Race and IQ: A Suppressed Discussion

[up_64]

I'll start by saying something that those of you who have have seen me around will already know. I do not pull my punches and I'm not planning on sugarcoating for the sake of being more politically correct. That said let's get on with the subject at hand.

So I'm sure you've heard it a thousand times if you were born in the last 30 years or so, from your parents, from your teachers and from everybody else "we're all the same no matter our skin color" or "it doesn't matter where you come from, we are all equal". We have had this ingrained into our brains form a young age to the point where we don't even question it, or, to be totally honest, to the point where questioning it is frowned upon. If there is one thing history has taught us it's that when a society doesn't even allow for the questioning of an idea there is a serious problem.

Despite this, it's accepted and understood that in most sports black people are physically superior especially those involving some form of running. And, it's good that we can talk about that openly and it makes a lot of sense if you look into the science of the matter.

Now onto a slightly more controversial but still talked about subject, the dominance of Asians in exams, especially those related to mathematical ability. Many people brush this of by saying that this is just a result of the upbringing of Asian kids and the pressure to meet expectations that is so great it leads many a young person to suicide. This is true, but it's far from the whole story. Various studies have shown that even at an early age the average IQ of a Chinese or Japanese kid surpasses that of kids of other races by a considerable margin.

So if we take the research to be valid we are left with no other option but to admit that there is differences in IQ among the races. But that is not the end of the conversation by any means because it’s still leaves the most important question unanswered, if there really is a difference in IQ between races, why does this difference exist?

At this point you’ll probably get two groups pop-up and answer, neither of which hold the entirety of the truth. First you’ll get the neo-nazis come and tell you that “black people are mentally retarded because they're black and that’s all there is to it." Then the the people who think that all races are equal will come and tell you “it’s all due to the difference in food intake across the globe” rightly pointing out that the places with the lowest IQ are also places where malnutrition has been rampant for years.

When closely examined, the first idea falls apart pretty quickly. After all, skin color has no relation to the brain so it can’t be due to color. The second one takes a bit more thinking to find it’s flaws. After all, Central America had much more food than Russia yet when it was discovered by europeans in the 15th century it was grossly underdeveloped and couldn't even oppose the invaders which it outnumbered by ridiculous amounts, even with it’s knowledge of the terrain. If color and and food aren’t the answer, what is? From here on things get fuzzy, but, to make it that bit easier to understand let's go back, in fact, to make a funny reference, let's go back to black.

So let's situate ourselves, we are in the year 100000 b.c, and unless all paleontologists are compulsive liars, we as a species haven’t moved from Africa yet. I must also mention that we are still black, this may not seem important but it will be very relevant later. Somewhere between 100000 bc and 50000 bc a group or various groups of homo sapiens decide they are tired of getting eaten by lions, and this is where are species have its first big split. With some staying in Africa and others leaving.

Now despite Spain being the nearest land it is not the first to be visited, this may have something to do with the fact there was 20 km of water separating it from Africa. For whatever the reasons, humans decide to ignore Europe for a couple of thousands of years and decide instead to settle along the Asian coast and to also migrate to oceania. And this is where homo sapiens first meet other more archaic “humans”, of which the neanderthals are the most primitive. Now many people believe the homo sapiens and neanderthals mated, but since it hasn’t been proven, I'm not going to take that into account.

So a couple of thousand years go by and humans finally decide to occupy Europe and subsequently America (crossing from Russia to Alaska). Now most studies conclude that Europeans and Asians are still black at this point. But through a process of natural selection and changes in DNA caused by the change in diet, we arrive at the ancestors of the present day Europeans. A similar process occurred in eastern Asia, Southern Asia and America leading to the different races we see today.

Now that I am done oversimplifying history, I ask you, if dogs have become so different from one another in both physical, mental and behavioral traits, why is it so hard to accept that the same may have happened in our species? After all, superior or not we are still animals and are not magically exempt from natural selection. Taking a deeper look, you’ll find that it makes sense that these different humans may have developed diverging characteristics since it was probably the more adventurous, more risk taking humans who were the ones to risk it all in search of something better.

The idea of race and IQ being related is not an idea meant to spark racism and, in fact I think, that if given the same access to food, fertile environments and less harsh climates these, the humans who stayed in Africa, would have evolved to the same level as the rest of humans.

Some people would refute all I have just said by claiming that if you take a newborn from a country such as Gabon (average IQ of 65) and raise them the exact same way as Chinese kids. But this is proven to be false by scientists, who have found that 50% to 80% of IQ is hereditary.

As a final, I would like to say that this is just a theory, although I have sourced my information to the best of my capabilities I cannot guarantee it’s veracity. My main interest is just to get a conversation going. I'd also like to say that as the son of a lazy fat black dude and an athletic white mother, stereotypes should not be universally applied. Anyways leave your opinion, counter arguments, suggestions for myTakes, etc.. down below.

Thanks for taking the time to read this myTake.

Sources:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations

https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

#Race

#Science

[curiousnorway]

IQ and other types of intelligence is more of an environmentally thing than racially one. Both geography, climate, nutritious and the political situation can affect it. People learns different things because they don't need to know the same things to survive. They don't need the same technology either. If you lives in a tribe in the forest, knowing how to hunt is more important than analyzing poetry and learning how to drive a car.

Why Nordic countries have more advanced technology than tropical ones is because the climate required it. If people didn't want to freeze to death, they had to invent better houses and clothing. People in the tropical climates didn't need these things and therefor some of their technology is more primitive. It's not about intelligence, but more about necessities to survive. Many people in tropical countries are darker skinned than those one in the Nordic. The evolutionary reason behind that is to protect them from the sun.

Humans are capable to adapt themselves. So if you took an infant from a tropical tribe and let some Nordic raise it, it would be like everyone else in that country when it comes to language, mannerism, culture and how well they're doing it in school. There would always be someone who do it worse and others who do it better than that person because of personality differences. That person wouldn't be less intelligent - but just live a different lifestyle.

So you can raise an African infant like a typically Nordic, Asian or American person - and the person wouldn't stand that much out if we looks away from the appearance. A Nordic person would be like an African tribe man if they was raised there since childhood. Adoption have shown several times that young children are able to adapt.

When it comes to illiteracy - it's usually caused by a combination of poverty and war. People don't get an education because they're busy in the war and can't afford books, teachers etc. Some are too busy being a refugee too. Illiteracy affects how you're doing it in the future both academically and in some jobs. It's an environmentally and politically issue, not a racial one.

[Zahraxx]

well put.

[curiousnorway]

@Zahraxx, thanks.

[up_64]

Yes. I do see that being the case. What i meant is as it was almost all whites in such zone and almost all blacks in the other the differencd created by livibg ib different places affected diffrent races

[viginian]

You took a leap from "cold climates need tech" to "not racial." Germanics didn't decide to be white, and they didn't decide to be smart. We know from twin studies that raising one black child in a white suburban household doesn't increase their IQ over their twin.

[cutegirlsfeedsatan]

the thing with climate is shit

[jacquesvol]

@viginian

[ForbesMagazine]

"is more of an environmentally thing"
This is wrong!

The heritability of IQ for adults is between 57% and 73%[6] with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%[7] and 86%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Other studies have estimated that the heritability is as high as 80 percent in adulthood, although it may decline in old age.
en.wikipedia.org/.../G_factor_(psychometrics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_amplification

[OlderAndWiser]

Very bold to initiate this discussion. Say that black men have bigger penises than white men and most everyone agrees, non-blacks are envious, but no one calls you racist. Say that black men are generally more athletic than white men and most everyone agrees, non-blacks are envious, but no one calls you racist. Say that white people are more intelligent and a world of shit will rain down on you, a pox on your house, you are a racist, and you definitely don't get invited to any liberal parties. The sub-cortical reactions to this concept are outstanding!

Logically, the races are different and each should have different areas on which it excels, but suggest that Caucasians are better at anything and the nuclear missiles are aimed in your direction.

