Racial questions

[r3vbr]

I think it's obvious that black people are better at sports. The race is superior phisically.

Most people however contest that they are inferior intellectually.

I have read that they are. But I don't know how reliable are the sources.

One thing I know for sure is that races ARE different, people are NOT equal, and that there are some races that are BETTER at certain things.

i.e. Jews are more intelligent than average

Also, please no that we are talking about STATISTICAL AVERAGES. I dont want any example of a stupid jew or a black bad at sports and genious at math. I know there are LOTS of them.

But if there is any significant statistical proof that blacks have lower IQ than average I wanna know if its true because I hear it a lot.
Thx.

[r3vbr]

also sorry for my bad english

[MidGe]

The problem is with your question. Race is not a scientific concept. There are no genetic markers that are exclusive to a single race.

[yukoncpa]

If you're really interested in this, then read "Guns, Germs, and Steel", by Jared Diamond.

[r3vbr]

Race is a totally scientific concept. I don't know about genetics but you can tell one race from another it's so obvious. It seems you are trying to avoid the question.


Also, I've heard of this book already and planning to read it asap.

[Villainaire]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it's obvious that black people are better at sports. The race is superior phisically.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

What do you mean by physically?

I think you are confusing how good many black athletes are at the sports they play with raw physical ability.

For instance, Lebron James is better than any white player in the NBA right now, but not because he's black.

The only genetic advantage I think he might possess is his height.

If black people are so much superior, why aren't there more black pro hockey players?

I believe their skill is attributed to their environment.

The reason I think this is partly attributed to my upbringing. I grew up with 5 good friends who ended up being division 1 basketball players. 4 of them are black, and the other one is white. He's the shortest one of them, but most consider him the best. They all grew up playing together and because they were constantly competing at such a high level I think that's what brought them to the level they are on.

If inner city youth were given all the equipment to play ice hockey, and little instruction, do you think they would be able to compete at the same level that the average kids hockey league in Canada are competing on?

When you say "physically" if you're meaning just in terms of strength, and agility, I'm not sure black people are any more superior. Look at the ironman competitions, or the strongman contests.

Sorry for the rant. My dad's black, and my mom's white, and I played tennis competitively. I'm certainly not a person you'd consider "strong". Pete Sampras IMO is the greatest tennis player ever and I seriously doubt that his physical strength is what got him to the top. He's a very bright athlete and tennis is a very psychological sport.

I would like to be linked to any studies you found that basically point to black people being less intelligent than other races.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Race is a totally scientific concept. I don't know about genetics but you can tell one race from another it's so obvious. It seems you are trying to avoid the question.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it's pretty obvious you can tell a white fellow from a black fellow. But you would be surprised who's smarter than who. I'm not avoiding your question, I'm simply recommending a good book.

[hmkpoker]

There's usually a third variable at play here, and it has to do with socioeconomic status. (translation: wealth) I'll go as un-PC as I can, forgive my generalizations, yes they're averages and no I don't hate black people and blah blah blah....

Black people are dumber than white people.

Poor people are dumber than rich people.

There are more poor black people (per capita) than poor white people) (A similar comment can be made about Jews, their smarts and their money)


Are they poor because they are dumb, or dumb because they are poor? If you help elevate their levels of wealth, do they start to become smarter?

This is probably the worst thing I've written in a while. I'm going to bed.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's obvious that black people are better at sports. The race is superior phisically.

[/ QUOTE ]

(ten points to whomever can tell me the movie this is from /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

"Best at sports? What about hockey? What about water polo? Best at sports! What about fencing? Or synchronized swimming? hey, yachting! oh, and don't forget fox hunting! Best at sports..."


There's a cultural element, dude /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Black people are dumber than white people.

Poor people are dumber than rich people.


[/ QUOTE ]
And Asian people are smarter than white people and poorer than white people... hmm.

[Brom]

I learned way back in high school that there is no significant statistical evidence saying any one race is better at anything than any other race. It may seem to some people that Blacks are physically superior to Whites, but given the sample sizes, they are actually the same.

Also. as one poster already mentioned, there are not actually any different races of humans on earth. There is no quality that is exclusive to any one race.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Also. as one poster already mentioned, there are not actually any different races of humans on earth. There is no quality that is exclusive to any one race.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not accurate. Many species are distinguished from each other based exclusively on appearance. Why can't the same be done to distinguish different races?

Color, size and shape including bone structure all vary from race to race.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is with your question. Race is not a scientific concept. There are no genetic markers that are exclusive to a single race.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's obviously no single "pacific islander gene" in our DNA that can be switched either on or off to determine if someone is pacific islander. That does not in any way shape or form imply that there is nothing scientific about race.

[MidGe]

Whereas there is a gene for blue eyes.. it just happens not to fit any "notion" of race. Race seems to be reasonable (but is only a cultural concept), like faith, but race, like faith, has no scientific evidence to support it.
Prejudices against redheads or whatever, is, of course and unfortunately, real.

[Phil153]

This is an excellent and unbiased summary of all the original research regarding race and IQ. Every statement is fully referenced with many links to the published research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28Average_gaps_among_races% 29

Personally I think you'd have to be an idiot to not realize there are innate intellectual differences between races. A lot of excuses are made for black people's borderline retarded IQ/school/university/graduate test scores, but none of them stand up to scrutiny. Especially since Asians routinely score higher than whites on all of the indicators, regardless of poverty or culture.

To anyone without an agenda to push, the evidence is overwhelming that Asian > White >>> Blacks.

I'm white BTW.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Race is a totally scientific concept. I don't know about genetics but you can tell one race from another it's so obvious.


[/ QUOTE ]

If this is true, one should be able to objectively (scientifically) define the different races. Go ahead, give it a shot.

[MidGe]

Since we are quoting from the internet, this (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm) is based on a pbs program.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Since we are quoting from the internet, this (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm) is based on a pbs program.

[/ QUOTE ]
We're not "quoting from the internet". I linked to a fully referenced encyclopaedia article where you can read the original research for yourself. The link I provided is a handy repository of articles and statistics from testing organizations and scientist journals.

You claim that race is not a valid scientific concept. But that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What's being claimed is that different groups, having spend long periods in reproductive isolation, have developed different traits. The fact that you never find a person of European ancestry with dark black skin, a flattened nose and an afro is proof enough of that.

