Race And Intelligence The Final Taboo.

[Al_Fel]

I was just wondering if anyone watched Race and Intelligence the final taboo on channel 4 last night.

What did you think of it?

I'm not trying to start a slagging match or an excuse for being racist. I'd just like to hear what people have to say and discuss it.

Edit: Here's the Link for anyone that would like to watch it.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Al_Fel

[1a2bcio8]

I'm not trying to start a slagging match or an excuse for being racist. I'd just like to hear what people have to say and discuss it.

LIES!

[Deonn h]

Yeah i saw it black people are well more likely to have a higher IQ than whites.

[Adam-Griffin]

Yeah i saw it black people are well more likely to have a higher IQ than whites.

Didn't watch it but is that actually true ?

[Al_Fel]

LIES!

Ha ha ha ok Ben you got me. But the Creationist Thread seems to have petered out and this was on the tele last night so I thought it would make a good thread.

I'd like to discuss it and hopefully not get banned.

[1a2bcio8]

Ha ha ha ok Ben you got me. But the Creationist Thread seems to have petered out and this was on the tele last night so I thought it would make a good thread.

I'd like to discuss it and hopefully not get banned.

In the absence of racist intent, a discussion on race is not racist. If you get banned for critically considering a documentary on race, then people are being overly sensitive and a little bit confused.

I may watch it later so I can be racist too.

[Al_Fel]

In the absence of racist intent, a discussion on race is not racist. If you get banned for critically considering a documentary on race, then people are being overly sensitive and a little bit confused.

I may watch it later so I can be racist too.

Yeah I would really like to keep this sensible and look at the facts and truths.

I'm not trying to put people of other races down. I'm just trying to show that there is a difference and recognising it doesn't have to be a bad thing.

[Spider Lad]

I remember the fuss about a proffesor who made claims about race and intelligence a few years ago. There was an attempt to publicly disgrace him and the guy lost his job.

I thought that it was actually the people who went after him who were behaving in a racist manner. They instantly judged a whole group of people without rationalising it. They could have just looked past it and tried to see people as individuals.

My IQ is quite high but I don't instantly assume that I have more authority to speak on behalf of the most of the population on what's best for them.

White, middle-class, knee-jerk liberals are the bane of society.

[1a2bcio8]

Yeah, people have become incredibly reactionary on the discussion of race and consequently, are being stupid. I don't use the word "stupid" in a derogatory sense, just as a means of indicating that people aren't really thinking about things to do with race, just reacting dogmatically like a dog automatically chases a cat.

The fact is, you CAN make generalisations about groups of people otherwise so much of the science of humans would not be possible. People have their individual attributes but then they also have general attributes that they share with a group. Thus, we can say of females that they are more likely to be "blah 1" and "blah 2" and of males, that they are more likely to be "blah 3" and "blah 4". We readily recognise this with physical attributes which are pretty much undeniable (boobs and genitals) but with the less 'tangible' abstractions we say of people, such as their intelligence, emotions, behaviour and so on, we are totally in denial. That is, despite the fact that we all tend to think that it's our physical condition that gives rise to the qualities of intelligence, etc. Obviously the environment plays a role, but it is all in reference and limited in its influence by the physical framework that somebody possesses.

That people are reactionary is somewhat understandable given our savage history of group prejudice but that doesn't mean we should become "stupid" because we're only moving from one end of the stupid pole to the other. What we need to do is get off the stupid pole completely.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[totaltrials]

An article I come across today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educa...ses-a-year.html

It's pretty bad the way a hell of a lot of things come down to racism. E.g (from the article):

"A five-year-old girl was told off and her parents were contacted when she refused to let a black girl join in a game, the report says."

Maybe she was just shit or they didn't like her. Why did they automatically presume it was because she was black?

These kind of situations really grind my gears. It amazes me when non white people start accusing people of being racist because they don't get their way. Infact that's terribly racist towards white people. Ofcourse this doesn't occur with everyone but I've come across it enough times to get pissed off. If I hated a black guy, a lot of people would automatically presume I was being racist. It's just a really bad excuse most of the time and I hate having to explain myself. Why should I have to explain myself so I don't sound racist?

From the article refering to the amount of racist related incidents that have happend in schools:

"Schools that send in “nil” returns are criticised for “under-reporting”, and are sent letters telling them to put up posters raising awareness. "

This is an absolute joke. Astonished.

Phil.

[Matt Vandart]

I remember the fuss about a proffesor who made claims about race and intelligence a few years ago. There was an attempt to publicly disgrace him and the guy lost his job.

I thought that it was actually the people who went after him who were behaving in a racist manner. They instantly judged a whole group of people without rationalising it. They could have just looked past it and tried to see people as individuals.

My IQ is quite high but I don't instantly assume that I have more authority to speak on behalf of the most of the population on what's best for them.

White, middle-class, knee-jerk liberals are the bane of society.