Liberalism promotes itself as encouraging of independent thought and creativity but you dare not express this idea on a college campus!

[SirRexington]

I was on board until you blamed liberals. Like are naturally artistic and open minded people. You are referring to SJWs, liberals do not like SJWs because of that very reason, they get lumped in with the rest of us.

[OlderAndWiser]

@SirRexington I have never met a conservative SJW.

[OlderAndWiser]

. . . but I will certainly concede that not all liberals are SJW's.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Other_Tommy_Wiseau Triggered.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

not really... i dumb opinions kinda annoy me... it's fucking 2018 and we're still talking about stupid shit that you can easily learn about on your own. to me, it's the same as debating whether fire will burn your face.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Other_Tommy_Wiseau Someone forcing you to hang out here?

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

no? trust me, this site isn't something to write home about. i left for months and didn't think about it for a hot minute... and yet see you haven't slowed down. might as well ask you the same thing...

[OlderAndWiser]

@Other_Tommy_Wiseau I'm not the one complaining.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

clearly you are... you literally blamed liberalism :D :D :D :D

[OlderAndWiser]

@Other_Tommy_Wiseau I am not complaining about how people use this site.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

i'm not complaining... hey, don't blame me for y'all writing dumb shit and i call you out on it, don't like it? don't say something really stupid. seems like a fair trade...

[OlderAndWiser]

@Other_Tommy_Wiseau This is exactly the kind of response I predicted. Racial differences are fine as long as you are on the favorable side of the comparison.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

doesn't make any sense, but sure... i mean, you if you think that, sure... i realized i can't fix stupid

[OlderAndWiser]

@Other_Tommy_Wiseau Name calling. You just lost respect from me.

[SirRexington]

@OlderAndWiser

I wasn't saying conservatives share the beliefs as SJWs. I was saying they were the first and continue to act in the same manner as SJW's do, only over different topics.

[SirRexington]

Or more specifically trigger words.

Say the word gender, socialism, equality, gun, women, black, white... Anything at all critical of Donald Trump and they go into a frenzy.

Just say Venezuela in a chatroom or forum and watch them swarm like sharks.

[Rissyanne]

@Other_Tommy_Wiseau name calling typical liberal

[Zahraxx]

Though there are socioeconomic, cultural, and other factors, some races do tend to have higher average iq than others, I think genealogy may play a role due to a phenomenon called transgenerational lifestyle inheritance in genetics which states that the lifestyles and their effect of parents can be passed down genetically to succeeding generations. For instance, if the parents and grandparents of a person lived a lifestyle in which they did not have to use intellect and rather strength, this will be reflected in the grandchild, who can possibly be born stronger yet less intelligent. A positive correlation has been shown between these things, and I find it very interesting.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Is that related to epigenetics? Or is this something else?

[Zahraxx]

I can't say iq is directly passed on because my parents barely went to school yet my siblings and I strive for physical doctorates in the sciences. There a trend with uneducated immigrant parents with highly intelligent children, but it always depends on racefrom what I have noticed. Caucasian + South and east Asian children tend to have the highest test scores and overall intelligence from what I and many other people have seen but in most cases, the parents do not possess similar traits. There are, of course, outliers from all races who excell and are intelligent, (not to exclude them).

[Zahraxx]

Is***

[Zahraxx]

@hellionthesagereborn totally, it is related to epigenetics specifically mutagenesis resulting from lifestyle

[curiousnorway]

Why some races tends to do it better than others is because of geographically, culturally, politically and other environmentally reasons. People in tropical countries, e. g. some African countries have more primitive technology. Not because of them being less intelligent than everyone else, but simply because they don't need very advanced technology to survive in that climate. They also tends to be dark skinned because the melanin protects them from the sun. Europeans got lighter skin gradually due evolutionary reasons - after many generations. If you suddenly moved an African to Europe; especially at a young age, they would quickly adapt to everyone else there both language, culturally and academically wise etc. Then it wouldn't be a big difference between them and the other ones. Adoption has shown several times that adoptee aren't more or less intelligent than others on the place they moved to.

[Zahraxx]

@curiousnorway that puts everything into perspective, very well said.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Fascinating. I was actually suggesting that it was probably related at least partially to epigenetics myself as data shows an overall increase in IQ in all groups in the US over the course of only about thirty years (if memory serves) which is far to quick for genetic mutations to occur but fully within the range of epigenetic changes. Also I can state that my mother is, well not exactly "academic" to put it mildly but my great grandmother was and I would consider myself to be as well (though unfortunately I'm purely self taught) which would match what your saying as well. I gather your studying biology (taking advanced courses I mean? You know quite a bit for your age (more then I do I suspect)?)

[curiousnorway]

Some people struggles more academically because of illiteracy which is caused by lack of properly education. Several factors on why they didn't get the access on the education is poverty, expensive schools, wars and so on. If they got properly education, they would do it better. It's easier to learn to learn, to reflect, to questioning things and get information if you can read. Superstition would also get away when they gets better access to it. Poverty can be caused by nature catastrophes, war, colonization, bad trading deals and bad climate. Too much or too little water can make farming difficult.

[Zahraxx]

@hellionthesagereborn yeah i'm really passionate about biology, i am taking an ap biology couse, hence my knowledge. I'm looking to go into genetic engineering but i do love the topic of heredity.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@curiousnorway Not suggesting environmental factors do not have an impact, however we do see a trend within certain groups that even when provided these things they score lower. As I said I think its a complicated question and their are multiple factors, but I think its unfair to every one to ignore innate factors just because we don't like them. For instance in the US we have universities that will prioritize minorities (except Asians who are, in the universities words, "Over represented", who are actually discriminated against as are whites when it comes to acceptance into colleges (for quota purposes) in order to give them these opportunities. The problem is their drop out rates are far higher. The reason is because you have some one who is intelligent and capable but are fast tracked into a school where they are not up to the level of their fellow students, for instance going from a good midrange university to suddenly being at the most prestigious of schools is going to have

[Zahraxx]

@curiousnorway i agree, in a lot of countries, people need to put their effort into farming, surviving, other priorites, etc and aren't able to show full potential intellectually

[hellionthesagereborn]

@curiousnorway a negative impact because its like being on a minor league team and then suddenly being forced to compete against Olympic level athletes. So some one who is good and could create a good life for themselves and do good things is now being forced to compete with the best of the best and finding that they cannot so they become discouraged (understandably, your going from being an A student to maybe a C or B student which isn't bad but compatatively it makes you feel significantly inferior) and then you stop trying. That's what we see within certain minority groups so what ends up happening is that they end up loosing out on that mid-high end career because we ignored their actual ability. Now obviously I am not saying that you should judge an individual based upon their group, that is a terrible idea, but acknowledging GOOD scientific data that suggests differences would be very beneficial because then we don't have that push to force them into areas that they are simply

[hellionthesagereborn]

@curiousnorway not going to succeed at. That by the way isn't just directed at other groups but should be the rule in general. Not all of us are built for the same things. I am very good at many things, I was studying theology, mythology, folk lore and the occult as well as anthropology and the sciences when I was in grade school. I was reading at a college level in grade school. Does that mean I should assume that I can be an engineer? God NO! I am terrible at math, I struggled with it and still struggle with it to this day. The fact is we all have limitations, the key is admitting them and then working around them. Their is a guy named Mike Rowe, he used to do a show called Dirty Jobs. Basically what he said was that you shouldn't follow your passion, the reason is just because your passionate about it doesn't mean your not going to suck at it. He himself wanted to be a craftsman like his grandfather but eventually realized he just couldn't do it so instead of persuing something he

[hellionthesagereborn]

@curiousnorway was just going to fail at so he was given the advice to "find another tool box", namely realize his short comings so that he could find what he WAS good at and go from their. I think that is one of best bits of advice I have heard, we need to be honest with ourselves on an individual level but also on the broader level and admit that we are not all the same and that's neither bad nor good its just what it is and go from their. Sorry I kind of rambled their a bit, hope it wasn't that confusing (I need to sleep, my brain is not working as well as I would like right now).