Whether those traits arise from different genes or different gene frequencies is irrelevant. The end result is that people from certain "group" have traits which differ significantly from other "groups". This is analogous to breeds among dogs. Some dogs breeds are smarter, some are more aggressive, some are more athletic, and so on. No one in their right mind claims that a German Shepherd and a bulldog have the same level of intelligence. Or that a pitbull and a labrador have the same innate degree of aggressiveness.

Why can't humans vary in the same way as other species? All the evidence suggests that they do.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You claim that race is not a valid scientific concept. But that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What's being claimed is that different groups,

[/ QUOTE ]

If you cannot identify the groups, and, by the way, dark skin etc.. can be found, albeit more rarely, in european descent people, and vice versa. The point is that there is no difference in the genetic pool to talk about an identifiable race concept. Now, from a cultural or condionning view point, of course there is, but that is what it is, mere conditionning, similar to training animals, no underlying reality or scientific difference.


[ QUOTE ]
Whether those traits arise from different genes or different gene frequencies is irrelevant. The end result is that people from certain "group" have traits which differ significantly from other "groups". This is analogous to breeds among dogs. Some dogs breeds are smarter, some are more aggressive, some are more athletic, and so on. No one in their right mind claims that a German Shepherd and a bulldog have the same level of intelligence. Or that a pitbull and a labrador have the same innate degree of aggressiveness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you will relatively easily identify gene markers for most dog breed differences, unlike people's groups [sic]. That argument has no valid scientific basis.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that there is no difference in the genetic pool to talk about an identifiable race concept.

[/ QUOTE ]
You clearly didn't understand a word I said. Let me restate it for you:

"Whether those traits arise from different genes or different gene frequencies is irrelevant. The end result is that people from certain [ethnic] "groups" have traits which differ significantly from other [ethnic] "groups". "

Here are the indisputable facts:

- On SAT tests, test results are Asian > White >>> People of African Descent
- On military IQ tests, Asian > White >>> People of African Descent
- In terms of technological sophistication, White >= Asian >>>>>>>>>>> Black
- In terms of the development of civilization, White == Asian >>>>>>>>>>> Sub Suharan Africans
- In terms of success at university, Asian > White >>> Black
- In terms of scientific discoveries, White > Asian >>>>>>>>>>>> Black
- In terms of IQ testing in their country of origin, Asian > White >>>> Black

Why do you think this is? Can you put it all down to culture? You certainly can't put it down to poverty or poor nutrition as second world Asian countries perform BETTER or on par with civilized, wealthy white nations. Japan has an excellent education system and high living standards, yet they score the same as China with widespread malnutrition and poverty. SOMETHING ELSE IS GOING ON HERE.

Do you claim that these overwhelming results are due to culture? Do you have any proof? If not, we have to use Occam's Razor and come to the conclusion that some if not most of this difference must be genetic, as is the case in various breeds of many other species.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Since we are quoting from the internet, this (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm) is based on a pbs program.

[/ QUOTE ]
I roamed around on this sight for a while, and quite frankly I was more amazed at this from a PC "thought police" point of view than anything else. Nearly every single paraphrased point was designed to cultivate a "we're all the same" impression on the reader, and to attempt to confuse (rather than formulate) a useful concept of race (of which we are ALL intuitively aware).

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You clearly didn't understand a word I said. Let me restate it for you:

[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly didn't understand a word I said those "groups" are an illusion, there is no basis for it, different from saying that people that live on even numbered houses are more intelligent or whatever than those that live in odd numbered houses and should be grouped together.. you may as well say that there are groups of intelligent people and groups of not so intelligent people... that doesn't mean that either group share another characteristic.

[Metric]

Have you ever notice that people with very dark skin and flattened noses also tend to have very curly hair? Is this correlation purely imaginary? If you have not noticed this correlation, you're either blind or crazy. If you have, what keeps someone from going further and looking for a correlation with intelligence?

[Matt R.]

MidGe,
Imagine a group of 200 people. 100 of these are of caucasian descent and 100 of these are of african descent. No people of mixed heritage are included.

You're telling me that you would not be able to separate these people into 2 distinct groups based on physical characteristics. You're saying that these groupings are an illusion. Of course they're not an illusion. If it was an illusion, there would be no distinct identifiable differences. There ARE identifiable differences, which allows you to classify them based on race (this is part of phil's point). These differences are just as scientific as species differences -- the differences are just smaller. If anything in evolutionary biology is scientific, then human racial differences are scientific as well. I have no idea why people keep arguing otherwise.

Note that I don't agree with phil's other assertion about huge gaps in intelligence between races. He may be right, but I don't have the inclination to do any research on it right now.

Edit -- But, there almost certainly is some difference in brain function between people with vastly different genetic backgrounds (yes, racial differences are genetic). Whether you want to measure that with IQ tests or something else is up to you. Any way you do it though is going to have a huge environmental component.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
You clearly didn't understand a word I said those "groups" are an illusion, there is no basis for it...different from saying that people that live on even numbered houses are more intelligent or whatever than those that live in odd numbered houses and should be grouped together.

[/ QUOTE ]
But there is a basis for it. Africans and Europeans have spent a long period of time in reproductive isolation from one another. During this time, changes have occured in the distribution of genes in each population group. The most obvious (the ones that we can see) are skin color, facial features such as the nose and mouth, changes in the shape of hair follicles to produce curly hair, etc. There are less visible physiological differences between Europeans and Africans too. Given that intelligence and frontal gray matter are highly inheritable and subject to many limiting factors (such as infant skull development), you can see how a different distribution of various genes controlling brain development could result in one race having a higher or lower average intelligence than another.

This is not proof of anything. I'm just debunking your idea that grouping people of African descent is the same as grouping people with odd and even street numbers. Which I hope you can see is absurd. There is a clear basis basis for grouping together people with a common ancestry. Even drug companies do it when testing various drugs, because of the physiological differences between people of different ancestry.

Like I said, the above is proof of nothing. But the SATs, IQ tests, and everything else I listed above ARE proof of something. What do you claim accounts for these huge differences in measurable intelligence if there isn't a genetic element?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is with your question. Race is not a scientific concept. There are no genetic markers that are exclusive to a single race.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not entirely correct - read the recent Newsweek article on genetics. There are many genetic markers that are specific to a narrow group (race) of people. They can trace 40% of all Ashkenazi Jews to just 4 women.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I learned way back in high school that there is no significant statistical evidence saying any one race is better at anything than any other race. It may seem to some people that Blacks are physically superior to Whites, but given the sample sizes, they are actually the same.

