Race and intelligence

so basically the answer is, we don't know? would anyone argue that it's not possible for a particular race to have a genetic advantage in intelligence?

and while we're on the subject what about women?

no/ not possible. Some women are dumb. Some smart. You have information otherewise?

just curious, what about redheads?

Usually, the question is about blondes.

Apple website: upper left hand picture. Pop culture. Blond 250 out of 365 days a year.

Blond can be faked.

So?

so men's advantage over women in math, science, and other areas requiring logical thinking and women's advantage over men in personal interaction (teaching) is all a product of the enviroment? not genetic at all?

i want to know why some of you, aside from political correctness, will aknowledge that physical ability is very heavily influenced by genetics but intellectual ability is not.

Because genetics is is a myth. Smart this, dumb that. It doesn't hold water, genetic wise. One really smart person may do something that changes much. One pohysically capable person may do something that stretches this or that boundary. So?

well i think it sort of matters about race - but only because of the environment - and not genetics

from my experiences - asians(i'm one ) concentrate more on academic - probably because most asian countries have limited space and therefore don't have much chance for sports such as rugby etc.

and australians (i live in australia - and i won't comment about other countries) seem to see sports (esp swimming) as more important - train more etc.

at the school i currently attend, there are many australians in the swimming team - yet hardly any asians - and with academic results there are many asians and a few australians

i do realise that i have probably made a big horrible stereotype - but i do feel that the environment does affect what someone is like.

and since the environment is a big factor - race also comes in....as most asians live in asia.....etc etc

This is a far more loaded question than is athletic ability.

Athletic ability is quantifiable.

Like athletic ability I am reasonably certain that genetics do play a part and that race does as well. Thankfully the difference is much less pronnounced than with athletic ability and circumstantial factors like culture are far more influential.

Asian excellence in academia is sometimes pointed to as a sign of Asian intellectual superiority. But what that argument fails to consider is that the cultural difference is not simply in a culture of education but also in much more powerful things like language or lifestyle (diet etc).

Asians excel in academia primarily because of an education-centric culture but this itself might have a deeper cultural source.

Asian languages have been said in studies to foster enhanced academic development. The study of such concoluted languages provides the mental gymnastics for a better exercised brain.

But then there is the counter-argument. All of this is rendered moot by our inability to quantify almost every facet of the question. What IS smarter? For example, Asian education is often knocked for their mathematics, even when they dominate in mathematical test scores. Why? Because the educational difference between, say, American and Japanese mathematics is such that Japanese frequently learn mathematics by rote, which makes for excellent test scores but that might undermine a less tangible form of intelligence, such as the ability to reason in novel circumstances without relying on memorization.

With that in mind a child who scores well on mathematical tests but learned everything by rote might not be as fit for real-life intelligence as one who does less well with mathematical tests but whose learning was achieved through more interactive and less memorizational methodology. The child would do well in standardized testing but the deductive and creative intelligence might suffer.

One of the keys to this question is how much intelligence (not knowledge) is actually inherent versus learned.

I strongly contend that inherent intelligence is overrated. I strongly contend that intelligence (yes, I mean intelligence, not knowledge) can be improved.

Think of it like athletic ability. A "born" athlete who does not excercise will simply not perform well. Likewise intellectual capacity, while being inborn, is influenced by circumstantial factors in a dramatic way.

A computer's processing power is like the "inherent" part. But a program that requires far less processing power represents aquired improvement of the overall intellectual capability.

I won't even talk RAM (human memory) which is, IMO, as important to intelligenc as it is to computing.

As a child I learned mathematics in a very unconventional way. I was an automath and I discovered that my ability was far more influenced by shortcuts I learned than in inherent ability. I started to use spatial techniques in math by using a hard-to-descibe method of spacial recognition of written numbers tied-in with mathematics. I witnessed the development of other children whose development was furthered by use of flash acrds with dot patterns and the results are incredible.

This helped my mathematical ability very much. As a child I could do basic mathematics better than any adults. But it came with a huge downside. I became very reliant on paper for my mathematical calculations. Since I made my shortcuts so dependent on spatial aids (e.g. I started to see the numbers as actual dots. A 4 would be four dots. One for each point.) doing even basic calculation was much more difficult without paper. So I then started using other techniques for mental calculation. I'd use all kinds of shortcuts. When adding 9's for example, I found that it's far faster to subtract one and add ten in one's head than to add nine. This sped up my mathematical ability to a great degree.