[hellionthesagereborn]

Wow, that's a complicated subject but it is fascinating. I try to keep as up to date on my science as I can, never really got to study genetics in depth though (the most recent discussion I have heard has been about whether or not "junk" DNA is actually junk or not (its really bizarre as usually we do not create anything that is dead weight because it costs energy but they cannot figure out what the hell the overwhelming majority of our DNA even does. Just bizarre.). Well good luck with it, science is an amazing subject to study.

[Zahraxx]

@hellionthesagereborn 😂😂 you just explained my biggest fear, which is being held back from my dream because of the fact that i don't have what it takes. I am terrible at math too, it takes a lot of time for me to process and i have thousands of questions whenever something new arises but I'm still above average and I'm pretty sure i won't be able to do graduate level math and I'm pretty sure i won't be able to do biophysics, which is a required course for the genetic engineering degree i am seeking. I like to think everything is going to turn out how i think but i know im just going to end up as a high school bio teacher with a bachelors or something.

[hellionthesagereborn]

I'm sorry. I know its terrible to hear (I've heard it too. The part that sucks about it is that its hard to figure out whether or not the criticism is legitimate and your terrible at what it is you love or they are the ones that are wrong), but some times that is the case. I think the reason why I am so bad at math is because they teach it like crap. I mean they basically just told me to do a bunch of things, for no reason to get a random number that means absolutely nothing, then use that random number to do a random equation, that also means absolutely nothing, to solve for X. . . which also is utterly meaningless to me. Then they tell you you have to divide by r - 1. Why? It doesn't matter your just suppose to do it. Its really unintuitive, drives me crazy and is in my opinion rather tediously boring. Of course that was before finding out all the crazy mathematical problems out their (like how if you have infinity and you divide it in half you have infinity.)

[hellionthesagereborn]

But anyway, back to your statement. That is the hardest part is figuring out whether or not you have what it takes, some times we just need to grit our teeth and push through and some times we need to accept our limitations. However you also don't get anywhere by accepting your limitations because most of the time your limitations are imaginary. And that's the dilemma, do you fail because you didn't have what it takes or because you didn't try hard enough? How do you know? My only recommendation is that you try as hard as you can, get tutors etc. I have heard from several people that they where never math people until they started doing higher level math and then that's when things clicked (again, I think its because you start finding out WHY it works the way it does), so keep plugging away because that way if you do fail you at least fail knowing you where fighting for something you really wanted which is better then knowing you failed because you didn't try at all.

[hellionthesagereborn]

but I don't think your going to have that issue, you gave a good answer and I'd like to think I'm pretty good at judging a persons abilities. I'm fairly confident if you buckle down and give it all you got you'll be able to make it. And if not well, my highschool science teacher was the only teacher I had that not only inspired me but actually made it so fascinating that I actually completed every single home work assignment (no other teacher made me care enough to try to do that). Granted he did that by having a student break a brick on him while laying on a bed of nails for the first day of school, but still, it was inspiring none the less. So either way, you can take your talents and apply them to great affect if you can just figure out what those skills are (and I think you already have.).

[dipta]

Would just like to point out that, just because someone is "uneducated", it doesn't mean that they're stupid.
That's like saying that everyone who holds a master degree or a PhD has a very high IQ; not really true.

I'm convinced that IQ and intelligence may be influenced by environmental circumstances, but it is an innate skill, genetic.
I've also read a recent study where it was found that the "intelligence gene" is actually found in the XX chromosome and is therefore mostly passed down by the mother. I wish I could find that link.
It's also been discussed many times that the child's ability of speaking well his own native language -which will affect everything that the children learn from there on, how they process thoughts, how they are taught to handle their own feelings, etc. - is directly related to his early education at home and not at school, i. e. once again traditionally very dependent on the mother's ability. Even the baby's diet usually is.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@dipta Who state that uneducated equals stupid? Of course that is not the case, many intellectuals through out history where "uneducated", Michael Faraday who pretty much created modern science with his work with electricity, magnets and the beginings of particle phyics was uneducated. In fact we have surveys done that have shown a drop in intellectual ability in people who have gone to colleges currently. I've never completed college, doesn't mean I am stupid by any stretch. I think this could be an issue of what you mean by uneducated, that can mean no formal schooling as you are using it or it could mean no attempt to educate themselves, those are two different things. As for it being genetic, again, we see an increase in IQ that is faster then can be explained by genetics (hence the conclusion of epigenetics). Though obviously if you have data/sources I think we would all be interested in seeing it (again, this is an interesting subject).

[dipta]

@hellionthesagereborn my comment was in reply to something that Zahraxx said previously: "I can't say iq is directly passed on because my parents barely went to school yet my siblings and I strive for physical doctorates in the sciences."
So I meant uneducated as in not having a degree or high education.

You mentioned the rapid increase of IQ. Have you come accross the recent study that suggests that IQ has actually been dropping in the last couple of decades?
www.sciencealert.com/iq-scores-falling-in-worrying-reversal-20th-century-intelligence-boom-flynn-effect-intelligence

Now they're trying to justify the results with the test's format being outdated, but I've no doubt that in general people more and more avoid using their own discernment to make decisions and thinking about solutions.

[dipta]

@hellionthesagereborn
I found this paragraph interesting:
"the researchers observed IQ drops occurring within actual families, between brothers and sons – meaning the effect likely isn't due to shifting demographic factors (...) Instead, it suggests changes in lifestyle could be what's behind these lower IQs, perhaps due to the way children are educated, the way they're brought up, and the things they spend time doing more and less (the types of play they engage in, whether they read books, and so on)."

I will try to find the article where it was mentioned that intelligence is connected to the X chromosome.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@dipta I've heard about the claim but I don't know much about the actual data. I can say that we have seen a drop in abilities in College students, but that data shows its directedly correlated with the schools not an over all drop (freshmen students know more going into the college then they do after graduating). However if what is being claimed is true (I would have to look at the abstract and methodology of the study first (just because its a scientific study doesn't mean its accurate (in fact that is a huge problem now a days, scientific journals seem to be willing to publish just about anything with little peer review)) that would further support the idea that its not genetic but rather epigenetic or something similar as again, this would be a rapid change to much for genetics to account for (and we have other data showing it cannot be entirely environmental).

[hellionthesagereborn]

@dipta As for the X chromosome I would be curious as to the article that mentioned it as data shows a greater variability in intelligence with men then with women, that is to say we have more male idiots but we also have more male geniuses as well (men have a wider distribution of intelligence while women tend to be much more consistently average with intellect) so that would suggest that it could not be linked with the X chromosome at least entirely as with women having two X chromosomes it would, I would imagine keep female intelligence consistent (which we do see) but would not explain the male variability towards the upper end as it would mean we would see far more female geniuses (which we definitely don't see, as again, women are far more likely to be within the average range of intelligence while men will be all over the place).

[dipta]

@hellionthesagereborn indeed, I read that the increase of IQ in the last century was directly related to a great improvement in nutrition and overall life quality. Likewise, the drop in IQ seems to be mainly related to the crappy diets and increasingly stressful lifestyles people lead.

That seems to suggest that the "potential" hasn't changed that drastically, at least not in just a few generations.
I suppose that intelligence, as every other innate gift, also has to be polished, nurtured and taken care of in order to florish, otherwise it will go to waste.

[dipta]

@hellionthesagereborn you can find one of those articles here
www.independent.co.uk/.../...s-genes-a7345596.html

But of course you would be able to find others articles debunking what's written there. It's a controversial issue.

It seems that the X chromosome theory doesn't suggest that females are smarter than males, just that they're mainly the ones passing on the intelligent traits to the offspring. For instance, the probability of an intelligent female having an intelligent chid would be very high, regardless of how intelligent the father was. However, the father's intelligence would more likely be lost and not passed on if he impregnates a not so smart female.
Of course, ideally both parents being smart would make for very intelligent babies, so it's not like the male doesn't pass on anything.