Also. as one poster already mentioned, there are not actually any different races of humans on earth. There is no quality that is exclusive to any one race.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blacks have a higher percentage of 'quick' muscles.

Does the predominance of blacks in sprints suggest that blacks, as a group, tend to be better endowed with fast-twitch muscle fibers? There is only one scientific report which measured skeletal muscle characteristics in a black and white population. Ama, et al. examined 23 black male African students from Cameroon, Senegal, Zaire, Ivory coast, and Burundi and 23 male Caucasian students from Laval University in Canada. These were untrained sedentary individuals. They were matched for age, body weight, and body mass index (weight measured in kilos divided by the square of height in meters). Muscle biopsies from the vastus lateralis muscle of the thigh revealed that the white subjects had 8% more Type I muscle fibers and 7% less Type IIa fibers than black subjects. Enzymes involved in the phosphagenic and glycolytic metabolic pathways were 30-40% higher in black subjects. These metabolic pathways are the ones used during quick burst activities (i.e. sprint). These results are compatible with the idea that blacks, as a group, seem to be better endowed to perform well in sprint
events.

[Lestat]

Would you agree that on average, blacks are bigger, taller, stronger, than typical Vietnamese?

[r3vbr]

Things that just white people do (hockey, tennis, etc) are obviously producing all white pros

Things that just black people do (basketball etc) are all black pros

Things that Both people do (the only things you can use to compare 1 race to another) as in soccer, boxing, golf, running, athletics, you see a vast majority of black people winning

[CORed]

The differences between the races, are, for the most part, superficial. Human beings, compared to other species with a wide geographic distribution, remarkable for their similarity. When you start to look at genetic and biochemical markers, things other than skin color and facial features, it is pretty much impossible to find any difference among the so-called "races". You say that Jews are smarter. I would contend that this is do in part, if not in whole, to their cultural emphasis on education. I grew up with quite a few Jewish friends. It was simply not acceptable, to their parents (or to my non-Jewish parents, fortunatley) for them not to do well in school. If you are a Jewish child, it is expected that you will study hard, get good grades, and become a doctor, lawyer, businessperson. I don't dispute that, if you look, you will find statistical variation among the races in intelligence, athletic ability, and whatnot, but whether any of this is attributable to genetics is highly questionable.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you agree that on average, blacks are bigger, taller, stronger, than typical Vietnamese?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but it seems like a lot of the small size of vietnamese may be due to diet. IIRC, there are one or two second generation Vietnamese-Americans in the NFL. Of course, these guys could be outliers on the big side, but it does seem like Vietnamese grow bigger on an American diet than on the mostly rice diet their parents ate in Vietnam.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also. as one poster already mentioned, there are not actually any different races of humans on earth. There is no quality that is exclusive to any one race.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not accurate. Many species are distinguished from each other based exclusively on appearance. Why can't the same be done to distinguish different races?

Color, size and shape including bone structure all vary from race to race.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the genetic level it's very difficult to tell what's what. Within a single race there's HUGE variation and there's a great deal of similarities between the races due to the breeding history. We had a thread on here a couple of months ago where we discussed this.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an excellent and unbiased summary of all the original research regarding race and IQ. Every statement is fully referenced with many links to the published research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28Average_gaps_among_races% 29

Personally I think you'd have to be an idiot to not realize there are innate intellectual differences between races. A lot of excuses are made for black people's borderline retarded IQ/school/university/graduate test scores, but none of them stand up to scrutiny. Especially since Asians routinely score higher than whites on all of the indicators, regardless of poverty or culture.

To anyone without an agenda to push, the evidence is overwhelming that Asian > White >>> Blacks.

I'm white BTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't we already go through this recently and we demonstrated your info was terrible?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
No people of mixed heritage are included.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the problem. There have been huge migrations in the past and, while they haven't "mixed" in the past few generations, you'd be surprised how much they share allele that are typically thought of as belonging to one race or another.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You clearly didn't understand a word I said those "groups" are an illusion, there is no basis for it...different from saying that people that live on even numbered houses are more intelligent or whatever than those that live in odd numbered houses and should be grouped together.

[/ QUOTE ]
But there is a basis for it. Africans and Europeans have spent a long period of time in reproductive isolation from one another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no they haven't.

[ QUOTE ]
There are less visible physiological differences between Europeans and Africans too. Given that intelligence and frontal gray matter are highly inheritable and subject to many limiting factors (such as infant skull development), you can see how a different distribution of various genes controlling brain development could result in one race having a higher or lower average intelligence than another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you learn anything from last time?

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, the above is proof of nothing. But the SATs, IQ tests, and everything else I listed above ARE proof of something. What do you claim accounts for these huge differences in measurable intelligence if there isn't a genetic element?

[/ QUOTE ]

-sigh- We talked about epigenetic/environmental factors but you obviously weren't listening.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Things that just white people do (hockey, tennis, etc) are obviously producing all white pros

Things that just black people do (basketball etc) are all black pros

Things that Both people do (the only things you can use to compare 1 race to another) as in soccer, boxing, golf, running, athletics, you see a vast majority of black people winning

[/ QUOTE ]

Black people seem to dominate heavyweight boxing, but Latinos (racially a mix of European, American Indian and some Black ancestry) seem to dominate the lighter weights.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since we are quoting from the internet, this (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm) is based on a pbs program.

[/ QUOTE ]
We're not "quoting from the internet". I linked to a fully referenced encyclopaedia article where you can read the original research for yourself. The link I provided is a handy repository of articles and statistics from testing organizations and scientist journals.

You claim that race is not a valid scientific concept. But that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What's being claimed is that different groups, having spend long periods in reproductive isolation, have developed different traits. The fact that you never find a person of European ancestry with dark black skin, a flattened nose and an afro is proof enough of that.

Whether those traits arise from different genes or different gene frequencies is irrelevant. The end result is that people from certain "group" have traits which differ significantly from other "groups". This is analogous to breeds among dogs. Some dogs breeds are smarter, some are more aggressive, some are more athletic, and so on. No one in their right mind claims that a German Shepherd and a bulldog have the same level of intelligence. Or that a pitbull and a labrador have the same innate degree of aggressiveness.

