The Question of Which Race it the Most Intelligent?

Culture > Race

 

Given that we're only really at the beginning stages of really understanding genetics, I don't see how anyone could answer the question one way or another. Because intelligence is affected by so many factors from how you measure it to culture to education to resources to simple individual motivation, it would be difficult to measure a genetic component one way or the other.

But that doesn't mean it does or doesn't exist.

 

If identical twins separated at birth show a much higher correlation of IQ than fraternal twins separated at birth, then that is pretty good evidence that a genetic component exists, no?

 

Take a basic developmental psych class. The first lesson is the copious amounts of data showing that intelligence is directly related to environmental richness and novelty. It has nothing to do with language. It has to do with how much value the culture places on parents being attentive and demanding in the development of their children. That is the nurture difference. Poor or not, Asians dedicate large amounts of their time and effort to making sure their children achieve. There is no similar widespread African-American culture that I am aware of.

 

Pretty much.

Nuture over nature in this one by a mile.

 

It also doesnt disqualify racial genetic determinism. In fact other parts of the studies clearly show how genetics is involved in higher IQ's

In fact it just simply states it's a combination of both environment and genetics. (which no one argues against) Which is of course obvious. If Einstein grew up in a poor country and never had the chance of a formal education his talents would have been wasted. But it doesn't disprove that certain races might have a larger gene pool of genes that promote intelligence.

 

Certainly - if you assume IQ is a good measure of intelligence. That book that Otto linked to suggested it wasn't a good measure, so I tried to account for that viewpoint.

My gut tells me there's some kind of a genetic component, if not to intelligence itself, then to the ability to process and understand information, how the brain works (some people having good spacial attributes, others have strong musical attributes or logic functioning, etc). Whether that then translates to a racial component, who knows - it would depend on if certain races are predisposed to those genes, etc.

 

yeah, as black man looking for a job I wonder why it would be taboo to accept that I'm more likely less intelligent than the white candidates


--->

 

well suns rocket claims that asians don't study harder? I don't think anyone would make that claim, white, black, or asian

 

but there are dumb asian students that just cant do well in school no matter how hard their parents push. Why is that? It's because they dont have the genes. Now if intelligence is passed through genes why doesn't it make sense that certain races might have more of these traits or genes in their gene pool?
Why are african americans superior in athletics? It's because they have the genes. All Races have different traits I think that is obvious. This might not matter much a few thousand years from now since everyone will just be one big melting pot.

Also I don't think just because your parents push you to study hard means you can achieve it. There has to be some innate ability to begin with. Most parents teach their children the value of education regardless of what race they are. But certain races like asians just excel in general.

 

cranial size, cold climate, does suns rocket not realize these aren't ground breaking arguments?

 

I am not saying you are less intelligent than the white candidates. I dont think the OP said that either. And not all blacks are better athletes than whites or asians and not all asians or whites or whatever are smarter than blacks. I think the topic is looking at the traits as whole.

 

I hate when people compare professional sports to the rest of us who live in the real world.

hakeem is six feet ten inches tall and could jump out the gym. he isn't going to be discriminated against, his athletic prowess is there for everyone to see

you don't need a study

 

This isn't what anybody is claiming here.

But that misconception is a great example of why it's taboo.

 

Statistically, women have better hand-eye coordination than men. Among other things, they are proven to make better airplane pilots than men. It isn't in question. It is an established unassailable fact.

The deal is, however, that you need about 10,000 men and 10,000 women to measure the difference. The variation within the pool of men and within the pool of women is about 10,000x as much as the variation between the pools of men on average and women on average. The genetic/biological difference is very real. That doesn't mean we should say that men should be viewed as deficient pilots.

Categorizing pilots by sex, while technically valid, is a factor of 3rd or 4th order importance. And in that case, the difference between a man and a woman is much more clear than artificial lines on what is essentially a continuous spectrum of racial characteristics.

 

Ok, but that's an issue with the measure of intelligence itself, not a commentary on whether intelligence (whatever you define that as) is strongly correlated with genes. IQ is just a relatively easily testable benchmark for intelligence. If one preferred a different (testable) measure, we could certainly identify whether it was correlated with genetic makeup.

The question of whether intelligence itself is all that important is still a good one. There are many different definitions of "smart" that can be appropriately used. Knowledge, rationality, problem-solving, ability to think quickly, etc, are all things that are really separate (and are likely determined by separate natural or nurture-based phenomena) but can all be considered aspects of a person's smartness. That's really a separate discussion, though.

 

Nurture > Nature

Rocket River

 

While this is true, it doesn't address the question of whether Nature plays any role at all. The original question is not whether nature is the only variable or even the primary variable - but whether it is a relevant variable at all.