But, as mentioned before, innate intelligence only accounts for like 50%...

[hellionthesagereborn]

@dipta Well their are many factors for intelligence, after all your brain builds neural networks and if you do not have the energy or if you do not push your brain to do so (like muscle) they will not develop. I was curious about the X chromosome not because it would mean women would be smarter but because with two copies women have a lower chance to develop issues, for example color blindness is almost always found in men because all it takes is one gene inherited on the X chromosome for them to get it but for women it requires that both copies of the X chromosome carry that gene. So that would explain consistency among women perhaps but it wouldn't really account for variability of men's intelligence. That's the part that I question. Though intelligence is quite complicated.

[Jager66]

@hellionthesagereborn Racial differences in intelligence are still present, with the same values, even after adjusting for environmental factors.

[SarahsSummer]

While there is some consensus about how to define intelligence, it isn’t universally accepted that it’s something that can be unequivocally measured by a single figure. Different societies value and promote different kinds of skills and that the concept of intelligence is therefore culturally variable and cannot be measured by the same criteria in different societies.

[Bananaman177]

Wow, perfect answer! It's like you recited it right out of the textbook, Sarah!

[SarahsSummer]

@Bananaman177 thanks. One of my hobbies is writing textbooks.

[SarahsSummer]

And two down votes. We must have some racists ogling my work.

[up_64]

Why racists. Most peopke here are white and what i said would put the chinese and japanese on top of whites. Call them something else. Calling someone a racist for no reason discredits the word

[SarahsSummer]

Now who is making assumptions?
Those who downvoted me can chime in to give their reasons, until then, I can only know they disagree with my stance that the intelligence testing system is faulty when it comes to differing cultures. their only reason to down vote me is that they believe testing is accurate and one or more races are superior regardless of the testing methods.

[cykasenpai]

@SarahSummer Well, if you distribute the exact same IQ-test (with spatial knowledge and quickness of mind measured, etc) then how isn't that testing IQ?

Your response here says pretty much nothing - you need to describe the details of what you mean when you say "concept of intelligence". The devil is in the details, as always.

[SarahsSummer]

@cykasenpai you’ve obviously missed my point to make that statement. There are a plethora of studies regarding IQ and intelligence. If you really want the details, 1000 word comment here by me won’t even scratch the surface. Suffice to say There are too many variables to affect results from “the exact same IQ test”. These variables can range from cultural to stereotype threat, (the fear that one's behavior will confirm an existing stereotype of a group with which one identifies or by which one is defined; this fear may in turn lead to an impairment of performance) to health and nutution. For example, iodine deficiency causes a fall, on average, of 12 IQ points. If you really want to know all the variables and variances of IQ and intelligence just do a cursory search on the subject in Google.

[cykasenpai]

You can cook up a million reasons why IQ-tests are inaccurate. The crucial problem is to quantify how much they actually contribute.

And also the example with iodine - well, you test people in their natural habit. By testing multiple people anomalies such as that will dissipate. You would also have to show that one race has a higher amount of iodine deficiencies than another, on a chronic basic, in order to really use that as an objection. (If it's equal on both sides, it doesn't matter).

[CoffeeWC]

I agree with you 100% here. I love this take. You speak raw truth

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

there is no correlation to race and intelligence, it's not even debatable...

1st intelligence is measured over a lot of different media. 9 accepted standards, to be exact

2nd, iq doesn't measure how smart you are. it measures your capacity to figure out patterns. if anyone has taken an iq test, they learn that real quick

3rd, anyone who has taken an iq test knows that iq measure scores relative to age. it's not static. iq scores are extremely variable when a child is young, but generally decrease with age. that's why i found it funny when there was a news story about a 5 year old with a 175 iq a couple years ago

4th, iq tests are very environment dependent. if you aren't exposed to certain things, it would alter the scores of the test. it's been proven that that's the case. people within the same area and socioeconomic backgrounds have significantly more concentrated iq scores than iq scores based on race

point E, again, iq doesn't even measure intelligence. i say this again, because a high iq doesn't mean you're smart or you necessarily know a lot. you can be stupid as shit and have a high iq because you have a high capacity to see patterns. you can also be considered intelligent because you know a lot, but if that is because you're good at memorizing things, then an iq test won't reflect that because a lot of the test isn't about whether or not you can memorize a textbook for a test. it doesn't say how fast you can learn french or how quickly you can grasp string theory

6th, most forms of intelligence don't actually test intelligence. for instance, i was a b/c student. not because i couldn't get stuff, but because i didn't care that much (nor did i study... ever) nor did busting my ass for an a really motivate me. fastforward to my job now and i'm killing it and the engineers (who everyone on internet thinks are the smartest people on the planet) are constantly fucking up and i'm 1 of the ones who are telling them why they fucked up, which is fucking me and everyone else over... and are all asian/indian

very few people, i think, are actually intelligent. don't get me wrong, they are out there and i've met a fair share of people who are very bright. but what i've noticed is that most people think that some people are intelligent, when it's really just that person has a bit of common sense and not a fucking idiot

the fact that i'm even writing this out and wasted way too much time on something this stupid baffles me... it's fucking 2018 :/

[malegender]

"Its' not even debatable", sounds like a liberal arguing point to me. No way average intelligence is the same between races, no other trait is exactly the same, why would intelligence be exactly the same?

[VIVANT]

@malegender

Stop calling everything liberal
... that’s not an arguing point.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

@malegender congrats, you’re fucking dipshit... like @VIVANT said, just because your butthurt candy ass doesn’t agree doesn’t mean something is liberal... that just means you don’t agree and are an idiot, which isn’t my problem. For starters, I don’t give 5 fucks about politics unlike your bitch ass 🙄 On top of that, you don’t even have a point as to why you’re wrong. Congrats, you played yourself... now hush mode, nigga. Hush mode 🤫

[malegender]

that's a very liberal rant right there if I ever saw one. No facts or counterpoints, didn't address my point at all, classically liberal approach. Right from the liberal textbook I'd say.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

@malegender you didn’t have a point... the irony is real with you... stupid is as stupid does

[malegender]

the point was, if no other characteristic, like skin color, hair color, propensity for disease, avg weight, height, testosterone level, bone density, facial features are the same, it would seem impossible that average intelligence was the same. But i already said this and you failed to comprehend it. Now go on a liberal rant

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

@malegender that’s not a point... just saying “no way average intelligence is the same between races, no other trait is exactly the same” isn’t a point. That’s a statement. You have provided no evidence or counterpoints otherwise. Me saying “there’s no way the sun is hot” isn’t a point. That’s a statement. The fact that you don’t understand concepts of how examples, counterpoints and evidence work, and your lack of ability to put a cohesive argument isn’t my goddamn poroblem...

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

@malegender sorry. Let’s rephrase that last sentence... it’s not my goddamn problem other than you annoying me for no reason right now

[BeMuse]

I didn’t read your take, but I’d assume environmental variables and culture play a large role. If you’re black and poor in America either you're slinging crack rock or you got a wicked jump shot if you want to make it. Based on black culture and lack of concern for their children and community different priorities are in place. Little black kids are trying to be the next running back or next great boxer from like 4 years old so they blow off education for one chance in a million. The ones that make it become great athletes and the millions of others that don’t make it flip buggers. They don’t dominate professional sports because they are genetically better, they do it because white kids are trained to treat sports as an unnecessary hobby that will stop if your grades aren’t in shape. While a lot of black kids are trained that they need to put everything into 1 sport and everything rides on their success. So the people that make it to the top are super conditioned and trained giving them the experience and expertise they need to excel at that level of play.

