CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
TLDR: Somewhat agree, but the racial differences are predominately cultural ones, and the score discrepancies are primarily a result of how much overlap there is between the aspects of intelligence best nurtured by that culture vs what is weighted most heavily by the test.
I will somewhat agree, that any form of measuring intelligence will have different cultural groups (even within the same overarching society) have overall/median scores that tend to cluster together more closely than to other cultural groups (with significant outliers!) and will tend to correlate to higher scores for some cultural groups over others, depending on the method of assessment. Cultures are often divided by race, though not always and there can certainly be members of a culture different from the 'norm' for their race.
The issue largely lies in the methodology of the testing. Intelligence has many components, and different methodologies value different components more highly than others; furthermore, there is some dispute over what components of thought should be considered as falling under intelligence and which shouldn't. The brain is an extremely adaptive organ, and what the mind is set to and what it experiences are far more influential to its eventual capabilities than genetic makeup is, typically speaking.
To say race has anything to do with intelligence is in itself unintelligent.
I actually agree with this, because...
It is a simple case of cultural upbringing and social environment.
And this is exactly my point. I am suggesting that an apparent correlation between intelligence and race is in fact reflective of this cultural difference- while acknowledging that cultures are most frequently divided along racial lines.
How does this in anyway constitute a dispute to my point? You're echoing exactly what I'm saying while labeling it a dispute. Did you even read my post?
I am suggesting that an apparent correlation between intelligence and race is in fact reflective of this cultural difference.-
Now we're getting somewhere. In your own words you said it is a cultural difference. And i completely agree. Not a correlation between race and intelligence. Also not factored into the equation is the history of African-Americans in America. Let us not forget that.
In your own words you said it is a cultural difference. And i completely agree. Not a correlation between race and intelligence. Also not factored into the equation is the history of African-Americans in America. Let us not forget that.
And it's here where it breaks down. If there is a correlation between culture and measured intelligence, then there is also a correlation between race and measured intelligence because of the extremely strong correlation between race and culture. This does not mean there is a cause-effect relationship between race and measured intelligence, but rather the reason for the correlation between race and measured intelligence because there is a cause-effect relationship with culture and measured intelligence, and cultures are divided mostly on racial lines.
And when one looks at it from a cultural perspective, the history of Black Americans is a factor, in that it was influential in the direction that their subculture took; I don't believe genetics of race was a factor here, but rather the circumstances they lived under that shaped their culture.
All of this is why I said I somewhat agree- there are overall racial differences in measured intelligence, but I assert that this is not due to genetic (racial) reasons specifically so much as cultural reasons which are strongly tied to race.
It is also important to remember that this is measured intelligence, not necessarily actual intelligence, as different tests favor different aspects of intelligence, and different cultures and circumstances encourage the development of different aspects of intelligence.
Odd, you don't seem to have made any factual arguments against the video's content.
Furthermore, you spoke as if though the inherent idea was unintelligent. Was I correct in this assumption, or is it just that?
And for two, you know who else has said certain races are more or less intelligent than others?
Oooh, Godwin's Law in action. I love it how you think comparing this to Hitler has any relevancy to the debate. Here's a hint: it doesn't. How about if you dispute the video's points instead of making moralistic accusations?
I'm not disputing the video, that is the whole point. Research the background of the video and of the man who presented it. From that alone, it gives away pretty much everything there is to know about what the video is going to point out. Who said anything about Hitler? But now that you brought it up, sure Hitler, why not Jim Jones, or other right wing christian sects. There are multiple incidents and individuals who, coincidence, believed that racial superiority and intelligence where "a thing". You know what the world thought of them and will remember them for?
I'm not disputing the video, that is the whole point. Research the background of the video and of the man who presented it. From that alone, it gives away pretty much everything there is to know about what the video is going to point out.
I've researched it. I know full well who and what AmRen are, as well as Jared Taylor.
Knowing that, I'd encourage you to go out and form your own opinion regarding them.
I'd also encourage you to read what they believe as opposed to what other people say they believe.
There are multiple incidents and individuals who, coincidence, believed that racial superiority and intelligence where "a thing".
Except that this guy (and most of AmRen) do not believe that any race is inherently "superior". They only believe that some races are, on average, more intelligent than others, and that this is caused by biological differences.
Furthermore, I don't see why the latter concept is so odious to you. They're not claiming that this means all blacks are dumber than all whites, or that blacks are more primitive or evil or something of the sort.
You know what the world thought of them and will remember them for?
