The Question of Which Race it the Most Intelligent?

Yes, it is a patently absurd statement to make, in my opinion. That type of thinking leads to ignorance.

Beyond that, in a casual setting there should be no need to do research on a subject in order to discuss it. The fact that we are in the debate and discussion section of a basketball forum automatically implies that the thoughts and opinions are those of laypersons unless otherwise noted. Nobody is claiming they are experts on these subjects, we are all just giving our takes based on the knowledge we have and the reasoning we provide.

And here we are, roughly 140 posts into this thread, and we're still having thoughtful and legitimate discussions on the topic or stuff closely related. Doesn't that disprove your point right there? Perhaps if you want us to learn something you could address the original topic directly instead of crusading against its existence.

 

Here's my take:

Race has rightfully become a sensitive topic due to the not-so-distant history that America has. "All men are are created equal" is the foundation of America.

However, in my book, that doesn't mean all men are created the same. Asians are for the most part, smaller in stature (Yao not-included), and tend to do better academically. 4.2% reported themselves as Asian in 2000. "48% of Asian Americans have attained at least a bachelor's degree as compared with the national average of 27%" African Americans are estimated to be 13.5% of the population, yet their representation within professional sports is probably somewhere around 60-70%.

I agree with whoever stated that we are looking at a microcosm in America. American Asians, African Americans, and Caucasians in America do not translate to Asians in Asia, Africans in Africa, and Caucasians in Europe.

Here is my take, controversial or not.

African Americans are the product of artificial selection. Slavery caused several Africans to be selected for by one trait, physical fitness. It didn't matter how intelligent the person was, only the build and strength of the person mattered. On top of this, African Americans were then deprived the right to any forms of education. Only until 50 years ago has segregation been put to rest.

As someone said earlier, Asian Americans mostly consist of the Asians who were capable enough to make the journey to the US. Until the Immigration Act of 1990 increased visa quotas, pretty much any immigrant minus Europe (Europe had a separate 170,000 cap still 20,000/country) (The rest of the world had a 120,000 person cap with 20,000 max/ country) would be selected first based on excellence. The 1990 Immigration lottery system changed this dynamic.

I used to buy the stereotype that all Asians are intelligent, nerdy, etc. It wasn't until I went to my own home country that I realized that my race consisted of a broad and diverse range of people. It literally shocked me when I realized how many "less than intelligent" people there were, because I had literally ingrained the idea that all of us were a certain way.

What you basically have is a situation where the majority of Asians(and non-European immigrants as a whole), especially those from before the Act was enacted, consist mostly of those that were most capable.

As this is a basketball forum, another observation that I have is the number of sucessful African American basketball players there are to African players. Out of 1 billion people in Africa, there are a handful of successful athletes, compared to the tens or hundreds of successful American born ones. Certainly economy plays a factor (facilities and the like), but honestly most of the "athletic freaks" that we have come from America.

The successful African players have some kind of other talent that usually separates them, amazing soccer footwork (Hakeem), amazing shot-block timing (Mutumbo).

 

Learning leads to ignorance? Very Orwellian.

I tell you what, next time you get sick, come to me and I will express my opinions about what will make you better. I'll try out various techniques until something works (or until your death prevents me from continuing).

I mean, you wouldn't want to go to some ignorant fool who went to med school to learn medicine before practicing it, right?

 

One of the things that 150 years of study of this subject has shown conclusively is that "intelligence" and "race" are such vague and undefinable social science ideas that making accurate measurements using either of them as variables borders on impossible.

I've tried to repeat this several times.

 

I think its unreasonable to require that a person have a phd in a subject to engage in a conversation. We are learning by studying existing research. Whether you want to critique that research as being flawed or having an agenda is another argument. Keep in mind that you've been citing a secondary source to prove the null hypothesis and I assume that you yourself are not an expert on genetics or sociological constructs. Of course, you can always criticize scientific studies no matter how useful or true the information may be.

Here is some criticism of the book The Mismeasure of Man you've been citing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Criticisms

The Mismeasure of Man has been considered highly controversial among psychologists who support the concepts Gould examined.

Bernard Davis (1916–1994), professor of microbiology at the Harvard Medical School, accused Gould of setting up straw man arguments, as well as incorrectly defining key terms (notably "reification"), choosing data in a "highly selective" manner, and in general being motivated more by political concerns rather than scientific ones.[9] Davis claimed that a laudatory review by Philip Morrison, which appeared in Scientific American, was written because the journal's editorial staff had "long seen the study of the genetics of intelligence as a threat to social justice."[10]

Statistician David J. Bartholomew, of the London School of Economics, wrote that Gould erred in his use of factor analysis[11] and irrelevantly focused on issue of reification and ignored scientific consensus on the existence of the g factor of intelligence.[12]

In an article written for the April 1982 edition of Nature, Steve Blinkhorn, a senior lecturer in psychology at Hatfield Polytechnic, accused Gould of selectively juxtaposing data in order to further a political agenda.[13]