In white families from the moment you’re born parents focus on education and it’s expected that you will not only graduate from high school on time and do so with a good GPA, but that you will go on to college, and likely get a graduate degree. So culturally you are trained to become more knowledgeable, to practice entrance exams, to build your vocabulary, to learn mathematics, etc. Your parents take you to science museums and things like that which influence you to excel in STEM fields. From a young age you are often exposed to creative activities like art classes and music lessons. You get to play sports but if you want to continue playing you are still expected to also get your degree and it comes first. The diversity of experiences you have from a young age develop your knowledge of many different fields. Your training in school/university develops expertise in certain areas of human knowledge. All of these elements make you more adaptable when it comes to problem solving and thus you are more likely to perform well on IQ tests however a combination of the right genes will allow certain people to go way further than others. White culture definitely values intelligence more, so white people on average will get a bonus to their ability based on training habits embedded in the fabric of our culture. Black culture generally tries to buck the norms of white culture and therefore tends to handicap themselves on intelligence based on their cultural norms.

[DevilsAdvocator]

50-80% of the average IQ equates to an IQ score of roughly 50-80. Which is next to nothing- for instance, take your kid from Gabon. Sure, he has an average IQ of 65; but he also has an average of only a few years of schooling. And something else which scientists have proven to be true is that people gain an average of 3.5 IQ points for each additional year of education; up to 5.5 IQ points for each year, in the case of those who have private 1-on-1 tuition (as most Asian kids I know do; and I'm Asian myself, BTW). And we also know that receiving a formal education can accelerate the rate of cognitive development by as much as a third. Now, bearing that in mind, look at this map, of the average amount of schooling received in each country:

And of the level of education expenditure in each country:
www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=19203
And compare them with this map, of world IQ scores.

Taking into account all that we know about how profoundly education and the quality of it affects IQ levels, we surprisingly find that White Europeans actually have the some of the lowest levels of natural intelligence of any people on earth. And that East Asians aren't much better. When one removes the IQ increase provided by the duration and standards of the average Norwegian's formal education, their natural IQ would stand at a mere 48. That of the average US of American would stand at a pitiful 47, while South Korea's would be roughly 49; the lowest in the world, that of St Lucia, would be a meagre 42.

Most other countries' natural IQ's sit at around this same level once the IQ increase provided by varying lengths and levels of education is removed from the equation. But there's one massive outlier right at the top, with the highest natural IQ in the world by a 20pt margin- Sierra Leone's is a whopping 85, in spite of Sierra Leone being among the most malnourished nations on earth, and having the lowest life expectancy in the world. Why do you think this is? Is it survival of the fittest, racial supremacy, or something else?

[hellionthesagereborn]

I have a couple of issues with the discussion of IQ and race (and no, its not because I think its racist, in fact we do have data showing scoring differences), mainly that their are other factors that we should take into account. First and most importantly (in my mind) is the fact that we have seen a universal increase in IQ over the past fifty years (average IQ in fact continues to increase so when we say "average" we are really reffering to the the current average rather then a set number as some think of it), I believe it has been about 30 points. This is far faster then what can be accounted for if intelligence is primarily genetic (obviously we have genetic components of intelligence but this would suggest that its not entirely genetic) as their has not been nearly enough successive generations to create that much of a change.

The second issue I have is the claims made within the scientific community that IQ is static. I think this is rather strange as we know that we have a burst of change in IQ when young, it then slows down then jumps back up in I believe its the early teen years. Further studies have shown that studying and encouragement have increased IQ scores from previous scores which should not happen if IQ is entirely static (as IQ tests by their nature test cognitive ability NOT fact based information (or fluidic intelligence not crystalline intelligence) and thus studying should not produce results if fluidic intelligence is static). Now to what degree this has an impact I am not sure but the fact that their is some suggests that we might be jumping to conclusions to early (especially considering that learning and adapting is our primary survival tool it just doesn't seem to fit (kind of how they suggested that all the "random" firing of neurons in the brain was "background noise" despite the fact that the body is designed to minimize energy loss. It just doesn't quite fit what we see and now about our bodies (I mean if our muscles have the ability to change and grow stronger then why wouldn't the intellect which we rely on, arguably more so?(Though that is not to say their isn't probably a limit, just as some people are able to gain muscle faster then others or are inherently stronger then others).

[hellionthesagereborn]

I would also point out that some studies I think have inherent flaws, for instance they did one analyzing black children who where adopted by white families and found a gap in intellect however I don't think this fully acknowledges the issues. Having been adopted myself their are other factors they didn't account for, namely that biology does play apart in behavior. For me my behavior was contradictory to my families as they where out going, I was introverted, they where sporty, I was more book oriented, I preferred solitude they did not etc. etc. So this was a source of conflict and stress for me (and I imagine them). The reason why I mention this is because I do not think its unfair to say that this would impact the intellectual development of a child as they are pushed in a direction that is not towards their personal inclination or they are taught in a manner that is not as affective, due to the intrinsic differences of the two people not meshing, so to speak.

[hellionthesagereborn]

I would also point out that I was a bookworm, my biological mother however was/is, to put it nicely, less academically inclined (substantially). So this would also bring into question the genetic aspect, BUT my great grandmother (four generations) was. She was a librarian (and managed to stay intellectually engaged until her death at 94). So this to me suggests that while their is a link, it is not entirely biological. I think it may be at least partially due to epigenetics rather then genetics. Epigentics affects certain traits that are passed down from parent to child but are not permanent, they are some where between the hardware of genetics and the software of social conditioning and culture. I think that this is where we may find the discrepancy between the different ethnic groups, from its cultural impact on the epigenetics of an individual that gets passed down to the next generation but is also not a permanent fixture of the group.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Though obviously the only way we will ever know for sure is if we are willing to, as you have pointed out, ask the question and look for understanding earnestly and honestly without using it as some kind of political tool pushing us one way or another.

[ChurchOfIron]

"Some people would refute all I have just said by claiming that if you take a newborn from a country such as Gabon (average IQ of 65) and raise them the exact same way as Chinese kids. But this is proven to be false by scientists, who have found that 50% to 80% of IQ is hereditary."

Would you happen to have a source for this?

If Asians are innately more intelligent than Caucasians (which I wouldn't outright deny, despite being white as Casper), then do you have an explanation for South-East Asia whose IQ is comparable to many African nations? If it's 50-80% genetic, then why aren't South-East Asians qualifying just as much as the Chinese or Japanese?

If you ask me, I tend to believe the IQ range theory. Yes, there is a genetic range, but where one ends up on that range is wholly dependent on environment. And, the ranges between races don't differ that significantly.

I feel like you are using IQ as a general measurement of intelligence. But that is not what it is. IQ is a measurement of academic potential. That is, a measurement of one's ability to succeed in academia. Impoverished countries have low IQs not due to lack of food, but due to lack of everything.

It's also been shown that rich areas have higher IQs than poorer areas, in the United States, as I recall. Many things come with money aside from food.

Yes, we certainly are not all equivalent. Some are better than others. That should be common sense.

Oh, I'm surprised you're black. Or, Obama black. This kind of perspective is not particularly flattering to black people. I would think you would like to believe it is more dependent on environment. I believe it is, however. One also cannot deny the level of discipline seen in Asian cultures vs Caucasian cultures. That is a big factor, in my opinion.

[up_64]

I've been raised by white people. And haven't had the victim culture engrained into my brain. When someone calls me a n***** i just laugh. Because i know it annoys racists when the victim of racism doesn't give a damn

[bamesjond0069]

Probably the reason high IQ people tend to be in rich areas is because smart people are better at making money and then their kids have it from hereditary thus rich areas have a higher representation if high IQ.

[ChurchOfIron]

@up_64 Who said anything about racism. o_o

@bamesjond0069 There are many people who have low IQs, yet make a lot of money. While, at the same time, there are many geniuses living in abject poverty. Intelligence does not necessarily denote ability to generate money.

Making money is a skill. A skill which is taught and passed down from generation to generation. Having money makes money. Hence why it takes 400 years, on average, for a family to either gain or lose a class. I could believe more effective financial advice is passed down from generation to generation, along with wealth, but not necessarily intelligence. Intelligence does not necessarily equal wealth.

At the same time, that argument presupposes that all people from impoverished countries are inherently stupid. I find that hard to believe. Do you not believe they would score much higher if needs were met?