But it's not hereditary. Black people aren't born unintelligent just like Asians aren't born intelligent. It's how they're brought up, and it happens that there are differences in intelligence between different ethnicities.
First it has been shown that there are many types of intelligence, using one measure is not a full measure on intelligence but rather a measure of a specific type of intelligence. Societal and cultural values can skew what type of intelligence is important amongst the group. Focusing on one type of intelligence is fine as long as you know the limits and your biases when doing so. It would seem the author of the video has no interest in these things.
It has also been shown that intelligence often correlates to income and other societal factors. Individuals who have larger incomes and or less social stigma have better opportunities and environments that are conducive to learning more than those individuals without those benefits. Social sciences nod to these inequalities being a cause to the intelligence gap between populations.
The source of the video is a white supremacist hate group
White supremacists who believe that Asians and Jews are smarter, and less aggressive than whites.
That makes sense /sarcasm
First it has been shown that there are many types of intelligence, using one measure is not a full measure on intelligence but rather a measure of a specific type of intelligence. Societal and cultural values can skew what type of intelligence is important amongst the group. Focusing on one type of intelligence is fine as long as you know the limits and your biases when doing so. It would seem the author of the video has no interest in these things.
Actually, the impact of social and economic factors has been addressed in the video.
Also, if we intend for other races to live amongst societies which value the importance of other types of intelligence, then this knowledge is nonetheless useful.
Social sciences nod to these inequalities being a cause to the intelligence gap between populations.
These social sciences fail to account as to why these inequalities exist in the first place. For example, why did China have one of the most technologically advanced empires at a time when Sub-Saharan Africa hadn't even invented the wheel?
Not really, but it makes you a pretty shoddy "white supremacist".
No, it means you are waiting for something else to hate the Asians and Jews about.
And I don't see how hating blacks and Mexicans is even relevant here, the guy in the video certainly does nit seem to think so.
If you hate Blacks and Mexicans and put out a study that they are genetically inferior it would be relevant. The biased guy in the video decided to use a study from a hate group. Do we really care if he thinks it is relevant or not?
No, it means you are waiting for something else to hate the Asians and Jews about.
Ah, assumptions are fun, aren't they! "I've decided this guy is a white supremacist, so it must mean he hates Jews and Asians for something, I just don't know what it is yet!"
If you hate Blacks and Mexicans and put out a study that they are genetically inferior it would be relevant.
I see nothing here implying that they're "genetically inferior". Only the implication that they're not as intelligent, on average (and I must stress that), and that this is partly or fully caused by biological differences.
The biased guy in the video decided to use a study from a hate group.
I'm not saying that he thinks it's relevant mate. I'm saying that it's not really relevant to the discussion. And he doesn't seem to be hating on blacks and Mexicans either.
Also, which is this "study from a hate group" you're referring to?
I'd appreciate it if you could muster up a better argument than some accusations of racism though.
Based on J-Roc saying they were known to be a hate group. I didn't say anything about them being a hate group because they are white people attacking minorities. I only criticized you for saying they aren't a "white" supremacist group, therefore J-Roc is wrong.
Moreover, they (well, at least not all of them, and not officially) do not seem to hate another group of people based on race.
They are on a list of hate groups, though.
Anyways, with your logic, you might as well call the LGBT community a hate group, for hating homophobes.
With your logic they can't be considered a hate group at all because there are some people they don't hate.
Why did you challenge my statement where I claimed to never say anything about the haters being white? Doesn't your rebuttal imply that my statement was false? Therefore, you would have to be implying that.
That's cool. I consider Putin a rainbow princess because he was on a 4chan list a while ago .;,;.
You can say that, but wouldn't it be incredibly stupid for me to then claim you think Putin is a rainbow princess because he is Russian?
No, my evidence consists of them (AmRen) openly believing Asians and Jews to be smarter than whites.
My comment was based on the fact that you were saying they don't seem so bad because the guy in the video is calm when he says bad things about Blacks and Mexicans.
Furthermore, there's no evidence, as far as I'm aware, for them being white supremacists.
Why did you challenge my statement where I claimed to never say anything about the haters being white? Doesn't your rebuttal imply that my statement was false? Therefore, you would have to be implying that.
I didn't. I challenged your statement when you called them a hate group. I also got the impression that you though they were WS'.
You can say that, but wouldn't it be incredibly stupid for me to then claim you think Putin is a rainbow princess because he is Russian?
I see what you're getting at, and you're completely failing to understand my claims.
My comment was based on the fact that you were saying they don't seem so bad because the guy in the video is calm when he says bad things about Blacks and Mexicans.