Why can't humans vary in the same way as other species? All the evidence suggests that they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The dog thing again? You're making the exact crappy arguments in the previous thread.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No people of mixed heritage are included.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the problem. There have been huge migrations in the past and, while they haven't "mixed" in the past few generations, you'd be surprised how much they share allele that are typically thought of as belonging to one race or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I was just trying to combat the assertions that there is no scientific basis for race. What I was trying to get across was that there is a ton of variation within the human population as a whole, and when you look at two populations that have been in reproductive isolation for awhile they will be different genetically. So, if you say there is no scientific basis for race, then there is no scientific basis for evolutionary theory.

Like you said, there is a ton of gray area between races due to the sharing of alleles -- which is where this idea of race being an illusion comes from I think. But there is also quite a bit of gray area between entire species where people don't know whether to classify 2 groups of organisms as one species or two. Although this clearly doesn't happen as much within the human population (Edit -- I guess I should have said it happens much more frequently in the human population due to mixing of different lineages. i.e. there's much more of a gray area between races in humans.)

What I'm getting at is that the concepts of race and species are just human constructs to help us define evolutionary processes. In reality it is better to think of things as a continuum of genetic variation where individual species/races don't even exist. In regards to our scientific definitions though, "race" is just a subset of "species".

[Rduke55]

Good post.
But i'm having trouble with "concepts of race and species are just human constructs to help us define evolutionary processes. "

If you consider that species are most commonly defined as exhibiting reproductive isolation then it's not a human construct and it's not a continuum like race is. Species typically are discrete, despite the problems we have in IDing some animals or the occasional exception.

[shhhnake_eyes]

white man cant jump

lol

[Matt R.]

I believe you're far more trained in evolutionary biology than I am, so feel free to correct me if any of my points are wrong.

I wish I could recall some examples that I've heard in the past, but I believe there are species where this occurs:

Consider three populations A, B, and C.
A can reproduce with B.
B can reproduce with C.
A CANNOT reproduce with C.

Are A and C really in reproductive isolation then? I *really* wish I could find the example of this so I could explain myself more clearly -- I'm not sure if A and C are considered distinct species are not. But I believe there is some debate.

Also, there are four (I believe?) separate ways to define species -- and sometimes these are incompatible. i.e. sometimes 2 populations look very different morphologically, yet they can still produce viable offspring.

Thus I think in the grand scheme of things it is more "true" to think of individual variation across *all* species as sort of a continuum. Even among species there is some gray area, there is just far less than between human races because there is so much more outbreeding in humans.

For instance, consider the following:

Take a small population of humans that are very genetically similar. Let's say there "genetic similarity" is that they are 5th cousins or more closely related. If you separate this small poulation into 2 reproductively isolated groups, and let them breed for 'x' generations, they will clearly be the same species for many generations. However, at some point you will see them diverge due to genetic drift, and some members of group 1 won't be able to mate with group 2 due to their genetic differences (I have no idea how long this will take, but it'll happen eventually). At some point NONE of them will be able to reproduce, in which case they would be *classified* as separate species. The reason I emphasized classified is that at some point between the initial split of the group and the speciation event, there will be some members among the populations that can still reproduce, but if you take other members they cannot. So you see that the classic definition of species being "reproductively isolated" can break down in these gray areas.

This is why I think race and species are both simply human definitions to help "group" evolutionary processes. It's much easier to see variation among species than it is among races, which is why the concept of species looks a lot more concrete. But in the grand scheme of things it is still just variation among individuals that you are looking at. Between species it typically manifests itself as reproductive isolation -- but even this becomes shaky at times.

[Rduke55]

Yeah, there are exceptions. Especially with those effin' bacteria.
And the problem with defining species is why I phrased my statement the way I did.

In your human example I see some confusion of "reproductively isolated" with "geographically isolated". They are very different things. (But as you said, geographic isolation often plays a huge role in speciation.)

In your example, based on the classical definition of species, the individuals that can interbreed would be considered the same species, no matter which population they are in. It's a subtle difference and I can see your point. A species is a category that consists of individuals that can interbreed, not a certain geographic population. Once population A cannot mate with population B they then are reproductively isolated, not before. Then they would be considered different species.

This is why I say that species are not a continuum while races are. Species are defined in such a way that discrete groupings can be made that reflect the organization of nature, genes, whatever you want to call it. Race cannot be separated this way.

[Johnny Drama]

[ QUOTE ]
Things that Both people do (the only things you can use to compare 1 race to another) as in soccer, boxing, golf, running, athletics, you see a vast majority of black people winning

[/ QUOTE ]

since when is there a "vast majority of black people" winning at golf?

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
In your example, based on the classical definition of species, the individuals that can interbreed would be considered the same species, no matter which population they are in. It's a subtle difference and I can see your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing though. In my example, at some point in time, there will be some members betweens the 2 groups that can breed but other members that cannot. i.e. the reproductive incompatibility doesn't just happen from generation x to generation x+1, it builds up gradually.

From group one then, we have subgroups A and B. And in group two we have subgroups C and D. A and C are the "reproductively compatible" groups -- A can breed with C and vice versa. Thus A and C are the same species. But B and D cannot breed with each other, so they are separate species. But A and B are the same species, and so are C and D!

So, A=B and C=D.... but then A=C and B =! D. So if we hold steadfast to the rule that reproductive incompatibility equals separate species but reproductive compatibility equals equivalent species we run into a logical contradiction.

I realize this is rare and only occurs in a small timeframe, but I'm pretty sure that it does occur so the reproductive incompatibility rule for speciation is only a very good approximation -- in reality it isn't 100% accurate (as you mentioned with bacteria).

So basically my conclusion is that the only difference between separate species and separate races is in their reproductive compatibility (no duh, you say /images/graemlins/tongue.gif). But this reproductive incompabitibility occurs due to an increase in genetic disparity. The "amount" of genetic difference is then proportional to the length of time 2 populations spend in reproductive isolation.

Thus the only difference between "race" and "species" is the amount of time the 2 populations in question have spent in reproductive isolation.

This may be obvious, but I think it may illustrate more clearly why I think of race and species as very similar ideas in terms of evolution. And ultimately this is why I think there is no such thing as a species -- you can't really come up with a single irrefutable definition of species without finding contradictions in nature. It is just a useful concept for classification purposes and evolutionary theory.

[carlo]

The question speaks more about you than the specific class to which you are referencing.

In this time, to refer to anyone according to race,gender, class, nation, religion, etc. is to not see the INDIVIDUAL. If you refer to a woman as a "woman" this again is seeing the individual with smoked glasses of your own production.

Reference to the GENERIC in mankind will never display the person involved;this is only a facile way of displaying a lack of thought under the pretense of scientific or whatever credibility.

