Race and Intelligence

So, all races came out of Africa...why is the black race/species the least productive and intelligent on this planet;

individual humans vary between each other much less than do individuals of almost any other species.

After two hundred years, Americans and Britons can barely speak to eachother. That's with modern developments that allow us to even communicate.

Different evolutionary pressures. Negroids have the lowest IQ on average but, environmental variables being equal, tend to be more athletic than Mongoloids or most Caucasoids.

There is only one race of human nowadays, homo sapiens, and by its own standards it is superior to other species.

"Today, most scientists view human variation as distributed clinally, often without any sharp discontinuities. While acknowledging the existence of human variation among groups, anthropologists have abandoned the view that clearly delineated, discrete racial entities exist, since there often is considerable overlap in characteristics among the populations.[14]

Geneticists agree that the medically important issue is not race itself but the genes that predispose a person to disease. But it may often be useful for physicians to take race into account because the predisposing genes for many diseases follow racial patterns.

Dr. Stefansson said he believed that the more active version of this gene might have risen to prominence in Europeans and Asians because it conferred extra protection against infectious disease.

Along with the protection would have come a higher risk of heart attack because plaques that build up in the walls of the arteries could become inflamed and rupture. But because the active version of the gene started to be favored long ago, Europeans and Asians have had time to develop genetic changes that offset the extra risk of heart attack.

Only six months later, Bloche seems prescient. A flood of studies has emerged showing racial differences in how patients suffer from disease--or benefit from drugs--in ailments ranging from osteoporosis to cancer. And several more have looked at the effects of drugs on particular racial groups. Many of the doctors conducting the studies are African-American.

For many drugs, just doing a study looking at the effects of medicines on African-Americans might be useful. Ferdinand conducted such a trial with Crestor, a cholesterol drug from AstraZeneca (nyse: AZN - news - people ). Patrick Griffith, a neurologist at the Morehose School of Medicine, conducted a trial of Aricept, the Pfizer (nyse: PFE - news - people ) and Eisai Alzheimer's medicine, in African-Americans. Both studies, funded by the manufacturers, found the drugs to be effective in those populations.

Biologically, race is real. It's an extension of extended family. But it's also transitional

"Differences in response to medical products have been observed in racially and ethnically distinct subgroups of the US population," the journal points out.

Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."

I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.

We don't like to think IQ is mostly inherited. But we've all known families who are smarter than others. Twin and sibling studies, which can sort genetic from environmental factors, suggest more than half the variation in IQ scores is genetic. A task force report from the American Psychological Association indicates it might be even higher.

How could genes cause an IQ advantage? The simplest pathway is head size. I thought head measurement had been discredited as Eurocentric pseudoscience. I was wrong. In fact, it's been bolstered by MRI. On average, Asian-American kids have bigger brains than white American kids, who in turn have bigger brains than black American kids. This is true even though the order of body size and weight runs in the other direction. The pattern holds true throughout the world and persists at death, as measured by brain weight.

According to twin studies, 50 percent to 90 percent of variation in head size and brain volume is genetic. And when it comes to IQ, size matters. The old science of head measurements found a 20 percent correlation of head size with IQ. The new science of MRI finds at least a 40 percent correlation of brain size with IQ.

It's called interracial breeding. Just because there are lots of mutts doesn't mean the breeds never existed or that they no longer exist in the world. The races are real, and racial differences are demonstrated in pheno- and geno-type, racial difference-s in average IQ, and medicine. Remember when the Army found out that Mediterraneans couldn't take the same anti-malarial as everyone else is Korea? Or. more recently, take the case of BiDil.

To deny the existence of racial differences (because of liars and PC bull****) is to deny evolution itself.

Ever heard of Genetic Drift? I guess we can't treat men and women differently either,eh? We have to give them the same dose of the same medicine- the good of the patient be damned!

The PC war against common sense and reason marches on

Not only that but individuals perceived as belonging to the same group simply do not share enough common genes for their ethnicity to be the a significant factor in intelligence.

According to twin studies, 50 percent to 90 percent of variation in head size and brain volume is genetic. And when it comes to IQ, size matters. The old science of head measurements found a 20 percent correlation of head size with IQ. The new science of MRI finds at least a 40 percent correlation of brain size with IQ. One analysis calculates that brain size could easily account for five points of the black-white IQ gap.

I know, it sounds crazy. But if you approach the data from other directions, you get the same results. The more black and white scores differ on a test, the more performance on that test correlates with head size and "g," a measure of the test's emphasis on general intelligence. You can debate the reality of g, but you can't debate the reality of head size. And when you compare black and white kids who score the same on IQ tests, their average difference in head circumference is zero.

Scientists have already identified genes that influence brain size and vary by continent. Whether these play a role in racial IQ gaps, nobody knows. But we should welcome this research, because any genetic hypothesis about intelligence ought to be clarified and tested.