What bad things? That their lower average intelligence may be partly biological? Pft.
How would you tell if they were?
Been around their site a few times, read some of the stuff they talk about. Some of their members are more into the loonier side, but the majority are fairly rational.
I didn't. I challenged your statement when you called them a hate group. I also got the impression that you though they were WS'.
You challenged it by saying that I considered them a hate group for being white.
I see what you're getting at, and you're completely failing to understand my claims.
I have a hard time understanding baseless claims, so you are right there.
What bad things? That their lower average intelligence may be partly biological? Pft.
I fail to see how lower average intelligence is a good thing.
Been around their site a few times, read some of the stuff they talk about. Some of their members are more into the loonier side, but the majority are fairly rational.
Uh, what? I asked you how to tell if they were white supremacists and your answer is that they aren't. How can you tell any group is white supremacist?
You challenged it by saying that I considered them a hate group for being white.
No, I said that you considered them a hate group for being on a list.
I don't remember saying anything about them being white.
Also, I got the implication that you thought they were WS because of these posts:
So, if you hate Blacks and Mexicans but like everyone else you aren't a hate group?
No, it means you are waiting for something else to hate the Asians and Jews about.
I fail to see how lower average intelligence is a good thing.
Bad thing for groups. Not every individual conforms to the average.
Uh, what? I asked you how to tell if they were white supremacists and your answer is that they aren't. How can you tell any group is white supremacist?
Basically, I don't think that they're white supremacists because they seem to view Jews and Asians as more intelligent than whites, and that they don't seem to have any negative views on Jews or Asians.
The most WS-ish behaviour they show is how they believe that whites are smarter, on average, than Hispanics and blacks.
No, I said that you considered them a hate group for being on a list.
I don't remember saying anything about them being white.
You said ".. based on their race, which would mean racism."
I responded with saying that I never said anything about them being white. You shouldn't have responded after that.
Also, I got the implication that you thought they were WS because of these posts:
It didn't help that you quoted me saying something else.
Bad thing for groups. Not every individual conforms to the average.
So, you agree the video is negative.
Basically, I don't think that they're white supremacists because they seem to view Jews and Asians as more intelligent than whites, and that they don't seem to have any negative views on Jews or Asians.
The most WS-ish behaviour they show is how they believe that whites are smarter, on average, than Hispanics and blacks.
It is becoming clear that you are not able to render an opinion on whether or not a group is WS. You should stay out of this conversation.
You said ".. based on their race, which would mean racism."
Yes, as in that they would be discriminating upon others based on their race.
It didn't help that you quoted me saying something else.
It did, actually, since you basically said that they may hate Asians and Jews for other reasons.
So, you agree the video is negative.
Depends on what you mean by negative. If this is indeed true, then it's valuable knowledge for the future.
It is becoming clear that you are not able to render an opinion on whether or not a group is WS. You should stay out of this conversation.
It's clear to me that your poor reading comprehension is preventing you from being able to understand what I'm saying (as exemplified by that misunderstanding regarding you thinking that I brought them being white into this), so I suggest you stay in this conversation for my own amusement.
See here I accused them of being a hate group if they are a group of people that hates another group of people.
.. based on their race, which would mean racism.
I was referring to how you said that they "hate Blacks and Mexicans", which would be racism.
Yes, as in that they would be discriminating upon others based on their race.
That's nice. So, why did you challenge my true statement?
It did, actually, since you basically said that they may hate Asians and Jews for other reasons.
No, quoted one set of text and attacking a different section of text never helps.
Depends on what you mean by negative. If this is indeed true, then it's valuable knowledge for the future.
Having value doesn't eliminate it being negative.
It's clear to me that your poor reading comprehension is preventing you from being able to understand what I'm saying (as exemplified by that misunderstanding regarding you thinking that I brought them being white into this), so I suggest you stay in this conversation for my own amusement.
Oh, you want to talk about reading comprehension? Who is the one who has been asked twice directly what the criteria for being WS is and has only responded with these people aren't it? That would be you. You literally can't determine what makes a group WS.
See here I accused them of being a hate group if they are a group of people that hates another group of people.
.. based on their race, which would mean racism.
I was referring to how you said that they "hate Blacks and Mexicans", which would be racism.
Ok, yes, they are considered a racist hate group. What is your point?
That's nice. So, why did you challenge my true statement?
Which one? The one about them being a hate group?
Having value doesn't eliminate it being negative.
You have a point, but it doesn't mean that they are spreading "hate" against certain groups.