[bamesjond0069]

Just because some dummies have money and some smart people are poor doesn't mean it doesn't correlate. Statistics dont mean ALL.

And yeah most impoverished countries do have lower average IQs. But also the high IQ people there are statistically doing the best in their countries. If you have a high IQ in some jungle tribed id expect you have 5 sticks when everyone else has 2. Lol

[ChurchOfIron]

@bamesjond0069 No statistics don't mean all, but when you make such a broad statement like "rich areas have higher IQs, because smart people make more money," then we have to examine whether or not intelligence is equal to having money. It's kinda chicken or egg and a moot point, in my opinion.

Again, IQ is not a measurement of intelligence. It is a measurement of academic potential. And, it's also been shown that EQ is significantly more important for the working world. That is, the emotional intelligence. Yes, academic potential *does* equate to higher earnings, but it doesn't really help us in determining whether that quality is innate or obtained, does it?

So, in that tribe, would it truly be the person who could add or logic better than the others which had more sticks? Or would it be the one most capable of accruing power through influence? Say, someone who convinced others--for instance, the highest IQ people--to get his sticks for him?

[bamesjond0069]

Its obviously not the chicken or the egg. In America where generation to generation can go from poor to rich, i can say with confidence nobody was ever dumb and poor and then made a lot of money and then got smart because they were rich. Being smart is definitely first.

[ChurchOfIron]

@bamesjond0069 Can each generation go from poor to rich? How common is that?

[bamesjond0069]

It happens all the time in America anyways.

[ChurchOfIron]

@bamesjond0069 You must have grown up rich. Or became rich.

Several large studies of mobility in developed countries in recent years have found the US among the lowest in mobility

www.nytimes.com/.../...-rise-from-lower-rungs.html

"Today, while unemployment remains low and the economy is doing exceptionally well, wage growth has remained stagnant."

www.cnbc.com/.../...grow-in-the-united-states.html

"opportunity structures create and determine future generations' chances for success. Hence, our lot in life is at least partially determined by where we grow up, and this is partially determined by where our parents grew up, and so on."

www.pewtrusts.org/.../pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf

It is simple logic. If you grow up having more resources, you have a profound advantage, regardless int

[bamesjond0069]

I grew up low middle class and became rich. I didn't do anything particularly impressive in my opinion but i do have a high IQ. Most people i know have low iqs and thus even if i tell them what to do or give them opportunities they fail or blow them or just pass over them because they dont understand them. So yeah if you have a high iq you can make money if you try.

[bamesjond0069]

And i did it all on my own. No college needed. Just sitting down and putting myself to work.

[ChurchOfIron]

@bamesjond0069 For someone with a supposedly high IQ, your grammar is atrocious.

Okay. Let me know. How did you become unimpressively rich?

I grew up with 3 people of exceptional IQ. My best friend, close to a brother, scored around 145. He's in the mental hospital, has been for years, after he tried to slice his wrists open. His older brother maxed out the IQ test at 160. He's divorced and works in a warehouse. His wife is the only successful one out of the 3, working as a psychiatrist, and scored in the 150s.

High IQ often coincides with psychological damage, disorders, and an inability to connect with others. Drug addiction is also common. As I stated before, for the working world, emotional intelligence has been shown to be much more important.

Intelligence means nothing if one lacks the stability--or programming--to act on their ideas. How did your parents program you?

[bamesjond0069]

I score about 140. I self taught myself coding on the computer and wrote some software that i sold and ill never have to work again. I agree high iq people have their own issues to deal with, I've had drug problems and social problems and legal problems but I've overcome all of them on my own. I quit drugs cold turkey successfully. I never was social as a child but once an adult now i can be social when i want to be.

My parents just told me to work hard and always make the tough choices ie. Dont look for the quick payoffs.

[ChurchOfIron]

@bamesjond0069 I'm actually trying to learn how to program the same way. I need to be more dedicated to it, though. But mixing bodybuilding, pick up, and a full time job with also learning programming isn't easy. Any advice for trying to learn programming?

Did you quit drugs as a result of your high IQ, or some other attribute? And, well, congratulations on that. That is a very big accomplishment. Only 1 in 5 people actually manage to kick drugs out of rehabs. I was addicted to cocaine and morphine throughout my teens and early-early 20s, kicked the morphine on my own, so I know how tough it is. What was your DOC?

[bamesjond0069]

I did lots of different ones. Just learn the right language for what you want to do. Not all languages are equally useful.

[Starrk]

Race and IQ isn't a discussion that's being suppressed. This topic was huge from the 1960s to 2000s. It's just that researchers have had this discussion before and the general consensus was that while there is a correlation between race and IQ, there is no evidence that race is a casual predictor of IQ or vice versa.

People need to understand that correlations does not imply causation. For example, the murder rate in America is positively correlated to Ice cream sales. How is this possible? Surely ice cream doesn't cause murders. The reason why this correlation exist is because there is a third variable present that is making these two other variables correlate. The third variable is heat. Murder rates tend to spike up in hot season, such as summer, which is also around the same time that people are more likely to purchase ice creams.

In the case of race and IQ there is an obvious third variable present and they are environment and culture. While researchers can try their best to control for some of these third variables there is no way that you can control for all of them. On top of that race is such a poorly defined concept that it's nigh impossible to assert causation with such a weak concept.

[up_64]

true. Im not stupid enough to say im sure this is just a suggestion.

[9teen]

IQ has less to do with race (by the way, there is only one race, the human race). IQ has mainly to do with the environment.
In the East Asian cultures, failing academically makes you a disgrace to the family and society.
Children often get pressured to work really hard and that continues in their adulthood.
What you failed to mention is that IQ can increase It has less to do with 'race'. Children inherit intelligence from their mothers:

''However, research also makes it clear that genetics are not the only determinant of intelligence - only 40 to 60 per cent of intelligence is estimated to be hereditary, leaving a similar chunk dependent on the environment. ''

If you grow up in a culture where they expect you to perform well on an academic level, you will. Your Iq will increase and your kids will inherit that Iq, if you're female. Your kids will work hard too which results in an increased IQ and their offspring will inherit their Iq and so on. This is what happens in East-Asia.

Also, there are 9 kinds of intelligence. IQ Is definitely not everything.

[VIVANT]

@One race the human race
Perfectly put 😊✨✨

[malegender]

nice liberal catch phases but you contradict yourself

[VIVANT]

@malegender

There is no contwsoction in being human only in denying it:

[ForbesMagazine]

This is wrong, you don't understand how heritability works and what it means. Intelligence can't be a certain percentage genetic, heritability measures variance.

[WalterRadio]

"homo sapiens and neanderthals mated, but since it hasn’t been proven"
It has been proven by DNA analysis.

What there is zero evidence of is the claim that neanderthals were less intelligent than homo sapiens. That is suggested, but isn't known.

"process of natural selection"
The lightening of skin has to do with the balance between folic acid and vitamin D. Too much UV and folic acid is destroyed, causing fetal problems and at times infant death. Too little UV and there is not enough Vitamin D, and the result is shortened life. Dark skin blocks UV, which protects folic acid. But when people have to wear clothes most of the year and sunlight is little, they have to have lighter skin to make Vitamin D. The change in a population takes about 40,000 years.

So cold is why white and east Asian people are white. It is also why they and east Asians have higher IQ. Winter is a harsher environment than the tropical savanna. A greater deal of planning was required to survive. Those of lower IQ had less probability of surviving, gradually raising the IQ of the remaining population. It isn't so much that whites and east Asians are more intelligent, it is that the lesser intelligent whites and Asians were more likely to die and leave fewer offspring.

[up_64]

I've corrected on other comments. My biology teacher told me that it wasn't 100% certain. I never said they didn't. I personally think they did but since i wasn't sure and i misunderstood an article i thought it wasn't 100 % certain

[cavmanier]

There's a lot of flaws, but I liked your take.