Illusion in life can be a bitch; this stuff is tantamount to stating that a man is a duck without feathers.

carlo

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
reproductive incompatibility rule for speciation is only a very good approximation -- in reality it isn't 100% accurate

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's somewhere between the two we are saying. More than a very good approximation but not absolute. I think we are arguing semantics about an actual truth. Species do exist. No montane vole can mate with a prairie vole. No two species of a macaque monkey can produce offspring. The difference I see between this idea and race is the lack of a continuum in this regard. In race, you can't really point to the cutoff between the "black" race and the "white" race. You can in the overwhelming majority of species. There's no continuum between rhesus macaque and the stump-tailed macaque. Every individual is either in one group or another and this is why the concept of species is a very useful scientific idea.

That said, your other argument about the fuzziness during speciation is great though and very valid and relevant to a lot of work being done now. Herein lies the problems with defining and studying speciation.

However, this:

[ QUOTE ]
Thus the only difference between "race" and "species" is the amount of time the 2 populations in question have spent in reproductive isolation.

[/ QUOTE ]

is the problem I am having with your analogy of "race" with "species". I think you're glossing over some major points here. They are qualitatively different ideas in many regards. Are races speciation in progress? Very possibly. Does that equate different races and different species. Absolutely not.
(And different races are not reproductively isolated in species terms - different races can interbreed.)

[ QUOTE ]
So basically my conclusion is that the only difference between separate species and separate races is in their reproductive compatibility (no duh, you say ).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your use of "only" is minimizing the HUGE importance of that fact.
While geographic isolation may play a major role in the formation of species and the formation of races there are much greater differences between the two ideas, even at the conceptual level.

[ QUOTE ]
But this reproductive incompabitibility occurs due to an increase in genetic disparity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure.

[ QUOTE ]
The "amount" of genetic difference is then proportional to the length of time 2 populations spend in reproductive isolation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but that still doesn't equate the ramifications of the genetic difference.

Great points though. I've went from hating this thread to loving it now.

[thelyingthief]

yes, the chinese are much more intelligent than white folks. they invented the light bulb in 2800B.C.


did you know that the chinese had no mathematical systems? none, nada, zilch, zero, blank, and glug.

you take a population as large as the chinese, and then offer them a chance to migrate to a place where they aren't under an oppressive political regime, and voila, all of them with an IQ over 130 figure, time to run! now, ain't that intelligent? especially when they hear, there's free education for em, when they get here.

unfortunately, IQ is only an aspect of over-all intelligence.


and this: what social/racial groups score the highest on IQ tests?


Eskimo, and an Apache Indian tribe in Northern Mexico. so much for IQ.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is an excellent and unbiased summary of all the original research regarding race and IQ. Every statement is fully referenced with many links to the published research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28Average_gaps_among_races% 29


[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't we already go through this recently and we demonstrated your info was terrible?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we didn't. You dismissed it arrogantly without argument. The wikipedia article is just an unbiased summary of the published research in the field. Follow the links and references. Every statement is backed up.

[ QUOTE ]
sigh- We talked about epigenetic factors but you abviously weren't listening.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, we didn't. You said "it's all cultural and nutrition differences" without providing any proof whatsoever. You also failed to explain the fact that East Asians tend to score highly regarldless of poverty, education or childhood nutrition. You're the one claiming there's no genetic element yet you fail to provide any proof whatsoever.

Please keep your arrogant, zero content replies to yourself. I'm a scientist too (not in this field) and your replies are an embarassment to your profession.

[Max Weinberg]

Ashkenazi Jews.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is an excellent and unbiased summary of all the original research regarding race and IQ. Every statement is fully referenced with many links to the published research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28Average_gaps_among_races% 29


[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't we already go through this recently and we demonstrated your info was terrible?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we didn't. You dismissed it arrogantly without argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? I gave you the reasons, references, and people that did the research debunking your statements.

[ QUOTE ]
The wikipedia article is just an unbiased summary of the published research in the field. Follow the links and references. Every statement is backed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the research you misinterpreted? I am an expert on brain evolution. I did my doctorate on it, I teach it, and my research is on it. I currently am funded by the NSF to study the EVOLUTION OF FRIGGIN' BRAIN SIZE!!!!!
So sorry if I sound arrogant when I debunk your politically motivated crap.

[ QUOTE ]
Please keep your arrogant, zero content replies to yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try and be better and stop trolling.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a scientist too

[/ QUOTE ]

You're kidding.

[ QUOTE ]
(not in this field)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I would have thought you were in this field considering your excellent treatment of the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
and your replies are an embarassment to your profession.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oooh, you got me.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's obvious that black people are better at sports. The race is superior phisically.

Most people however contest that they are inferior intellectually.

I have read that they are. But I don't know how reliable are the sources.

One thing I know for sure is that races ARE different, people are NOT equal, and that there are some races that are BETTER at certain things.

i.e. Jews are more intelligent than average

Also, please no that we are talking about STATISTICAL AVERAGES. I dont want any example of a stupid jew or a black bad at sports and genious at math. I know there are LOTS of them.

But if there is any significant statistical proof that blacks have lower IQ than average I wanna know if its true because I hear it a lot.
Thx.

[/ QUOTE ]\

Jews are not a race, nor are they (or the Chinese, who do represent a different race, for that matter) shown to be any more intelligent statistically. The dominance of certain ethnic groups is due to traditions of effort and achievement, not genetics.

[Borodog]

Rduke55,

I don't really have a dog in this fight, since I don't know enough about the subject to have formed an informed opinion, but why did you snip this paragraph:

[ QUOTE ]
No, we didn't. You said "it's all cultural and nutrition differences" without providing any proof whatsoever. You also failed to explain the fact that East Asians tend to score highly regarldless of poverty, education or childhood nutrition. You're the one claiming there's no genetic element yet you fail to provide any proof whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

?

I am NOT trying to take a side; I would just like to hear the answer.

Thanks.

[Rduke55]

OMG! I was addressing the attacks on me.
I glossed over that paragraph and regret that I did. I ABSOLUTELY never said that. Genetics do play a large role. I even said that in the previous thread!!!

I was disputing the race thing that Phil153 said. He's being very shady.

Just goes to show you what kind of guy Phil153 is.