Oh, you want to talk about reading comprehension? Who is the one who has been asked twice directly what the criteria for being WS is and has only responded with these people aren't it? That would be you. You literally can't determine what makes a group WS.
I can, it's not my fault that you didn't ask this directly up until now.
Anyways, a WS is pretty self explanatory: Someone who believes whites are the "best" race. More moral, intelligent, creative, whatever. They simply believe whites are better. Does that answer your question?
Ok, yes, they are considered a racist hate group. What is your point?
The one where I said I never said they were a hate group because they were white.
You have a point, but it doesn't mean that they are spreading "hate" against certain groups.
Ok, but they didn't make the list because of this video.
I can, it's not my fault that you didn't ask this directly up until now.
It is proof that you can't read at least.
Anyways, a WS is pretty self explanatory: Someone who believes whites are the "best" race. More moral, intelligent, creative, whatever. They simply believe whites are better. Does that answer your question?
So, these guys fit that description.
I was disputing your claim that they were WSs.
Oh, ok. That seemed like a very strange way to do that.
The one where I said I never said they were a hate group because they were white.
Yeah, I never challenged that.
It is proof that you can't read at least.
Wait, actually I did reply to that:
Been around their site a few times, read some of the stuff they talk about. Some of their members are more into the loonier side, but the majority are fairly rational.
The problem is that I thought you were asking me how i knew that AmRen where nto WS, not how to tell if someone was a WS, which is something that I also replied to here: Basically, I don't think that they're white supremacists because they seem to view Jews and Asians as more intelligent than whites, and that they don't seem to have any negative views on Jews or Asians.
The most WS-ish behaviour they show is how they believe that whites are smarter, on average, than Hispanics and blacks.
Not a direct response, but it serves it's purpose.
So, these guys fit that description.
Seeing as how they make no statements on anything other than intelligence, and in that field they do not put whites at the top, then no, they do not fit that description.
Oh, well you quoted that and presented my statements as evidence. It seemed like a challenge.
Seeing as how they make no statements on anything other than intelligence, and in that field they do not put whites at the top, then no, they do not fit that description.
I think they bring up other topics outside of this 16 minute video. They aren't just about intelligence. They sort of did put the whites at the top though because the guy compared everyone to the wah hites as the top intelligent group and said that some other groups are able to also succeed.
I think they bring up other topics outside of this 16 minute video. They aren't just about intelligence. They sort of did put the whites at the top though because the guy compared everyone to the wah hites as the top intelligent group and said that some other groups are able to also succeed.
Not really. While it is true the main emphasis was on whites and blacks, Asians were specifically mentioned to be smarter than whites.
These social sciences fail to account as to why these inequalities exist in the first place.
Not exactly, I mentioned it above. Societal and cultural values can skew what type of intelligence is important amongst the group.
This is about necessity and values within the culture. It is likely that trade and material wealth created a need to move large amounts of stuff within one culture but in a culture where materialism (the consumer kind) was deemed less important and the need for moving large amounts of stuff less a factor. You can also look at the region and see that a primitive wheel would not be as efficient as other means like animals packing stuff due to the geography. Skinny tires are terrible in soft materials like sand.
Inuits never invented a wheel either. Pretty bad measure using the wheel isn't it? Other measures fall apart upon greater scrutiny as well such as the repeated issue of brain size. Men have larger brains then women on average as well, but no study shows men are smarter than women.
The evidence has piled up for years. In 1990, Hyde and her colleagues published a groundbreaking meta-analysis of 100 studies of math performance. Synthesizing data collected on more than three million participants between 1967 and 1987, researchers found no large, overall differences between boys and girls in math performance. Girls were slightly better at computation in elementary and middle school; in high school only, boys showed a slight edge in problem solving, perhaps because they took more science, which stresses problem solving. Boys and girls understood math concepts equally well and any gender differences narrowed over the years, belying the notion of a fixed or biological differentiating factor.
If men and women have different sized brains but similar results why is it a measure? It is apparent it is a bad measure in this instance.
Actually, the impact of social and economic factors has been addressed in the video.
Glazed over really. The literature is pretty stout pointing to the environmental factors being a cause. It is generally acknowledged that many environmental factors aside do not explain the whole difference in the intelligence of populations. Just because we cannot account for the differences with current methodology doesn't mean that the others claim is correct and many professionals reject how weighted heredity is on some peoples claims about racial intelligence.
Like using the wheel example above the claims of race being a major factor in IQ just don't seem convincing as they reek of bias and or lack of context.