Correct

[Fish-Finger-er]

Linking back to your previous topic, if evolution exists,is it not rather likely that at the present time, over the general population of either america, or the world, and to a certain extent britain, that black people will, to a certain extent be slightly less intelligent than whites, obviously there are exceptions to this, but on average.

thats not meant as a derogatory comment in anyway.

But a rough very flawed take on it is, due to evolution and selective breeding,those with the best chance of survival will be viewed as most attractive to the opposite sex. for a couple of hundred years in britain, industry has existed, where an intelligent person can get further in life than a less intelligent person. britain was and still is a predominately white country, At this point the more intelligent people(doctors, factory owners,scientists etc) where viewed as more attractive, partly as they where more intelligent,and partly because the money they had made them an attractive prospect, both for the women to live a life of luxury, and to give a better standard of life for any kids they would have, the families who where undecated, ended up often with menial jobs/no jobs, little money, and as a result, wernt viewed as suitable partners by the opposite sex(as their not as intelligent, or couldnt provide for their kids) Surely due to this, over the course of several generations, this has bred a more academically intelligent predominately white race.

Whereas in africa, up until recently(and still today in some parts) the more attractive prospect for marriage, isnt the smartest person, its the strongest, fastest, the best hunter,who can defend his family the best, meaning that they would get the choice of the wives,and pick the healthier, better looking ones, with the best chance of reproduction, meaning over several generations, a more athletically gifted race will be born as opposed to academically gifted.

Couple this with the fact that intelligence is passed down from your parents to a certain extent, and the fact in many countries blacks didnt recieve any, or wernt allowed to recieve any education up until a relatively short space of time, intelligence has been passed down fewer generations.

Also, the back population has been used as a workforce,and kept down for many years in relatively recent history(slave trade, apartheid etc) theyve come from a poorer background, which has some influence on intelligence.

But this isnt really down to the skin colour, its down to the history of the race, as in if you got 100 black participants, and 100 white participants, all with an IQ of 100, and made them relive the last 200 years, with the roles reversed, I think that the white people would in that case come out less intelligent.

[Adam-Griffin]

Is this whats on channel 4 now?

[Spider Lad]

Couple this with the fact that intelligence is passed down from your parents to a certain extent, and the fact in many countries blacks didnt recieve any, or wernt allowed to recieve any education up until a relatively short space of time, intelligence has been passed down fewer generations.

Education isn't stored in your genes.

Also, the back population has been used as a workforce,and kept down for many years in relatively recent history(slave trade, apartheid etc) theyve come from a poorer background, which has some influence on intelligence.

Influence on the potential people are able to fulfil, not influence on the genes which control cognitive capacity.

I haven't got time to address the can of worms that is your misunderstanding of evolution further.

[Fish-Finger-er]

My first part was to do with evolution, the part of how, most of the caucasian world has had 10+ generations of industry, science, commerce, etc where intelligence is valued higher than athletic ability, whereas in many parts of africe, the hunting and fighting ability still plays a major part in the success of a man, and his position within a tribe. meaning there more likely to reproduce, due to being more attractive to the opposite sex,as well as being healthier,and living longer, due to a better standard of life,giving you more time in which to reproduce.

As for it intelligence not being stored in your genes and the fact that its only influencing peoples potential and not their genes, thats not referring to evolution. Its more referring to a persons intelligence based on their parents intelligence. Which im fairly sure(in fact im bloody well sure) there is a link between, whether thats passed on as you say its not, or whether thats through your parents attitude to you as a child, or your aspirations to be like your parents, Im unsure, but it is passed down in somway.

for example, its been said by maths teachers, form teachers, mates parents etc, that ive took the mathematical side from my mother(whos really into her maths) and I did rather well at maths etc, My dad was an engineer, I have a huge interest in engineeering, he was also a bit of a dodgy character,and im prety much scum, all those things are traits my parents have/had, which I now possess, whether that is through genes, them drilling it into me as a kid, or just my aspiration to be like them, who knows.

Another one Ill use is how glen always moans about his mum throwing fits and chucking stuff out/being irrational. He seems to be very similar in that respect, with his irrationalness(dont even think its a word)to confrontation,his ability to throw hissy fits etc.

but on a more general scale, doctors children are often very intelligent(no studies, just personal experience living in a small town knowing a few doctors, and their kids, every single one was in the top sets at our school). Was something in the paper the other day about a 2 year old who was supposedly as intelligent as einstein, both his parents where extremely intelligent.

So if your grandparents in africa didnt get any education, they clearly cant pass this ability to learn/intelligence on genetically(although they couldnt anyway supposedly), neither can they teach you basic maths, or history, or how to write at a young age, if they cant themselves, and if the other possibility that you aspire to be like them, well if they're uneducated, then there you go.

As for you saying the poorer background only effects the potential they can fulfil and not cognitive capacity, Being poorer means you may not be able to have study materials, access to the internet, may have to work to afford to live etc, which effects the education you recieve( I ended up working rather than studying engineering at university, for financial reasons) If id of got a degree,sure my IQ may of not been raised(although studying, keeping the mind active etc would of surely been better than killing brain cells with beer) but Id of known more, and come across as more intelligent to people, partly because Id be able to say ive got a degree, which is enough for some people, and partly because I could explain thermodynamics, gas pressure laws etc.