Psychologist Franz Samelson wrote a review in Science, which tended to be critical on a number of counts.[14] Samelson, for example, was critical of Gould's argument that U.S. Army intelligence tests contributed to the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924.
[edit] Response by persons mentioned in the book

Arthur Jensen, an educational psychologist at UC Berkeley, was heavily criticized in The Mismeasure of Man. Jensen accused Gould of using straw man arguments, misrepresenting other scientists, and operating from a political agenda.[15]

Psychologist Hans Eysenck (1916–1997) was critiqued in The Mismeasure of Man for using a "non-causal" relationship to defend a conclusion that black children have lower innate IQ.[16] Eysenck and Gould debated the book in an exchange of letters to The New York Review of Books.[17][18] Eysenck's review called the book "a paleontologist's distorted view of what psychologists think, untutored in even the most elementary facts of the science." Gould criticised Eysenck's correlation of IQ with EEG evoked potentials by citing Arthur Jensen's own work in Bias in Mental Testing (1980). Jensen could only find "correlations larger than about -0.4 to -0.5" between reaction time and IQ, with typical correlations ranging between -0.3 and -0.4. Jensen wrote: "The AEP average evoked potential and IQ research picture soon becomes a thicket of seemingly inconsistent and confusing findings, confounded variables, methodological differences, statistically questionable conclusions, unbridled theoretical speculation, and, not surprisingly, considerable controversy."[19]
[edit] Response to the revised edition

Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve, claimed that Gould misrepresented his views.[20]

Psychologist J. Philippe Rushton, head of the Pioneer Fund—which funds research towards "the scientific study of heredity and human differences"—accused Gould of "scholarly malfeasance" for misrepresenting or ignoring relevant scientific research, and attacking dead arguments and methods.[21]

 

actually it is possible
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/health/20real.html

Rocket River

 

My undergraduate education was in psychology and biology. I took two classes under Dr. Stanley Finger, editor of The Journal of the History of Neurosciences on those subjects. I know enough to know when people don't know what they are talking about.

 

I can't tell if you honestly misunderstood my point that badly or if you are intentionally trying to pretend I said something else so that you would have an argument to make. Seriously, is that what you think I was saying?

Let me know if you're trying to have an honest conversation and I'd be happy to try to explain my post better to clear up your misconceptions. But your response here is so far off from what I was saying I'm not sure if you're really being honest any more. Sorry. :|

Ha! I knew that might come back to bite me.

 

Apparently I don't understand. I read your post again. Maybe you think a group of people who don't have any relevant education can somehow intuit something which an individual can not intuit? But I find it hard to understand a set of circumstances where not learning about something before talking about it will do anything other that create groupthink idiocy with all the additional idiocy that groupthink has been shown to bring, instead of just plain old garden variety individual idiocy.

This is a subject where "common sense" is wrong, and the scientific results seem to be counter intuitive for lay people. There is no amount of individual or group reasoning from first principles that can provide an accurate understanding. You need to sit down and learn or be taught the long history of this subject before anything you have to say is worth a damn. Anything else is buffoonery.

 

I think the hope is that some with the relevant education (such as yourself) would be kind enough to impart their knowledge and answer any questions the rest may have, thereby increasing the understanding of the group.

 

I don't have sufficient education to do so. If anybody else does, I'd be glad to hear from them. Short of that, what you end up with is the blind leading the blind. That is a pretty good way to bang your head on a bunch of walls.

 

Of course learning about the subject is better than not learning about it, but extensive research is not a prerequisite for entering a casual discussion. Do you see the difference? I'm saying we can discuss this without being experts, but you are responding as if I'm claiming it's better to discuss without being experts. That's not the case at all. I'm also talking specifically about casual discussions like these, but you responded with an analogy of an expert not learning the topic first. It should be obvious that a different standard should be met for somebody working in the field than for a layperson.

I'm also saying that normal people, like those of us in the forums, are better served by talking about this than they are by not, even if we are not experts. Why? Well, any ignorant and idiotic sentiment that you think might stem from such a discussion is certainly already harbored by individuals themselves. If it isn't talked about, then those ignorant and idiotic beliefs will continue to exist. But if it is discussed, and multiple opinions and viewpoints are presented, then it is quite possible for some of the ignorant viewpoints to change. In fact, I'm saying that a level-headed discussion is more likely to help people with incorrect thinking change their minds than it is to inspire larger group think idiocy than already existed. That's why I say that the "don't talk about it unless you're an expert" thinking leads to greater ignorance.

I wish you would direct these types of comments to individual points made in this thread. There have been many very different opinions provided based on different individuals' common sense. How they all could be wrong when they represent such a wide array of opinions on the subject I do not understand. Which specific viewpoints do you think are wrong? Here's a few that have been given:

* Intelligence is too hard to measure to get any useful information.
* Intelligence can be measured with a specific and narrow definition to provide useful information.
* Races are sociological constructs that do not have sufficient difference in genetics to provide any insight into genetic differences in those races.
* Races are based on heritable (i.e. genetic) differences, and different outcomes based on even small genetic differences can be measured.
* Correlating certain intelligence levels to specific races can only be used for racist and malicious purposes.
* It is not scientifically proper to take information from this type of study and apply it to an individual, since these types of generalizations are much too broad to be accurate on such a small scale.