Intelligence, Race, and Genetics. Authors Robert J. Sternberg, PhD (Yale University), Elena L. Grigorenko, PhD (Yale University), and Kenneth K. Kidd, PhD (Yale University), submit that research that attempts to link genetics and race with intelligence is invalid-based in folklore and not in science.
Race and IQ: Molecular Genetics as Deus ex Machina. In a rebuttal to Rowe, Author Richard S. Cooper, MD (Loyola University Chicago), writes, "it is premature to argue that we should expect useful answers from research on whether there is a molecular basis for racial differences in IQ scores. Until the DNA-phenotype relationship is understood such questions should remain in the realm of nescience - the unknown and the unknowable - not science. Rather than providing useful answers, further research on race and IQ…will instead add to the existing morass of Type I error and willful falsification." According to Cooper, any discussion of race that ignores the cultural meaning and context of race fails the test of good science.
This next part is a bit of a tangent as it doesn't affect my rebuttal as it wasn't part of my reasoning for disagreeing but merely an observation. The group is recognized as a hate group.
White supremacists who believe that Asians and Jews are smarter, and less aggressive than whites.
That makes sense /sarcasm
Sure, it doesn't change how the group values other groups such as Blacks or Mestizos. Do you agree the group is a hate group with racial ideology and are just disputing the "white supremacist" label?
This is about necessity and values within the culture. It is likely that trade and material wealth created a need to move large amounts of stuff within one culture but in a culture where materialism (the consumer kind) was deemed less important and the need for moving large amounts of stuff less a factor. You can also look at the region and see that a primitive wheel would not be as efficient as other means like animals packing stuff due to the geography. Skinny tires are terrible in soft materials like sand.
You make a valid point with the wheel, but you fail to account for the fact that Sub-Saharan Africa saw little-to-no technological progress prior to colonization, as opposed to the even more inhospitable North Africa and Middle East.
If men and women have different sized brains but similar results why is it a measure? It is apparent it is a bad measure in this instance.
I'd like to point out that humans are a sexually dimorphic species, so different brain sizes isn't really surprising. However, if males and females have different brain sizes due to sexual dimorphism, why do certain races have somewhat smaller brains as well, with no given reason? And why is it that races with smaller brains do not perform as well as those with slightly bigger brains (for example, the black-caucasian-asian continuum).
Also, if women perform as well as men, despite having (and still enduring) endured discrimination, why is this not true for other races? Why is it that some races that were discriminated against (Asians and Jews) by whites, nonetheless perform noticeably better than whites?
Just because we cannot account for the differences with current methodology doesn't mean that the others claim is correct
Except that these methodologies are attempting to account for a correlation, and argue that race is not a causation. Therefore, while it does not make the race=causation automatically correct, it does favor it.
Do you agree the group is a hate group with racial ideology and are just disputing the "white supremacist" label?
I am disputing the white supremacist label. I'm not familiar enough with the group (assuming you're referring to AmRen) to come to my own conclusion on it, which I would prefer over just going by what the SPLC says.
You make a valid point with the wheel, but you fail to account for the fact that Sub-Saharan Africa saw little-to-no technological progress prior to colonization, as opposed to the even more inhospitable North Africa and Middle East.
This falls in the same category of values and culture still. You are comparing cultures that value ownership of material items and land versus ones that do not. Much technology created by certain cultures during the early history was created for processing materials or taking them. Accumulation by dispossession fueled much innovation that was central to one cultures growth but not another. Cultures that were not warring to extract things like silver or gold had no need for such innovations as they did not value those things that could be gained by said innovations.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Why is it that some races that were discriminated against (Asians and Jews) by whites, nonetheless perform noticeably better than whites?
Those groups are generally more wealthy than other groups who are not doing so well academically within western culture and benefit from the opportunities that arises from a privileged position. As for abroad generally wealthy populations of Asians score much higher than those that are much less wealthy.
The asian countries ranking at the top are quite wealthy but the ones that rank lower are quite poor. Please note I am not comparing GDP when I mean wealthy as GDP is not a good measure of wealth, PPP is a better measure. Of course there are some pitfalls of using an IQ of a whole country as common complaints are centered around countries padding their numbers by not allowing some people to test or receive schooling. I am using it as a general measure for the idea of wealth being a large factor in opportunity for education.
Except that these methodologies are attempting to account for a correlation, and argue that race is not a causation. Therefore, while it does not make the race=causation automatically correct, it does favor it.
Hmm, I am not sure I agree with this. I am not sure how not being able to explain a nuance that eludes us makes another idea favorable. I mean science has not solved abiogenesis yet but that doesn't mean the argument of a deity is any stronger.