Critics think IQ tests are relative—i.e., they measure fitness for success in our society, not in other societies. "In a hunter-gatherer society, IQ will still be important, but if a hunter cannot shoot straight, IQ will not bring food to the table," argues psychologist Robert Sternberg. "In a warrior society … physical prowess may be equally necessary to stay alive." It's a good point, but it bolsters the case for a genetic theory. Nature isn't stupid. If Africans, Asians, and Europeans evolved different genes, the reason is that their respective genes were suited to their respective environments.

In fact, there's a mountain of evidence that differential evolution has left each population with a balance of traits that could be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on circumstances. The list of differences is long and intricate. On average, compared with whites, blacks mature more quickly in the womb, are born earlier, and develop teeth, strength, and dexterity earlier. They sit, crawl, walk, and dress themselves earlier. They reach sexual maturity faster, and they have better eyesight. On each of these measures, East Asians lag whites and blacks. In exchange, East Asians get longer lives and bigger brains.

Do men and women have different organs?

Do blacks and whites have different organs.

he list of differences is long and intricate. On average, compared with whites, blacks mature more quickly in the womb, are born earlier, and develop teeth, strength, and dexterity earlier. They sit, crawl, walk, and dress themselves earlier. They reach sexual maturity faster, and they have better eyesight. On each of these measures, East Asians lag whites and blacks. In exchange, East Asians get longer lives and bigger brains.

There is no comparison.

Really? You're gonna claim this is about being politically correct? No, it's about being scientifically correct. You're using terms from fields that were discredited over a decade ago.

Now you're just being dishonest, trying to argue ethnicity in a debate about race. Such dishonesty I usually only see from theists and anti-lifers.

Has you read my sources, you would have seen this:


(emphasis added)
Race, genes, and intelligence. (1) - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

I have posted sources to a number of respectable sources. You have only posted your opinion and a link to someone else's opinion. Either present refuting evidence or admit that you were wrong in your assertions. Any other response will be indicative of your nature and show that you have no business attempting a meaningful discussion on the matter.

Last I checked, I had no ovaries, and if any woman has a penis or testes, some very serious questions must be asked as something is clearly not right. That you ask such a stupid question stands as proof that you have no business trying to engage in intelligent discussion.

You know, we aren't that different from a bonobo and we an actually transplant a pig's heart into a human as they're effectively identical for all intents and purposes.

I have linked to research being done and progress being made today. Hell, you don't even know the difference between ethnicity and the major races :rollinglaugh:

your idea of race is a social construct which has loose to no basis in genetics.

Sorry, SLATE is not a scientific source,

if you want a real scientific journal look at SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. It is peer reviewed

Flynn notes that the very fact that there are significant generational gains in IQ means that the scores cannot be ruled by genetics.

Only Sabz is more knowledgeable of science than I am on this forum.

Do you know what a rhetorical question is? Apparently not.

Quit dodging the question.

Do blacks and whites have different organs? Yes or no?

Race is a social classification based on phenotype only, there is no genetic basis for distinct classification

Nor do any perceived "races" share enough common genetic material for it to be a significant impact on IQ. Current scientific literature supports this.

You are not educated enough on this subject. I am more knowledgeable on this topic than are you. Of this I am certain

J. Philippe Rushton
The University of Western Ontario
Arthur R. Jensen
University of California, Berkeley

stating your opinion and personal beliefs which are threatened dopes nothing to refute the evidence I have presented. Trying to explain simple matters to you is like talking to Kent Hovind.

Did you try clicking the links to its sources? What about the sources' sources? Here, one lists the following

Not a valid point, as the scores or scoring could change. Also, it fails to account for genetic factors- which several cited sources I have linked to have shown to account for ~50% of IQ. You are trying to attack a position I never assumed, because you are dishonest and have only strawmen in your aresenal. Do cite where I ever claimed that IQ is determined solely by genetic factors.

Oh, sdop now that you're shown to be a fool it's suddenly rhetorical? :rollinglaugh:

Many species have the same organs

I have already posted the evidence that shoots your opinion down

The current scientific literature I have cited says quite the opposite

Which is why you've fallen back on a single source when I have linked to many- any my sources' sources,

I have shown your claims to be false while you are unable to refute my evidence and offer merely opinion and an appeal to authority in the form of Mr. Flynn.

This explains the increase ion IQ across generations but has no relevancy to the differences in scores between races at all.

JB:

stating your opinion and personal beliefs which are threatened dopes nothing to refute the evidence I have presented. Trying to explain simple matters to you is like talking to Kent Hovind.

Did you try clicking the links to its sources? What about the sources' sources? Here, one lists the following

Not a valid point, as the scores or scoring could change. Also, it fails to account for genetic factors- which several cited sources I have linked to have shown to account for ~50% of IQ. You are trying to attack a position I never assumed, because you are dishonest and have only strawmen in your aresenal. Do cite where I ever claimed that IQ is determined solely by genetic factors.

Oh, sdop now that you're shown to be a fool it's suddenly rhetorical?