[Phil153]

Rduke,

You have "debunked" nothing. You've simply provided your opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
OMG! I was addressing the attacks on me.
I glossed over that paragraph and regret that I did. I ABSOLUTELY never said that. Genetics do play a large role. I even said that in the previous thread!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, this is quite simple logic. There is a measured difference in intelligence between these three major races, as indicated by a variety of tests and academic results, as well as strong anecdotal evidence. It's widely recognised that this represents an ACTUAL difference in g, and is not just a result of cultural bias in testing.

This difference HAS to be due to one or a combination of the following:

- Genetic differences (either different genes OR different frequencies of various genes)
- Cultural and socioeconomic differences
- Differences in health and nutrition which affect prenatal and childhood brain development.

Considering this, please respond to this paragraph:

[ QUOTE ]
No, we didn't. You said "it's all cultural and nutrition differences" without providing any proof whatsoever. You also failed to explain the fact that East Asians tend to score highly regarldless of poverty, education or childhood nutrition. You're the one claiming there's no genetic element yet you fail to provide any proof whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Rduke55]

Hey Phil,
Like I said, I said there WAS a genetic component to intelligence and the problem is in DEFINING THE RACES.

And besides that, what's your source for that statement because I don't believe it.

And we already discussed the IQ test thing.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...the problem is in DEFINING THE RACES...

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to be too complex a statement to be understood by a lot of posters. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Phil153]

I apologise for misquoting your position then.

I know a lot of research has been done on ethnic groupings but I'm not familiar with it. I also know there are large differences between ethnic groups within a race - sometimes statistically greater than that between races. But for the sake of simplicity, how's this for a definition of "the races" in question:

People whose ancestors lived in Sub-Saharan Africa 2000 years ago.
People whose ancestors lived in Europe 2000 years ago
People whose ancestors lived in East Asia 2000 years ago.

These seem to be the major groups which have been subject to these tests. Most African Americans fit the Sub-Sharan African profile, with a degree of interbreeding with Europeans.

In case you're wondering, I have three reasons for pursuing this issue:

1. Political correctness pisses me off. As does science which seeks to fit a political agenda. Much of the racial repression caused by whites was supported by science that tried to justify racist beliefs while overlooking the true evidence.

2. I believe race based affirmative action is fundamentally wrong. We're spending significant funds educating the less intelligence in our society at the expense of the more intelligent and capable. Recipients of affirmative action simply don't cut it at university. Nor do they go on, as a group, to be successful and productive members of society.

3. The fact that certain races have a lower average intelligence has consequences for their functioning in modern society. It's no coincidence that blacks don't do well in school while asians thrive and latino minorities do quite well. It's also no coincidence that blacks fill U.S. prisons and commit the highest rates of crime:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
[ QUOTE ]
At yearend 2004 there were 3,218 black male sentenced prison inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,220 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 463 white male inmates per 100,000 white males.

[/ QUOTE ]

From other research I found out that the rate of American Asian incarceration is approximately 100 asians/100,000 asian males. Doesn't it seem extremely coincidental to you that incarceration rates follow exactly the results of IQ scores?

I believe this issue needs to be discussed and debated openly by scientists and educators. It's entirely possible that blacks are not less intelligent but instead have a brain that functions differently to a white brain - perhaps less ability for abstraction and greater ability in other areas. Perhaps our education system, built by whites to favor a white brain, is failing them. Who knows. But this issue is so taboo that few capable researchers go near this stuff.

------

edit: you edited your post while I was typing my (long) reply. Regarding my statement, the IQ results by country (referenced in Wikipedia) are fairly striking. There are others available. These results cross cultural and socioeconomic boundaries. The scores of races living in other countries are consistent with those living in their home countries. The only significant differences (0.5 - 2.5 standard deviations) occur between races. I would hope this is obvious?

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]

Like I said, I said there WAS a genetic component to intelligence and the problem is in DEFINING THE RACES.


[/ QUOTE ]
Why does one even need to define the word "race" to address the question of interest? That is, "what are the correlations between physical and mental characteristics among various populations?" This would seem to be very answerable independent of how any individual defines "race." That is, if a person has characteristics A, B, C, and D, how likely is it that they also have characteristic E? Each characteristic may be inherited independently at the genetic level, but that does not imply in any way that there will be no correlations!

Honestly, I am beginning to get the impression that people who study this kind of thing deliberately make things difficult for themselves... Why spend all this time arguing over an abstract definition when you can answer the question directly?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Why spend all this time arguing over an abstract definition when you can answer the question directly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really??? /images/graemlins/smile.gif If there is no agreemnet on the definition, any answer could be proven correct. You are obviously not a thinker, right?

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why spend all this time arguing over an abstract definition when you can answer the question directly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really??? /images/graemlins/smile.gif If there is no agreemnet on the definition, any answer could be proven correct. You are obviously not a thinker, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
You should probably put a little more thought into your posts, before putting them up for all to see. My entire point is that correlations exist INDEPENDENT of the definition of race, which apparently is the source of confusion here.

You can argue all you want that the concept of race is ill-defined, imaginary, or however else you would like to put it (and prove whatever you like about it, given your definition) -- but whatever you do with your definition, it does NOT remove the existence of correlations which may exist in a given population! Thus, "thinkers" who wish to discuss the subject should be able to do so in a well-defined way, regardless of what you, Louis Farrakhan, Adolf Hitler, or anyone else thinks about the definition of "race."

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...Thus, "thinkers" who wish to discuss the subject should be able to do so in a well-defined way,

[/ QUOTE ]

as you say.

[Marko Schmarko]

[ QUOTE ]
[Racial] "groups" are an illusion, there is no basis for it

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are obviously not a thinker, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/4/9/49c767297efef5e7b19e595b605e9628.gif

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Each characteristic may be inherited independently at the genetic level , but that does not imply in any way that there will be no correlations!


[/ QUOTE ]

That's the important statement. Like I said, the genetic variablility in races is enormous.
I agree with the 2nd part. Here's my position: Using ethnic background is a great tool for use in medical fields and for evolutionary research. Many diseases and drugs have different incidences and effects based on family or ethnic history. That said, (man I use that phrase a lot) the problems I'm having with these threads are the fact that 1) "Race" is a continuum - we've discussed this earlier, 2) any given "race" is composed of many different subgroups with wildly different histories and genetic makeup. This is a very important fact for the subject at hand, and 3) The threads on this subject that I've been involved in are talking about research on a very fuzzy and general trait - intelligence - which is very difficult to even define, much less study accurately, and is the product of a lot of genes and environmental factors. Many of these studies have been either debunked or major flaws have been exposed in them in their experimental design, methodology, and/or interpretations.