The studies I linked are not saying "race is not causation" but saying "these factors (wealth, culture etc.) are a cause". To rule out race they would have to show it isn't a cause. This is not why I do not think race has as much weight in this area as others though. I am not convinced that anyone has made a case that race is a cause with decent methodology that doesn't rely on biases or lack of context.
I'd like to point out that humans are a sexually dimorphic species, so different brain sizes isn't really surprising...Also, if women perform as well as men, despite having (and still enduring) endured discrimination, why is this not true for other races?
I was thinking of this prior to your pointing it out. As you said we are a sexually dimorphic species but we are not comparing race here but sex. If you are saying brain size doesn't matter for sexual differences but for racial I think that sounds a bit like the fallacy of "special pleading".
To be fair though I may have used a poor measure here as we are now discussing sex instead of race.
As for comparing races or species there are many studies that link intelligence with brain sizes between species or races but not within. I do acknowledge that there is some academic discussion on the subject but I am of the mind similar to what I already linked and quoted in my last rebuttal. I will spare you me being repetitive.
I think an issue here is that the data points are all over the place making causation a terrible call. Einstein for instance had a normal sized brain despite his huge intellect. Certain areas of his brain were larger than normal however but this seems to be something we develop through use and can therefor be affected by culture.
This falls in the same category of values and culture still. You are comparing cultures that value ownership of material items and land versus ones that do not. Much technology created by certain cultures during the early history was created for processing materials or taking them. Accumulation by dispossession fueled much innovation that was central to one cultures growth but not another. Cultures that were not warring to extract things like silver or gold had no need for such innovations as they did not value those things that could be gained by said innovations.
But why didn't Sub-Saharan African cultures value the possession of items and land?
Those groups are generally more wealthy than other groups who are not doing so well academically within western culture and benefit from the opportunities that arises from a privileged position.
And how did they become more wealthy in the first place? Why weren't other races wealthy instead of them? And isn't it a least bit coincidental that Asians and Jews have higher IQ's on average than other races, and, at least in the case of Asians, slightly bigger brains?
Hmm, I am not sure I agree with this. I am not sure how not being able to explain a nuance that eludes us makes another idea favorable.
Well, it doesn't. However, due to the definite correlation between race and intelligence, it does favor race as being a causation when evidence for alternative methods is absent. Basically, the correlation involving both race and intelligence is what favors for the former being a causation.
If you are saying brain size doesn't matter for sexual differences but for racial I think that sounds a bit like the fallacy of "special pleading".
Not really. We know why female brains are a bit smaller. The same cannot always be said for race and brain size.
I think an issue here is that the data points are all over the place making causation a terrible call. Einstein for instance had a normal sized brain despite his huge intellect. Certain areas of his brain were larger than normal however but this seems to be something we develop through use and can therefor be affected by culture.
Interesting point, and certainly valid.
However, I'd also like to point out the studies conducted by Bruce Lahn, as pointed out in the video, in which genes coding for intelligence were high in Asians and Europeans, but low in Africans.
Also, it is certainly very plausible that natural selection, and the r/K selection theory, has had an effect on different geographical groups.
But why didn't Sub-Saharan African cultures value the possession of items and land?
Irrelevant? Culture is largely arbitrary and not specific to any race. The Imbongu people of Papa New Guinea for instance valued ownership of land and goods and they had no contact with the outside world till the 1930's. Many of the cultures that did not value wealth have changed as well after being introduced to western ideology. Native Americans are a group that straddles the line in certain parts of the Americas. many values in a culture do not seem to be genetic if that is what you are implying.
And how did they become more wealthy in the first place? Why weren't other races wealthy instead of them?
Look up "accumulation by dispossesion", such efforts funded many cultures for centuries while keeping others down. I would say this is an issue of selfishness for one group over another. This is an issue of circumstance and exploitation rather than intelligence.
However, I'd also like to point out the studies conducted by Bruce Lahn, as pointed out in the video, in which genes coding for intelligence were high in Asians and Europeans, but low in Africans.
It is interesting how the authors of the video frame their argument. Lahn work targeted genes dealing with the suppression of microcephaly not intelligence. Lets see what Lahn has to say about that...
The researchers emphasize that very little is known about the impact of these variants. They may not have anything to do with cognition or intelligence.
“Just because these genes are still evolving, doesn’t necessarily mean they make you any smarter,” Lahn said. “We’ve evolved genes for selfishness, violence, cruelty—all of which are in place because they may make survival easier. But in today’s society, they’re certainly not condoned.”