I mention all of this with a hugely relevant punchline. After the age of 7 I did not learn a single thing about mathematics. At seven I reached the limit of mathematical learning that my parents deemed necessary and never progressed beyone that. Furthermore I stopped using math for mental gymnastics and my current mathematical abilities are nothing special (and as a child my mathematical ability was somthing that was).

I now use calculators and I can't do the same things with math that I could when I was 4. To me this represents the difference that training has on intellectual capability. With little entertainment in my childhood math was actually fun. When I was four I would dream of math and would calculate my age to the second every day.

The result was that I was very good at math as a child. But now, without such exercise my mathematical ability is the very definition of pedestrian.

Moral of the story: circumstantial factors are as important or more so than inherent ability.

I hear that because of genetics, blacks make better slaves than white people. What do you think?

I think it's false. Qualities for slavery were simply not entirely physical and characterization of blacks as being good slaves is usually based on physical criteria.

Furthermore there is the "chicken/egg" problem. In America it's common to hear white-supremacists say that blacks were genetically perfect slaves. But they disgregard their insular thinking. The blacks in America were inroduced to be slaves. Outside of America the genetic makeup of the blacks is very different.

So was it genetics or was it the selective breeding by slave owners?

In any case, I know you were trying to make a point about the dlippery slope of discussion on genetic superiority but I do want to point out that there are just as many if not more valid arguments against that statement as there are in favor of it.

That bit particularly stood out to me, & it is very true. One example I see as a result of this it that the Japanese (to greatly generalize here) are excellent at math yet notoriously bad programmers.

Yep, and to further the generalization (hey I can cause I have Japanese blood, even if I use it "just for the jokes") Japanese businesses are great at perfecting processes but do poorly at reacting to the unexpected. Japanese perfect inventions more often than inventing them... etc etc

Yep Craven, I was just stirring the pot there because this thread is based on monumentally generalized assumptions. First, we don't "all know" that race plays a part in physical ability. Second, we also don't "know" that blacks are genetically superior athletes, that is a myth at best. If it appears that way to white Americans, it is perhaps because historically, blacks HAD to play better than whites to secure their right to play sports at all in a racist society. Here is a little history:

http://www.johncarlos.com/walters.htm

Ergo, if the original premise is founded on broad unprovable assumptions, the question of intelligence is, as Craven pointed out, moot.

MIAMI (Reuters) - Tall people earn considerably more money throughout their lives than their shorter co-workers, with each inch adding about $789 a year in pay, according to a new study.
"Height matters for career success," said Timothy Judge, a University of Florida management professor whose research will appear in the spring issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology.
"These findings are troubling in that, with a few exceptions such as professional basketball, no one could argue that height is an essential ability required for job performance nor a bona fide occupational qualification."

The way folks earn tenure will never cease to amaze me....

Maybe not, but it's true.



Athleticism is varied and in some cases the physiological differences between races do not play a significant part, but this is in no way a myth.

The whole issue of race and sports is so very loaded. The implication that a race is good at sports is sometimes used as an implication that they are dumb. But there is no validity to this haphazard connection except that those who excel at one thing generally don't NEED to excel in others. So the high school football star is generally not the one who hits the books the hardest.

Then there is the issue of blacks excelling in sports because they need to to overcome societal issues. That one cuts both ways and some spin it as blacks only having that as an option. The "great white hope" issue (whites who vehemently dislike that blacks excel at boxing) touches a nerve in that recognition of the physiological differences between races is often a step before a conclusion about racial superiority.

Anywho, this is a subject that is tip toed about in America but this is no myth.
Taboo : Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It by Jon Entine and Earl Smith

Every time I get to know somebody of a varient "race" or "type" the stereotype gets blown away in one on one interactions. There is no validity to the arguments for race superiority/inferiority.

I should also mention that the book Craven cited, which I know, has a serious political agenda, as I'm sure Craven knows.

I disagree with the book on a variety of points but I also disagree that it has an agenda (except to make money). It's not like the Bell Curve or anything.