[ QUOTE ]
Why spend all this time arguing over an abstract definition when you can answer the question directly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because defining it needs to happen before you can answer the question.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
We're spending significant funds educating the less intelligence in our society at the expense of the more intelligent and capable.

[/ QUOTE ]

How Brave New World of you.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why spend all this time arguing over an abstract definition when you can answer the question directly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because defining it needs to happen before you can answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no argument with the main body of your post, but the line quoted above bears on my key point. Time for a thought experiment: Suppose I do some very large and ambitious study correlating IQ (or a related value) to various combinations of genetic traits in a given population of interest (presumably controlling for what ever variables you'd like). The work stands on its own. However, if someone is interested, they might very well take this work and draw up a list of "common sub-saharan african traits" and compare their IQ correlations with "common asian traits" -- or whatever. In principle, this answers a very specific question, without ever having to invoke "race" -- it's merely one way to look at the data which may have utility in some specific context.

And I would guess that the studies that compare IQ by race are actually doing this, to a rough approximation. Perhaps they simply group people by easily identifiable body characteristics -- but there is nothing inherently WRONG with that, unless you try to draw huge, overarching conclusions that aren't actually justified (and perhaps they are doing this -- I don't know).

In any event, I simply tire of the attitude that "nothing can ever be know" about these sorts of questions because nobody can seem to nail down a hard-and-fast definition of "race." This is a very convenient position to take, but it seems very disingenuous to me -- there are plenty of well-defined questions that I can answer without having to produce a single definition of race that will be valid "for the ages."

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose I do some very large and ambitious study correlating IQ (or a related value) to various combinations of genetic traits in a given population of interest (presumably controlling for what ever variables you'd like).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is way more difficult than you seem to make it out to be. Besides the problems with IQ tests in general, you are presumably talking about a population rather than a race and that is a big difference. "common sub-saharan african traits" is still a pretty broad swath of people and "common asian traits" is an even bigger one.

[ QUOTE ]
but there is nothing inherently WRONG with that, unless you try to draw huge, overarching conclusions that aren't actually justified

[/ QUOTE ]

that's my point - they are.

[ QUOTE ]
In any event, I simply tire of the attitude that "nothing can ever be know" about these sorts of questions because nobody can seem to nail down a hard-and-fast definition of "race."

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, as I said before - one of the problems I am having is we're not talking about susceptibility to a disease or the structure of a histocompatability complex here. The trait we are discussing is far too complex to make the statements that have been made.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
OMG! I was addressing the attacks on me.
I glossed over that paragraph and regret that I did. I ABSOLUTELY never said that. Genetics do play a large role. I even said that in the previous thread!!!

I was disputing the race thing that Phil153 said. He's being very shady.

Just goes to show you what kind of guy Phil153 is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this thread speaks volumes to how you defend your positions--and thus shows what kind of guy and/or scientist you are.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OMG! I was addressing the attacks on me.
I glossed over that paragraph and regret that I did. I ABSOLUTELY never said that. Genetics do play a large role. I even said that in the previous thread!!!

I was disputing the race thing that Phil153 said. He's being very shady.

Just goes to show you what kind of guy Phil153 is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this thread speaks volumes to how you defend your positions--and thus shows what kind of guy and/or scientist you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well played, stranger.

Wait, no, that's not it - WTF are you talking about?

And how are you judging my abilities as a scientist?

Christ, a jackass gimmick account on of my favorite writers.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OMG! I was addressing the attacks on me.
I glossed over that paragraph and regret that I did. I ABSOLUTELY never said that. Genetics do play a large role. I even said that in the previous thread!!!

I was disputing the race thing that Phil153 said. He's being very shady.

Just goes to show you what kind of guy Phil153 is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this thread speaks volumes to how you defend your positions--and thus shows what kind of guy and/or scientist you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well played, stranger.

Thank you.

Wait, no, that's not it - WTF are you talking about?

I am talking about refuting Phil through implied smears on his character rather than his arguments.

And how are you judging my abilities as a scientist?

See previous answer.

Christ, a jackass gimmick account on of my favorite writers.

Mencken would probably appreciate the irony.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Taraz]

Two quick points:

Scoring high on an IQ test doesn't mean you are intelligent. You can teach people certain techniques and they do better on IQ tests. Does that make the smarter or just more informed?

There is no way to define a race. Stop trying. Tell me how you know someone is "black". And saying, "their ancestors lived in Africa 2000 years ago" doesn't work because a) you can't trace people's ancestry that far back and b) people considered "black" in this country have such a crazy mixed heritage that I would be shocked if more than 50% of their genes can be traced to strictly African ancestry.

[Jshuttlesworth]

[ QUOTE ]
Two quick points:

Scoring high on an IQ test doesn't mean you are intelligent. You can teach people certain techniques and they do better on IQ tests. Does that make the smarter or just more informed?

There is no way to define a race. Stop trying. Tell me how you know someone is "black". And saying, "their ancestors lived in Africa 2000 years ago" doesn't work because a) you can't trace people's ancestry that far back and b) people considered "black" in this country have such a crazy mixed heritage that I would be shocked if more than 50% of their genes can be traced to strictly African ancestry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am white. You walk up to me and I'm standing next to a man with dark ("black") skin who generally fits into the category "african american" as defined by almost everyone. Are you honestly saying that you can say nothing about the probability that my ancestors lived in Africa 2000 years ago versus the probability that his ancestors lived in Africa 2000 years ago? Just because we don't "know" doesn't mean we can't be very confident.
In regards to (b), ~500 (and that's being very generous I think) of VERY limited inter-breeding does not come close to erasing thousands of years of isolated populations.
Regarding your first point, I suppose if you redefine the word "intelligent", then an IQ test doesn't necesarily reveal anything about a person's intelligence. If you like, replace "inteligence" with "xyz" in every post; it would still be an intersting question for a social scientist.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OMG! I was addressing the attacks on me.
I glossed over that paragraph and regret that I did. I ABSOLUTELY never said that. Genetics do play a large role. I even said that in the previous thread!!!

I was disputing the race thing that Phil153 said. He's being very shady.

Just goes to show you what kind of guy Phil153 is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this thread speaks volumes to how you defend your positions--and thus shows what kind of guy and/or scientist you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well played, stranger.

Thank you.

Wait, no, that's not it - WTF are you talking about?