One is Neanderthal "being archaic “humans”." They are likely a subspecies and I believe our anthropomorphic bias explains our desire to think we are more advanced. How can we really know? We do know that they had an overall larger brain and larger brain size proportionally, suggesting they were likely just as smart or smarter than us. Also, it has been proven for the past 3-5 years ish that we did mate with them. If you are white or Asian, you have Neanderthal genes. Maybe that's why white and Asian people statistically do have higher IQ's than black people? I haven't looked into that IQ difference (because I don't really care), but I've heard about it. Also average populations have slightly higher IQ's (like 1 or 2) just by being in cold environments. High temperatures lower test scores.

Honestly, I cringed pretty hard when you said we diverged because of food.

I think the overall sentiment of what you said is likely true. No one can talk about this in a public form though. Many people don't even want to think there's a difference between male an female now a days.

[MrMysteryMan]

I do agree actually to this. I was viewing on Youtube, a National Geographic video on how the human body develops from birth. I only got to when we are in our 20s and the beginnings of adulthood. I do believe that, because of where each colour has grown, will affect their mental development and, as such, their mental abilities later on. If Africans were pushed more to develop modern technologies and breakthroughs in medicines and just pushed to develop more mental abilities, they would be at par with everyone else. But at the same time, there are some extremely intelligent Africans out there. I believe that they stem from perhaps the colonization from European and British settlements, to a point. Although there were a lot that weren't allowed to learn as well. I also think wars helped to fuel the fire of development of technologies and increased mental thinking, since you wanted to out-wit your enemy.

But at the same time, I feel anyone has the brain capacity to learn more, depending on their age and their physical abilities to learn. So really, yes originally there is a difference in cultures of their IQ, but I don't feel this is permanent or consistent with all people of whatever color you suggest.

[up_64]

I dont think its permanent. But i dont agree that its solvabke in one genration. It will take 100s of years to make up for malnutrition and underdevelopment that lasted for thousands or even tens of thousands of years

[MrMysteryMan]

In that case sure. But there are generations that came out of that earlier on and would benefit just fine at the stage they are at. I haven't, myself, found any issues of achieving and learning. Same with my father and mother. Same with their parents. My parents are from Barbados and that island country has a fairly high rate of IQ, at 80, which is 27th in the world based on 2018. I think it's just a matter of the next generations gaining better ways of life, and thus, improving on the overall IQ. As well, the older generation dies off, which subtracts that deficit from the total, so then the IQ level will naturally increase because the lower IQ has died off...

[D_Bone_Steak]

I find it interesting that people in general will recognize breeds of dogs and behavioral and intelligence differences but then bringing up breeds of humans and they become fearful to talk on the subject... they know it exists, but have been trained to avoid being the evil 'racist' that our society has taught us is the worst thing ever... other than a pedo.

Anyways as for the differences physically, same too for the mental differences. The environment they lived in determined if intelligence in a certain department, ment life or death. Behavioral traits like being able to work together with others or if you're more likely to band together in a gang and try to destroy one another for a resource was also dictated by their environments.

Outliers to a stereotype of any type are out there, and I hate seeing them used as a 'not true Scotsman' argument. Yes, variance exists... but when a group of people hover around a average behavior type on average amongst them, I'd think for argument's sake to assume the average as a point of reason.

[Spawnface]

I personally wouldn't contend such things too seriously because I am not a scientist and it's a very inflammatory subject. These arguments are best processed through whatever institutions can handle such ideas and then cautiously disemminated. They are afterall dangerous ideas, not within themself when given to the masses whom still behave arcaicly and tribal. One reason it is not discussed is for the sake of social cohesion where the lies we spread with our demogogues are to ensure collective safety of the masses. One must understand that most the population is mentally ill in some regard and they can only percieve a small amount of notions or symbols. These ideas would agitate their feelings of supremecy and inadequancy which would result in mass class conflict.

It is an important discussion but it requires the highest diligence towards responsability. Our social system is founded upon these other lies such as all people are the same and removing these pillors without providing additional support would be catastrophic. Much like how removing religious ideals lead to communism.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

I would point out three things:

1. IQ is a very rough measure of intelligence. Quantitative inference based on relative differences in IQ leaves a lot to be desired, and most anthropologists are well aware of this.

2. Without knowing the local minima and maxima, median and other metrics, simply going by the mean IQ in each country is an extremely poor analysis of the situation. For example, it's commonly understood that differences in IQ don't manifest themselves in any real way until the delta is one standard deviation or higher. Given that the stddev of most IQ measures for adults is 15, that means that there isn't a realistic difference in performance for IQ ranges between 85-115, which encompasses the first 86 nations on your list. So saying "Asians are smarter than Europeans" because they have an IQ of up to 8 points higher doesn't really mean anything because it doesn't lead to real differences in performance.

3. Quoted from your last link: "The majority of anthropologists today consider race to be a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one, a view supported by considerable genetics research". I assume you believe this is true since it's from a link you posted. That being the case, your idea of IQ change being based on genetic differences (rather than social ones) doesn't hold water *by way of your own supporting evidence*. Also, if you look at the very bottom of your ranked list of countries by IQ, you'll notice that all of them are very undeveloped both socially and economically. You could say that they're all nations of black people, but that doesn't explain Sierra Leone and Guyana being much further up the list. Genetic race also doesn't explain why Hong Kong, China and Japan are at the very top of the list while other nations full of people who are genetically Chinese (such as Laos and Cambodia) are so far down the list. That's because race and IQ aren't very well correlated - nationality is.

[jennifer_bloom]

I guess what I learned is that there are differences in i. q. between different races but these differences are not related to genetics at all. They are related to environmental factors and if the environment changes, the i. q. changes.

As an example - Japanese people were 6 inches taller in America than they were in Japan in the early 20th century - research shows that taller people are smarter - different diet in America vs. Japan in the early 1930s - 1950s which accounts for the height difference

Most scientists believe the racial differences in I. Q. are caused by the access to sea food that people in different countries had. For example - countries with low i. q. s tend to live in areas where sea food is harder to get - while countries with easy access to sea food tend to have higher i. q. s

Vegetarians who consume dairy have an i. q. 6 points higher than omnivores - while vegetarians who avoid dairy have an i. q. that is 6-10 points lower than people who eat both meat and vegetables.

Research also shows that people who have very little stress between the ages of 0-13 and lots of stress between the ages of 14-18 are smarter as adults then people with lots of stress between the ages of 0-13 and not enough stress between the ages of 14-18

Research also shows that people who combine study with physical exercise are smarter than those who aren't - so people who encourage physical exercise in young children will see them smarter as adults

Also the amount of time and attention you show your child affects their i. q. This is why chinese people are so smart - china has a one child policy - so all of the parental and social and financial resources is monopolized by one person - meaning the parent has more opportunity to nourish and care for that child. Remember china has 1/3 of the world's population!

[jacquesvol]

differences in IQ are related to environmental factors, not to genetics.

[ForbesMagazine]

You're arguing the Flynn effect, and even James Flynn himself said it doesn't account for racial differences:
www.researchgate.net/.../259097870_The_Flynn_Effect_and_Flynn's_paradox

[Anonymous]

"Now many people believe the homo sapiens and neanderthals mated, but since it hasn’t been proven, I'm not going to take that into account"

Yet it's written in every school book.

I find this take interesting as well as biased. Saying that Asian people have a higher IQ than Caucasian people, well, certainly not all Asian nations, right?
So I will give you that many Asian people (e. g. Indian, Korean, Japanese...) seem to have a special predilection towards robotics and certain engineering fields that most Caucasian people probably do not find much interest in to begin with, which may or may not be due to this innate skill to better understand math or physics.
We're talking about millions of people here, who probably aren't all this high IQed as you're trying to portrait.

Of course if you, say, compare the sword of a Japanese samurai and one of those used in the crusades, anyone would agree that tha Japanese one is much more technically advanced. Hopefully people are also able to see that geographical conditions are quite different and well, in the end most Japanese people wouldn't even be able to lift the European sword and, therefore, had to come up with other techniques to overcome their lack of strength. As opposed to European people who until recently could solve just about anything with a hammer and pliers.

