Race and intelligence

[Tikker]

Actually the ability to learn could very well be genetic. In that case, a persons intelligence would be directly related to genetics.

ability to learn is genetic, much like learning disabilities are genetic

[DangerPaul]

the tests are culturally biased

[xaoshaen]

oh so because your black you cant take a test. Amazing. Glad to see it your way.

Hey, way to utterly misstate the argument through simplification. The fact remains that I can certaintly construct a test that, say, I would fare much better on proportionally than you would. I can also construct a test that I would fare much worse on proportionally than you would.

You're also relating skin color to a consistent genetic pool, which entirely ridiculous. You simply can't construct a genetic argument about "black" people, simply due to genetic diversity.

[kaharthemad]

NO I am pointing out that established tests that say place you for jobs, college entrance etc etc. Blacks score lower in general. What you are trying to do is debunk something that has been stated more than once. What you think we should do is change the test for each fucking race? yeah thats a brilliant one. What I am saying and that you, time and time fail to see is that a test such as the ASVAB is a standardized test that almost all races seem to pass with higher scores the the african american population. Asian males usually test higher on the ASVAB then standard white males. Hispanic descent score around the same aver as white males. overal the teswting of african americans test lower.

now if we break it down to the 9 core elements...

Test 1 General Science (GS)
Test 2 Arithmetic Reasoning (AR)
Test 3 Word Knowledge (WK)
Test 4 Paragraph Comprehension (PC)
Test 5 Mathematics Knowledge (MK)
Test 6 Electronics Information (EI)
Test 7 Auto & Shop Information (AS)
Test 8 Mechanical Comprehension (MC)

We could most likely see that in most cases according to BUPERS Asians score higher on 1,2,5,6 then the Black population.
However 7, 8, 3 African americans usually score higher.

What I am getting at is these are averages. some screw the charts granted, but what if Genetics dictate what areas a certain sub species will be more profiecient in?

[xaoshaen]

What I am getting at is these are averages. some screw the charts granted, but what if Genetics dictate what areas a certain sub species will be more profiecient in?

And what I'm saying is that you can't possibly be correct. There's no 'black sub-species' of humanity. There's greater genetic variation amongst Africans than between Africans and Europeans, which stands to reason if you consider the origins of the human race. Attempting to create a universal population of 'black people' is the height of foolhardiness.

[Langston]

oh our error... those black people are EXACTLY THE SAME as white people.

How silly of us, Xao.

[xaoshaen]

oh our error... those black people are EXACTLY THE SAME as white people.

How silly of us, Xao.

No, your error is in misunderstanding the composition of a genetic pool. You can't meaningfully talk about how 'black people' are genetically inferior or superior in any way. The genetic diversity of such a population would make the argument entirely meaningless.

[kaharthemad]

And what I'm saying is that you can't possibly be correct. There's no 'black sub-species' of humanity. There's greater genetic variation amongst Africans than between Africans and Europeans, which stands to reason if you consider the origins of the human race. Attempting to create a universal population of 'black people' is the height of foolhardiness.

Subspecies
subpopulation of a species, defined on the basis of more than one character (morphologic for many organisms) that distinguishes the members of the subpopulation from other members of that species


If you are referencing the 'human race' as a whole whites black asian hispanics are all subspecies of the whole. Since color of skin eye shape and hair color can distinguish between on ethnicity to the next. But since you ignore Lyions post...

Fucking hell, can you not be anal retentive in every thread, Xao? One reply makes us think you are witty. Repeating the same boorish crap over and over ad nauseum makes you seem annoyingly obsessive compulsive and petulant. Go wash your hands or something after a few replies.

I shall now ignore you and discuss with people that do not pick apart sentences and act like a fucked up rainman with a Encyclopedia Britanica under one arm and a Websters Dictionary under the other.

[Ouchyfish]

I thought this was a NASCAR thread.

[xaoshaen]

I'm sorry I pointed out the ridiculous flaws in your argument, Kahar. I see you've resorted to using ad hominem attacks and unattributed definitions as a defense for an indefensible argument. A quick google check indicates that you're quoting from wikipedia, and only using part of the definition of 'subspecies', conveniently ignoring the whole 'genetics' bit. Even given the non-rigorous nature of a wikipedia definition (any rigorous definition of a subspecies demands distinguishing genetic charactieristics), your quote doesn't actually manage to refute my argument.

You see, there's precisely zero evidence that intelligence is linked to any phenotypical trait. By establishing a population based on such a phenotype, you've effectively eliminated any possible correlation to an unrelated genetic trait, such as intelligence.

It's entirely possible that by establishing a pool of genetically linked individuals, you could establish a correlation between a genotype and a genetic trait, however as I mentioned earlier, the concept of a 'black' genotype is patently ludicrous.