Lahn and his colleagues stress these studies only examine two genes, and that the genetic variations within a population often are almost as great as the differences between groups.
“If we look at multiple genes, the ethnic variations such as the ones we found are likely to be counterbalanced by other differences,” Lahn said. “It just happens that we looked at two genes for which the variants favored by selection have a higher frequency in some populations, such as Europeans. It might be that for the next two brain size genes we find, the variants favored by selection will have a higher frequency in Asians or Africans.”
Seems the authors of the video seem to misrepresent Lahn and his colleagues current stances here and jump to their own assumptive conclusions.
As for Lahns original paper he did make claims of intelligence but those claims were refuted by others as well as his own work. The underlying work remains solid though.
Here is some more on the issue discussing Lahn's findings and how the alleles found do not correlate to intelligence.
Lahn, following the lead of the field, asserted in his 2005 papers that ASPM and microcephalin were validated genes ‘determining’ and ‘controlling’ human brain size.
The force of acceptance of a theoretical framework for approaching the genetics of human intellectual differences may be assessed by the ease with which it is accepted despite the lack of original empirical studies – and ample contradictory evidence. In fact, there was no evidence of an association between the alleles and either IQ or brain size. Based on what was known about the actual role of the microcephaly gene loci in brain development in 2005, it was not appropriate to describe ASPM and microcephalin as genes controlling human brain size, or even as ‘brain genes’. The genes are not localized in expression or function to the brain, nor specifically to brain development, but are ubiquitous throughout the body....
...Unsurprisingly, Lahn’s postulated association between ASPM and microcephalin, brain size and intelligence in different racial/ethnic groups was refuted by subsequent studies, including one by Lahn’s lab. Several groups raced to test Lahn’s hypothesis, using a variety of methods ranging from IQ tests to brain imaging studies to assess possible correla- tions between the gene variants and intelligence in different racial and ethnic populations. Six such studies have appeared in print since Lahn’s 2005 Science papers; none have found a correlation between the gene variants and either brain size or any measure of intelligence (Dobson-Stone et al, 2007; Mekel-Bobrov et al, 2007; Rushton et al, 2007; Timpson et al, 2007; Bates et al, 2008; Maghirang-Rodriguez et al, 2009).
It seems the authors of the video are not privy to the recent science on the issue.
The last link I gave is on page 429 and 430 if you want to read further. It goes on to say stuff like Yet, as the microcephaly case shows, association with brain development, cognitive impairment or psychological disorders is not sufficient to establish a gene as a candidate determinant of normal variation in intelligence and cognition. This points to a need for critical discussion among genomicists, and brain and behavior researchers of the relevant disciplines, to clarify the assumptions, aims and ethics of this emerging research.
Which follows from my second post on this argument where I quoted the APA. The scholarship on this topic seems to agree that we cannot sufficiently back certain claims based on the evidence but the information is otherwise useful. My post was pretty long as it is but here I am adding to it....sorry!
Guineans are Australoids, not SSA's. They're somewhat distinct, genetically.
I used an aboriginal population in the Australian area because they were noted in the video as having low intelligence. Also the population in New Guinea while being similar genetically to the mainland Aboriginals are distinct culturally from them. On the mainland Aborigines had similar cultural ideas about ownership of land and goods as African or American populations. However on the island the values differed likely due to lack of resources like space on the small island. There would be more competition and therefore more sense of "mine versus yours" for such resources.
There we have two genetically similar populations with different cultural values.
The differences between cultures can be due to environmental factors, which brings us to the next part. (Also please note I know there was contention for resources between Natives in the Americas I am speaking generally here.)
many values in a culture do not seem to be genetic if that is what you are implying.
Not really, merely that some genetic factors relating to behavior may have an effect on cultural values.
These two statements are not mutually exclusive. I agree some cultural factors can be genetic (murder is bad), but some are not (Sunday is a holy day). I agree some behaviors are a mixture of both as you pointed out above. I think we see this in the idea of the r/K theory which I believe is misapplied among homo sapiens.
Certain cultures have higher instances of death due to environmental factors (violence in the middle east for instance) which results in those areas to have high birth rates and low life expectancy (among men usually).
But this is not really "r" behavior as the investment by the parents before pregnancy, the duration of pregnancy, and after birth is the similar as those populations that have low birth rates and higher life expectancy. This expression of birthing ages and practices/family size changes with the culture and resource availability not with the race. The culture that drives these reproductive issues can change and people can be removed from it and their behavior will be able to change.
