and Mendeleev with their weird dreams and visions. Amadaeus, Van Gogh, Munch, even Michelangelo and Isaac Newton. I did enjoy a beautiful mind though.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
It depends how you define intelligence.
Let's use IQ as it predicts success and competency, along with more developed nations (with some exceptions). IQ is better measure for intelligence than any that have been tried
> Blacks have lower IQ on average, even when controlling for education and wealth
> African countries average out with the lowest IQ's in the world
> African civilisation has existed as long as - or longer than - European civilisation, but yet by the mid-19th century it was almost entirely scattered tribes in the non-northern regions even before colonialism. There were some empires in Africa historically, but it's likely that immigrants were running the show.
> Scientists predict that much of intelligence is hereditary, which is left is you eliminate education level
> The best and only logical conclusion is that on average, genes explain the difference. It explains the state of Africa both now and historically. It explains why blacks are less affluent in western societies too. This doesn't mean we should judge individuals based on race, because blacks can have genius level intellect, it's jus that they're less likely to than other races. Genes best explain the differnce In the same way asians aren't likely to become amazing sprinters and basketball players.
Also Whirly, scientists definitely have identified genes that are linked to intelligence, it's true they don't know all, but with things like CRISPR and gene editing being heavily developed, it's likely they will.
All that wold be left is to measure which genes are more prevalent in which racial groups.
Let's put it this way, scientists are comfortable explaining why blacks are better sprinters with genetics, when the data comports the same, yet opposite for intelligence, will you declare genealogy a pseudo science.
Scientists have identified genes linked to intelligence yes, but not a gene and none are race specific as previously stated they are mosaics.
Scientists have identified genes linked to intelligence yes, but not a gene and none are race specific as previously stated.
that there is a lot of IN-GROUP variation has nothing to do with whether there is BETWEEN-GROUP variation.
No on is arguing for "racial purity", it's just that there are, as a matter of fact differences in "average" distribution of biological traits between races in areas that are not socially constructed.
For example, black people are 1000x more likely to have sickle cell disease and more likely to be lactose intolerant than white people. Scientists admit that black populations, partially those from Jamaica and west have more fast twitch muscle fibers on average, meaning that black people dominate running sports.
1. Do you deny that there are measured differences in g between racial groups (regardless of the question of whether this is innate or environmental)?
2. If no, what do you think are the main non-genetic causal factors?
3. Why do we not see these factors manifest in the overwhelming majority of twin adoption studies?
4. Why do you suppose there was differential selection for rates of eye color, skin color, height, bone structure, etc. but no differential selection for non-physical traits?
Also, debunking the idea that race is a social construct alone
“A study published in 2005 in the American Journal of Human Genetics, under the title “Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies,” by Steven C. Hunt, Neil J. Reich, Hua Tang, and others, proved that a geneticist, working with genetic information alone, could successfully predict how someone will classify himself racially on nearly every try. The authors reported that researchers studying a mixed race group of 3636 members were able to correctly predict their self-identified race on 3631 occasions, which is a 99.86% success rate.”