Sure, you may want to talk about IQ ability.
As it happens, most genius are very good at one thing in life.
There are many intelligent people in Europe (just think about where people who made the best inventions are from), but it so happens that most societies in Europe do not favor people who aren't well-rounded, well-mannered and overall knowledgeable about many things, not just a single topic.
In my experience, this is the biggest difference betweem the average Caucasian in Europe and the average Asian person, who is much more likely to be socially inapt and spend entire days working on whatever thing they like best.

[andreasderjuengere]

In the report that I saw, Hong Kong, Singapore and China score extremely high. Many other (Southeast-) Asian countries score (in average) lower than 100./// You are wrong with the Samurai sword, by the way; the steel was better in Japan, but the ''European construction'' was the tougher and more practical one.

[hellionthesagereborn]

I would just like to point out that Japanese swords are no more technical then European swords, in fact that would be rather strange considering that metal was rarer in japan then in Europe (as they are an island nation with fewer deposits (which is also why they revered their swords more and passed them down from generation to generation, as well as the fact that it was only the upper class that had them)). Also we could probably point to cultural differences, for instance the whole borderline abusing your children when they fail (the whole Tiger mom thing) probably encourages hyper focus on education which is not something that is considered acceptable in the west (for obvious reasons).

[andreasderjuengere]

@hellionthesagereborn The sword types are interesting, indeed. Unfortunately: off-topic here. The intelligence tests that I am aware of were not related to knowledge, but rather to cognitive performance. Being European, and seeing that Asians ''top me'' did not cause problems for me: I said to myself - ''you see - someone somewhere always is better than you''. I find that helpful in the way we globally interact.

[andreasderjuengere]

Forgive me my grammatical error/s :D But actually, this proves my point?

[Opinion Owner]

@andreasderjuengere I always had the impression that Japanese swords were sharper and ligther whereas with European swords (don't know what to call them) someone would probably be chopped or even beaten to death as opposed to being cleanly cut - hence the Japanese being technically superior.
Is that not the case?

[Opinion Owner]

@hellionthesagereborn yes, I think hardwork in the fields was more precious than education in western societies, at least until a century ago or something.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Not really, that's a myth. You have to look at what they where going up against, namely that Europeans had heavy steel plate armor and the Japanese had wood enameled plates over cloth. So the European swords where hardier but that's only because they where hacking through steel while Japanese swords where designed for light armor. This is also why European swords where built for thrusting and hewing (chopping) as it focused most of the energy into a smaller area maximizing penetration while Japanese sword techniques involved primarily slashes (usually along certain latitudinal lines in order to slice through tendons to either prevent the opponent from being able to use their arms or legs) which do not penetrate.

[andreasderjuengere]

Allright. Swords, then... I am interested in this because of sports reasons. Admitted, there is debate around. The ''Katana'' is/was made to CUT. Where ''European'' designs were more individualized or purpose-made. In a ''traditional'' fight you could not influence the fighting conditions; the ''then'' European cross sections and geometry had been a little more multi-functional. So in case of a confrontation of both types, the Japanese style would have given less options or versatility. Weight wasn't that much of an issue. We speak of 1.5 to 2 kg. Speed and handling did the trick. (sorry to ''spoil'' the initial thread here)

[cykasenpai]

Just go look up IQ by country and you'll see the far east Asian countries way up there.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@andreasderjuengere (sorry for the delayed response) Culture impacts how the brain develops so I'm not suggesting that it would not have a note worthy change to intellect only that their culture is probably what dictates it as intelligence has been increasing faster then what could be accounted for by purely biological means. As for the sword, yeah I do believe that is the most likely case as if you look the Japanese mostly fought the Japanese, and to an extent other Asian nations (though at least to my knowledge it was not nearly as frequent as between themselves) and as such would have their weapons dedicated to fighting other Japanese. In Europe you had many different nations and cultures fighting and as such would be fighting different types of armor and having different military tactics and terrain (this is actually why the Swedish, again to my understanding, primarily used pikes and such as Sweden tended to be more mountainous which forced calvary to attack head on).

[MementoMori_]

I never understood the concept of everything being the same between blacks and whites except their skin color. First there is the obvious, the other physical traits. But why assume that the physical traits we can see are the only differences? Reality doesn't conform to our desire to think of ourselves as somehow post human and free of human prejudices. Reality is what it is. If there are so many differences between races that we can observe with our eyes, why shouldn't there be differences that cannot be so easily observed?

A study I read once concluded that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any identifiable group in the world. Surely those who don't like this result on all sides of the racial divides would dispute this. And I don't think it's coincidence that like many Asian cultures, Jewish culture also places a lot of emphasis on education and achievement.

I don't know if black people on average have IQs different from white people on average. In fact, I am not really even sure what the definition of a "black" person and a "white" person is? According to the currently accepted view of history everyone in the world is African because this is supposedly where human beings were hatched (I am still not sure I buy this since there is an awful lot about the archeological record that seems unexplained to me.) But to conclude that the average brains of human beings of different races are the same, just to satisfy a need to feel "fair" and "civilized" is ridiculous.

[Vankor]

I think you are missing some key factors here on why. Nurture vs nature.

1st off kids in japan go to school much longer and are required to learn a vast amount along with additional languages. Japanese eating habits are hugely superior to a lot of other countries including america. Core values in japan along with being a collective society. However you then have to take in the account of suicides because of all of these expectations. This goes for most Asian societies that have high expectations of its citizens.

Now let's focus on Nuture for a second. Let's bring up religion. Religion is not in any form a way to expand the mind to learn in fact it does the opposite. It closes the mind to only behave a certain way. Your definitely not going to get a lot of free thinking with a Roman catholic priest breathing down your neck 😉. Undereducated families are just going to breed undereducated kids with a super small percentage escaping and maybe becoming something, and I'm not taking about an athlete that is all brawn no brain.

What it all boils down to is this Nature vs Nuture.
1.) A Societies values as a whole (this includes types of religion, the way people treat others and overall upbringing)
2.) A Societies value in education (proper education, and not peoples bias and agendas, the pursuit to instill children with the thirst for knowledge)
3.) A Societies valus on proper nutrition ( fresh foods, balanced diet, not all this fast food crap and freezer eating and candy or sweets).
4.) A Societies genetic overall value (positive genetic breeding that will enhance future generations, not "idiocracy" style breeding).

[Omega_brie]

>Now that I am done oversimplifying history, I ask you, if dogs have become so different from one another in both physical, mental and behavioral traits, why is it so hard to accept that the same may have happened in our species?

1. Nobody actually denies this. What they contest is the hereditariness of the difference. It's well documented that environment and stress have large effects on IQ.

2. Dogs are different mainly because of selective breeding, which propagates very specific traits very quickly. Human races are also much closer than dog breeds: majorityrights.com/.../debunking_a_racialist_myth_about_the_genetic_variation_between_dog_breeds

3. "Now many people believe the homo sapiens and neanderthals mated, but since it hasn’t been proven": This is completely wrong. Humans did mate with neanderthals, this is a proven fact.

Anyway you have lots of errors in your understanding, but you seem to actually want to understand, so kudos for that

[up_64]

I said that because there isn't a consensus. I do believe they mated i just wanted to keep it out since ther wasn't two pages that gave me the same answer.

[Logorithim]

This is certainly an interesting Take.

IIRC, the changes in skin color in Europe and East Asia came about due to separate genetic mutations to allow for easier absorption of Vitamin D from the sun and those that had this mutation had an advantage at higher latitudes where there was less sun in the winter.

I've seen it suggested that native speakers of the ideographic languages have a advantage when it comes to mathematics, specifically manipulation of 3D Images. Chinese and Japanese also have more logical number systems, which can make calculating a bit faster and taxing working memory less.

Africa also has by far the most genetic diversity in the world.