Children born in these dangerous areas are not physically maturing any faster than their better off safer counterparts. Children still require care from their parents for much of their youth (wether they get it or not is not genetic but cultural ie; working parents). The physiology of adults has not been altered to accommodate the lower life expectancy (again because the lower life expectancy is due to environmental factors not genetic).
Physically maturity for reproduction across the globe has been lower than in recent history as a matter of fact. (Nutrition has been cited as the driving force there). However maturity can also be delayed due to some environmental factors as well (female gymnasts come to mind).
Populations in good areas can physically have children just as fast and as young as populations in dangerous areas. This is not true r/K expressions we see but rather a variance within our own expression on the continuum of K.
For true r/K expressions mice and larger mammals such as elephants or whales are often used to show the differences in the idea.
1. now a days racism plays no part in education(most of the time).
2. Education and intelligence are not equivalent what so ever. I don't know where that ideal came from but it's laughable.
3. Most if not all IQ tests are not relevant to measure someones intelligence level. e.g. if a guy who lived in a jungle his whole live can't understand the test then the test is useless. Furthermore if that guy can't at least score a 90 then the test isn't accurate. Do to the fact that it take some intelligence to survive on your own without anyone teaching or passing down knowledge to you.
(if you do not think that it takes intelligence to survive as the guy in my example is doing, then your ideal of intelligence is clearly off and your most likely talking about education(smarts), this is common.)
4. For crying out loud, this guy is an editor. With that said he does have much credibility, still I will reserve from calling him a racist even though that's what it seem like(because he's an editor with no PHD talking about such a subject). I doubt he can find any group of PHD graduates that can back him up what he is saying. If he can get the black PHD graduates to agree with him, than my mouth is shut. Lola
5. What this guy (and anyone who agrees with him)fail to realize is that environment plays a BIG role in education. e.g. The real reason Jimmy doesn't do good in school is because he feels like math, science or history will not help him survive life at home or in his area. He doesn't see education as a way out.
Plus the studies it's self don't account for cultural influences.
6. He's examples are more then 5 years old making it irrelevant to even be a creditable source in the academic community. Wow one look at the reference, every one of them sources are out dated there's even one from 1974.... really?
7. At some point you should ask yourself, why is an editor making a video about something nowhere near his field of profession. A guy who clearly doesn't know how to correctly use sources on a academic level, which means all of his sources could of been dis-proven by now and even at the time the video was made. So what is his angle with this?
People find a more creditable source on the subject than this guy. Because this only looks like a joke to me.
Thomas L. Jennings - First African American to hold a U.S. patent. The patent, which was issued in 1821, was for a dry-cleaning process.
Norbert Rillieux - he developed an evaporator for refining sugar, which he patented in 1846
Benjamin Bradley - he developed a steam engine for a war ship. Unable to patent his work, he sold it and with the proceeds purchased his freedom.
That was just a few of a long list of black inventors.
Here are a few black scientist.
Benjamin Banneker - Banneker learned the rudiments of reading, writing, and arithmetic from his grandmother and a Quaker schoolmaster. Later he taught himself advanced mathematics and astronomy. He is best known for publishing an almanac based on his astronomical calculations. 1731 -1806
Rebecca Cole - Cole was the second black woman to graduate from medical school (1867). She joined Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, the first white woman physician, in New York and taught hygiene and childcare to families in poor neighborhoods.
Dr. Daniel Hale Williams - he received his M.D. in 1883. He founded the Provident Hospital in Chicago in 1891, and he performed the first successful open heart surgery in 1893.
I put those links there because clearly these people have an IQ higher than 80 or whatever. Keep in mind that these nothing more than a small mount of intelligence black people when looking for how many there actually are. If black people intelligence are truly low then these people must of geniuses easily.
Here are some random quotes on the matter from average people.
"While I agree genetics plays a part in the results, the environment in which one grows up in plays a huge part as well. Any child, regardless of race, living in the suburbs, will probably score higher than a child who lives in an urban city, on average. The schools are better funded, the children have access to larger variety of study materials, and they usually don't have as many issues at home to contend with. "
"My step father, who is white, is highly intelligent, and even he used to say that he was lucky to have the money that he grew up with. He used to say money can buy a better education, better neighborhoods and even better outlook on life. By your logic,if you have a white artist and a black artist, then you'd assume that the white artist is always going to be a BETTER or more brilliant artist than the black artist?"
Sorry, but he should've paid attention to the video. This was stated repeatedly. Furthermore, pretty much everyone knows how averages work. You don't have to be "good at math" to know this.