I am talking about refuting Phil through implied smears on his character rather than his arguments.

And how are you judging my abilities as a scientist?

See previous answer.

Christ, a jackass gimmick account on of my favorite writers.

Mencken would probably appreciate the irony.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Have you even read the threads we're talkign about
2. What irony?
3. Why am I responding to a troll?
4. I should be gettting back to work now.
5. Damn you 2+2!

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Two quick points:

Scoring high on an IQ test doesn't mean you are intelligent. You can teach people certain techniques and they do better on IQ tests. Does that make the smarter or just more informed?

There is no way to define a race. Stop trying. Tell me how you know someone is "black". And saying, "their ancestors lived in Africa 2000 years ago" doesn't work because a) you can't trace people's ancestry that far back and b) people considered "black" in this country have such a crazy mixed heritage that I would be shocked if more than 50% of their genes can be traced to strictly African ancestry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am white. You walk up to me and I'm standing next to a man with dark ("black") skin who generally fits into the category "african american" as defined by almost everyone. Are you honestly saying that you can say nothing about the probability that my ancestors lived in Africa 2000 years ago versus the probability that his ancestors lived in Africa 2000 years ago? Just because we don't "know" doesn't mean we can't be very confident.
In regards to (b), ~500 (and that's being very generous I think) of VERY limited inter-breeding does not come close to erasing thousands of years of isolated populations.
Regarding your first point, I suppose if you redefine the word "intelligent", then an IQ test doesn't necesarily reveal anything about a person's intelligence. If you like, replace "inteligence" with "xyz" in every post; it would still be an intersting question for a social scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Things like "generally fit", "as defined by almost everyone", and several of the other phrases don't really fly in science.

Your response to "b" is refuted by a lot of the scientific literature.

[sirio11]

Rduke55,

I really appreciate your posts in this thread. I must thank also the light bigots over here, who even with their ridiculous arguments and a disingenuous appeal to science have made possible for me to read some of your statements.

David

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Rduke55,

I really appreciate your posts in this thread. I must thank also the light bigots over here, who even with their ridiculous arguments and a disingenuous appeal to science have made possible for me to read some of your statements.

David

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. It was getting lonely at the end of this thread.

[Max Weinberg]

[ QUOTE ]
And saying, "their ancestors lived in Africa 2000 years ago" doesn't work because a) you can't trace people's ancestry that far back

[/ QUOTE ]
You actually can trace ancestry much further than that, except that if you do, you find that we're all technically black thanks to African Eve climbing out of the trees and sending little missing links all over the world.

[Good Idea]

would it be safe to assume that you are poor?

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Suppose I do some very large and ambitious study correlating IQ (or a related value) to various combinations of genetic traits in a given population of interest (presumably controlling for what ever variables you'd like).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is way more difficult than you seem to make it out to be.


[/ QUOTE ]
My only point is that it's a well-defined project. It may take a lot of effort, but I'm not concerned about that.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides the problems with IQ tests in general, you are presumably talking about a population rather than a race and that is a big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the whole point. Correlations in a population are something that we can all agree upon. It may have no general meaning beyond that population, but it may still give us a general picture of what is going on.

[ QUOTE ]
"common sub-saharan african traits" is still a pretty broad swath of people and "common asian traits" is an even bigger one.

[/ QUOTE ]
This latter part is to some extent arbitrary (but still legitimate -- it is only correlations). However, that will not keep a person from noticing a general trend in the data that the more "African" a group begins to look, the more their IQ scores might begin to differ from a more "Asian-looking" group (for example).

[Taraz]

I have a question for those who think that black people are genetically less intelligent. How mixed would one have to be to avoid being cursed by the supposed black stupidity? Is it the one drop rule or what?

By the way, I also appreciate all the posts Rduke has made in this thread. You argue the point far more eloquently than I could hope to.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question for those who think that black people are genetically less intelligent. How mixed would one have to be to avoid being cursed by the supposed black stupidity? Is it the one drop rule or what?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily buy into every study done, but I do get the distinct impression that there is probably a correlation (just by taking an honest look at civilizations around the world and history) between certain physical "racial" traits and some measure of intelligence. However, the point is that any such correlations are statistical -- there are some "very black" geniuses that are in no way cursed. It may also be true that a certain level of inter-racial breeding improves IQ. The interplay and teasing apart of all these effects is something that no one fully understands, I'm sure.

[MidGe]

Hiya Metric,

[ QUOTE ]
between certain physical "racial" traits

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing except in your cultural conditionning. Not all people are racially conscious (sic).



[ QUOTE ]
The interplay and teasing apart of all these effects is something that no one fully understands, I'm sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. It has happened for millenias.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Hiya Metric,

[ QUOTE ]
between certain physical "racial" traits

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing except in your cultural conditionning. Not all people are racially conscious (sic).

[/ QUOTE ]
Nevertheless, I am fairly certain that I could write down a list of physical characteristics that would be correlated with lower IQ scores in the population of, say, southern California. They would be things interpreted as "racial characteristics" by people who are "racially conscious." To someone who is not racially conscious, they might simply wonder how I could pull such a list of "random physical characteristics" out of the air that would be correlated to lower IQ scores like that. Whether you disagree or not with whole concept of race is irrelevant -- we would still have to agree on any correlation (or lack thereof).

[MadTiger]

I have a genius IQ, and I am not "cursed." No, wait, I am cursed, by having to suffer the insecure mediocrity of the Rush Limbaughs, David Dukes, etc. of the world.

[MadTiger]

I want to help you get your second and third asterisk.

Continue on this line of trolling, etc., and on the times I am not occupied with learning from the other forums, I'll come down and spew with you.

BTW, who are more likely to be serial killers and child molestors?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to help you get your second and third asterisk.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, but they only give them out in OOT. And this particular topic was started by David Sklansky himself a while back (though he stayed completely clear of the discussion) so I'll assume it's Kosher until told otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
Continue on this line of trolling, etc.,

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't been trolling. I made one troll post in this thread (apart from this one). I'm no longer posting here because RDuke HAS made multiple troll posts (count them) and clearly has no interest in discussing the issues rationally and calmly. His narcissistic and evasive responses are not worth my time.

[ QUOTE ]
I have a genius IQ, and I am not "cursed."....BTW, who are more likely to be serial killers and child molestors? .

[/ QUOTE ]
This is another reason I'm no longer discussing this issue. Unfortunately people take things personally and can't separate the discussion from its possible implications.