... and so on and so forth.

 

uolj your whole post was really well thought. This was a direct point of contention between you and Ottoman but I didn't see any research from either of you (maybe I missed it) that backed up this claim or the counter argument. Could either of you cite research to back up your respective claims?

 

But the fact that it hasn't been done doesn't suggest it can't be done. Science is far more sophisticated today than 150 years ago. Little was known about genetics back then. What if you can find a gene or set of genes that translates into the ability to better process language? Or to process logic better? Or correlates with musical talent. Then you could trace that back and see if that particular gene set varies by race, culture, location, etc and see if there's any historical correlations or patterns if you really wanted to. You don't have to boil down intelligence to a simple concept - as was discussed early in this thread, there could be various aspects of intelligence (math vs survival instinct) that different groups or different people could naturally excel in.

The idea that we haven't been able to do effectively pursue the science in the past and thus it isn't a valid topic to explore going forward doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

 

Thanks. It was actually rocketsjudoka who I was responding to with that comment, and I don't have specific evidence to back it up right now. If I have a little more time I will try to look it up. The "that's just not true" comment was given with the implied caveat that I'm no expert. I get tired of writing "I believe" or "I think" all the time, but that should really say, "I really think that that's just not true."

 

I specifically state that it is worse for unknowledgeable people to get together to discuss things, than no discussion at all. That is how religions get started. Someone saw thunder in the sky and asked why. Instead of studying the subject, or just saying, "I can't tell you what it is, I have no idea.", someone with more bluster than knowledge managed to convince everybody that it is the Thor banging his hammer.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/55h1FO8V_3w&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/55h1FO8V_3w&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The fundamental truth of these forums and humans beings in general is that people want to believe something. If they don't know what to believe they look to whoever seems most sure of themselves. I've never been in the army, but if I can trust what films and books have taught me about leadership, the fastest way to loose your troops is to act indecisively. They always say, "Act like you know what you are doing, even if you don't."

What happens is you have people who are bigots in their hearts but have been taught otherwise. They act outwardly as if they believe the social rules about equality. However, deep in their hearts they still feel something isn't "right". Then they hear this argument, "Black people less intelligent, it's a proven scientific fact." This is a big relief to them. It is exactly what they can hear. It makes them feel right inside. So they believe the "evidence" that makes them feel justified, and ignore everything else.

The line from the Yeats poem is, "The best lack all conviction the worst are full of passionate intensity". That is a wonderful insight into the human psyche. All it takes is one person confident enough that they know that there is scientific proof that black people are inferior. They then work like a seed particle in a rain cloud, attracting all the water vapor around it into a droplet of rain.

Your position to me would make sense if we could say as a precondition that the truth will always win in confrontation with bigotry. I think history seems to pretty decisively reject that notion. Off the top of my head, I'd suggest reading Extrordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds if you doubt this proposition. A more recent example that comes to mind is, the case of bogus bomb detector "dousing rods" sold to Iraq., though someone else could probably recommend a better example. The concept of groupthink is right in there somewhere too.

People will gladly believe a seductive lie over an uncomfortable truth, if you give them the slightest incentive.

 

A discussion like this is more likely to get people to do research themselves, not less. And few (or none) of us is going to go into this field at all, and few of us will ever take the time to study the evidence provided by experts. Ignoring the topic altogether will lead people to believe whatever they want. Discussing it casually will at least open minds to other ideas and encourage learning, not discourage it.

In my opinion, people with bigotry in their hearts will be bigots regardless of what scientific evidence they hear. You seem to expect them only to misinterpret the evidence on intelligence and race, as if they aren't already misinterpreting other "evidence" currently available. If they are predisposed to bigotry, they already have enough information to misunderstand and pervert in an attempt to justify their beliefs.

(Now, technically this thread isn't even about which race is more intelligent, it's about whether that's a legitimate question and worth studying. So the fact that you don't want people reading that a certain race has less intelligence shouldn't really prevent people from discussing the question in the OP. It should just prevent people from going off topic or discussing specific studies in particular.)

Anyway, what I fundamentally don't like about your point of view, is that in an attempt to prevent bigots from getting ammunition for their bigotry (which I think is fruitless on its own as mentioned above), you would deny the non-bigots, the curious, the interested, from engaging in thoughtful and thought provoking discussion. To me, that is the much more damaging choice.

Ignorance is a more direct path to bigotry than misguidedness. I'd rather take a chance on the latter.

 

Major with all due respect you haven't provided a valid reason to pursue this subject. its not like trying to figure who is more likely inherit a sickness.

on the subject, I agree with ottoman, we don't even have a real definition of intelligence.