[EDIT: I'd also be quite interested to see where I've "picked apart sentences" in this thread, as opposed to addressing concepts and arguments. There's no need for either a dictionary or an encyclopedia to refute most of the tripe put forth here, just a rudimentary understanding of human genetics.]

[Tikker]

Tripe is a tasty kind of dessert

[Langston]

Xao - you're overthinking a very simple point. I believe you're doing so in an effort to refute that same very simple point.

I once read a "proof" that actually showed where 1+1 != 2. It was proven using some extraordinary circular logic... I wish I stilll had the proof today... but it doesn't change the fact that the real answer, truly, is 2.

[Harrison]

Yeah, I used to piss off my math teachers since 7th grade on that one.

Funny part was it was a math teacher who taught it to me those years ago.

[Zanchief]

Xao - you're overthinking a very simple point. I believe you're doing so in an effort to refute that same very simple point.

I once read a "proof" that actually showed where 1+1 != 2. It was proven using some extraordinary circular logic... I wish I stilll had the proof today... but it doesn't change the fact that the real answer, truly, is 2.

Using complex math proofs to explain something that is absolutely baseless, scientifically?

Yea, now who's over thinking?

[Snero]

It's the age old problems of correlation without causation, did they score lower because of problems like childhood malnutrition, or lack of intelectual stimulation when young, or any other potential factors that could harm a child's ability to learn or is it genetic. It's a mistake to leap to a conclusion that this conclusively proves anything other then the fact that generally people tend to score higher or lower based on race.

[xaoshaen]

Xao - you're overthinking a very simple point. I believe you're doing so in an effort to refute that same very simple point.

I once read a "proof" that actually showed where 1+1 != 2. It was proven using some extraordinary circular logic... I wish I stilll had the proof today... but it doesn't change the fact that the real answer, truly, is 2.

I've seen a few different such proofs, usually based on the same logic that the 1 = 2 proof uses. That's not an example of overthinking, just an example of bad math that's over some folks' heads. I don't really know what to say if you're claiming that elementary genetics is "overthinking" the question. You just can't, with any legitimacy, proclaim the existence of a genetic population that encompasses all black people. As you would expect, given the origins of the human race, the wild genetic diversity in Africa is going to defeat such an attempt. People love to pick a phenotype and associate an unrelated genotype with it, when the reality is that genetics doesn't work that way.

[Scoota McGee]

I don’t believe there is too much argument that some races are genetically prone to physical traits like skin color, eye color, broad nose, heavy lidded eyes, height, body type (Endo, Ecto, and Meso). Some diseases have been found to be more prevalent in some races than other. Some genetic conditions have also been found to be more prevalent in some races than others.

There are conditions that different races are more or less prone to. I don’t think anyone can rationally argue otherwise.

In that we don’t have a way to measure intelligence, or even an agreement on what the word intelligence means. How can anyone definitively state that race does or does not play a factor in intelligence?

What makes it more challenging is if a scientist were to try to actually research the topic; he or she would instantly be branded a racist. If someone put up with the brand of racist and conducted honest research and found their was a correlation between race and intelligence it would be irrelevant. People would refuse to hear because it’s easier to believe the dogma of “Everyone is equal” than accept the very possibility that having different strengths and weaknesses is not a bad thing.

[Zanchief]

It's a fact that black people are genetically predisposed to have a lower tested IQ than white people.

That is a fact.

That's what we are arguing Scoota.

Is that a FACT?

I'm sure your theory about racist scientists and global liberal agendas of dishonesty are all very accurate to what MIGHT happen. But that still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong, and I was right.

[Scoota McGee]

But that still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong, and I was right.

About what?

I fully agree that race may play no part in intelligence. Can you say that it might?

[Zanchief]

So... if we find any race is genetically predisposed to any condition... that's racism?

I believe blacks are genetically more prone to developing sickle cell anemia... I guess I'm a racist

I suppose you were being argumentative for the sake of posterity?

[Zanchief]

But that still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong, and I was right.

I fully agree that race may play no part in intelligence. Can you say that it might?

Of course. That makes it far from fact though.

[Scoota McGee]

So... if we find any race is genetically predisposed to any condition... that's racism?

I believe blacks are genetically more prone to developing sickle cell anemia... I guess I'm a racist

I suppose you were being argumentative for the sake of posterity?

Sorry man I don't follow where you're going here. As far as I know black people are more prone to developing sickle cell anemia. If I'm wrong I'm wrong… but I'm not being argumentative in that statement.

[Scoota McGee]

To repeat: I fully agree that race may play no part in intelligence. Can you say that it might?

[Zanchief]

To repeat: I fully agree that race may play no part in intelligence. Can you say that it might?

Scroll up two posts.

[Zanchief]

So... if we find any race is genetically predisposed to any condition... that's racism?

That was a shot at me for claiming black people aren't genetically stupid.

Seems like the classic definition are argumentative to me.