Many species have the same organs

I have already posted the evidence that shoots your opinion down

The current scientific literature I have cited says quite the opposite

Which is why you've fallen back on a single source when I have linked to many- any my sources' sources, I have shown your claims to be false while you are unable to refute my evidence and offer merely opinion and an appeal to authority in the form of Mr. Flynn.

offer merely opinion and an appeal to authority in the form of Mr. Flynn.

This explains the increase ion IQ across generations but has no relevancy to the differences in scores between races at all

I could say the same thing about you.



It's not a scientific source. Simply having sources does not indicate that the article written by those who have no scientific credentials is an accurate representation of the data. I could come up with sources that directly contradict yours all day, so it does you know good. Especially considering even scientists are divided on the issue.





Well let's look at this for a moment. If 50% (this is a rough estimate) of IQ is determined by genetics, what fraction of of one's DNA constitutes "race"?

To assert that this tiny fraction significantly contributes to IQ is absurd and unscientific.




Or you were too busy babbling to notice the context in which my question was posed.

Of course men and women have different organs. That was my point. Different races do not have different organs, so to compare the biological differences between genders to those between ethnicities is ridiculous.




You still haven't answered my question. For the third time, do whites and blacks have different organs? Yes or no?

your attempt to dodge the question is painfully obvious.







I have better sources, so I win.




Since when is a news magazine "scientific literature"?






Quality over quantity. :thumbup:





Appeal to authority implies that I rely solely on his word, yet professor Flynn has data to support his position.




Of course it does, it implies that the most of our intelligence is envoirnmental and social, otherwise such a rapid and steady increase would not have been possible.

His goal is "to show the reader that...idea of race is a relatively recent social and political construction."

New genetic data has enabled scientists to re-examine the relationship between human genetic variation and 'race'. We review the results of genetic analyses that show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift. Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations. Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information.

Comparisons of populations are sometimes criticized because the allocation of individuals into groups imposes a pre-existing structure and may influence the outcome of a genetic study. Furthermore, populations are defined in many (often arbitrary) ways. Some of these objections can be overcome by comparing individuals rather than populations.

A common approach in studying individual genetic variation is to compute the genetic similarity between all possible pairs of individuals in a sample and then to search for clusters of individuals who are most similar to one another. ...These studies, however, were based on only several dozen or fewer loci, and a small sample of unselected loci does not typically provide sufficient power to detect population structure when individuals are analyzed6, 32. In contrast, studies based on more loci32, 33, 34 show that individuals tend to cluster according to their ancestry or geographic origin. Figure 2 shows a tree in which genetic similarity, based on 190 loci, is portrayed among individual members of most of the populations illustrated in Figure 1. The longest branches in this tree separate individuals within the same continental populations, as expected from the FST results discussed above (i.e., most variation occurs within populations). The longest internal branch separates African from non-African individuals, again in agreement with previous results at the population level. The next cluster consists entirely of Europeans, and a final cluster contains all of the East Asian subjects and one European. The robustness and validity of these findings are supported by other studies, which, despite using different loci and different population samples, obtained similar patterns34, 35, 36, 37....

When a sample of South Indians, who occupy an intermediate geographic position (see also Fig. 1) is added to the analysis (Fig. 3b), considerable overlap is seen among these individuals and both the East Asian and European samples, probably as a result of numerous migrations from various parts of Eurasia into India during the past 10,000 years40. Thus, the South Indian individuals do not fall neatly into one of the categories usually conceived as a 'race'. [That is, they are of mixed 'race']

Blumenbach43, writing in the 1700s, acknowledged extensive morphological overlap among populations or races. Charles Darwin, some 100 years later, wrote, "It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant."44 Scientists recognized shared genetic variation among populations more than 50 years ago, although their conclusions were based on relatively small numbers of informative loci45. This pattern of shared variation has important implications for our understanding of population differences and similarities, and it also bears on critical biomedical issues.

Genetic variation, race and medicine
Race and ethnicity have long been incorporated into medical decision-making processes. For example, physicians are typically aware that sickle-cell disease is much more common in African and Mediterranean populations than in northern European populations, whereas the reverse is true for cystic fibrosis and hemochromatosis. Although such distinctions are often clearest for single-gene diseases, perceived population differences influence the diagnosis and treatment of common diseases as well. There is evidence, for example, for population differences in response rates to drugs used in treating hypertension46 and depression47, 48.

Broad population categories can be discerned genetically when enough polymorphisms are analyzed, as seen in Figure 3, so these categories are not devoid of biological meaning.

[E]thnicity or race may in some cases provide useful information in biomedical contexts, just as other categories, such as gender or age, do. But the potential usefulness of race must be balanced against potential hazards. Ignorance of the shared nature of population variation can lead to diagnostic errors (e.g., the failure to diagnose sickle-cell disease in a European individual or cystic fibrosis in an Asian individual) or to inappropriate treatment or drug prescription.

4000 years is 'relatively recent'?