[1a2bcio8]

I haven't got time to address the can of worms that is your misunderstanding of evolution further.

You're not one for breaking things gently

I think though that Danny is right and there's somewhat of a misunderstanding occuring here. In the first instance, evolutionary change is a process that doesn't really occur over only a handful of generations. It's a lot slower than that. In the second instance, I don't think the desirability of the prefered mates means a reproductive exclusion to less prefered mates. In fact, the type of individuals who you are refering to as more desirable (the "higher" classes) I think have a history of producing less children and have always been a minority group in civilized society. I don't think there's really an increased likelihood for the survival of certain genes over other genes based on intelligence over the last aproximately 1-2000 years, at least. Although no doubt, intelligence prior to civilization would probably have played a more significant role in survival and resulting increase of that trait in a gene pool.

It's clearly a difficult task to distinguish between what plays the larger role in defining the level of intelligence somebody has. It was mentioned that people often take on the characteristics of their parents. Unfortunately, although we are a varying reflection of our parents genetics, we also spend a great deal of our time with them. So it really it can be quite dificult knowing which one has more substantially contributed. Studies on separated monozygotic (genetically the same) twins are where we can probably best consider the role of genetics but unfortunately it's still quite problematic. Intelligence, although it clearly has a biological basis, also requires a supportive environment to achieve fulfilment. My view is that intelligence is like a balloon, whereby our genetics or our biology defines the rubber part and the environment contributes the air that fills it. The condition of one or the other will naturally place a limit on the potential of the other.

I suspect the type of intellectual differences of acheivment between the western world and the rest of the world are really mostly dependent on the cultural emphasis we have taken over the last few centuries rather than any biological cause. This relates to the process of "time-binding" whereby each generation picks up where the last left off with reference to nurtured learning of concepts (ideas). This results in a rapid intellectual development within large bodies of connected people. When we consider that evolution is a long and slow process and also that the more significant achievements of intelligence actually began only a few thousand years ago and not in the west, but in the east with, I think, the bronze age (correct me if I'm wrong?) then the two don't really add up. Differeing races of the world aren't that far divided by time (I think?) but they are more divided by what they've chosen to do with their time at certain points. At present, we're simply more conceptually practiced than more biologically adept, in terms of intelligence.

That's what I currently think anyhow.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[Spider Lad]

I think though that Danny is right and there's somewhat of a misunderstanding occuring here. In the first instance, evolutionary change is a process that doesn't really occur over only a handful of generations. It's a lot slower than that. In the second instance, I don't think the desirability of the prefered mates means a reproductive exclusion to less prefered mates. In fact, the type of individuals who you are refering to as more desirable (the "higher" classes) I think have a history of producing less children and have always been a minority group in civilized society. I don't think there's really an increased likelihood for the survival of certain genes over other genes based on intelligence over the last aproximately 1-2000 years, at least. Although no doubt, intelligence prior to civilization would probably have played a more significant role in survival and resulting increase of certain gene pools.

Evolution can happen over short periods too, even in large mammals. The ivory poaching industry put pressures on elephants which resulted in selection favouring those elephants which grew shorter tusks. Those with shorter tusks would survive longer into adulthood and have more oportunities to reproduce resulting in an increase in the gene pool of genes which favour this feature.

Humans, however, are so numerous that we have reached a homogeny which would be difficult to overcome. The differences you see most of the time will be mainly down to environment however Ben's 'balloon' explaination illustrates the point brilliantly when you're talking about differences that can't be overcome when local environmental factors are removed.

[Matt Vandart]

One problem with this argument is measurement of intelligence.

Saying a people are more intelligent due to the fact they are more "Technologically and industrially advanced" is a bit flawed.

So called "primitive" tribes in Africa, South America and Asia have an equal intelligence to modern "western" man but their "intelligence" is used in different ways .

By the way "Primitive" doesn't mean less intelligent but rather "Closer to the ancestor".

Take the Chinese for instance.

Miles ahead of the western man for centuries technologically, when suddenly industrial revolution and they were left standing for a while.

Greed and not intelligence is what has made the "western man" advance so far technologically and industrially.

The tribes in Africa, South America and Asia had the intelligence to create such a technological boom but also the intelligence to not do it.

If the Western Man is so intelligent why do we continue f**king everything up, it can't go on forever yet in our deluded "intelligent" minds it can.

Also it takes intelligence to track and hunt well enough to sustain your family/tribe.

The bit about slavery I am afraid to say I think is just garbage.

The kids parents would have kept the children s brains working on things that mattered which would have stimulated their brains as equally as any maths lesson.

Your talking about education not intelligence, two different things.

[Al_Fel]

Its nice to see that this thread has finally kicked off. I agree with Phil about certain "racism" being blown up. I've seen and read things where someone has said something harmless and someone else has butted in to say you can say that its racist and made such a big deal out of it for no reason at all. To me making such a big deal out of things like that is being racist.

I think its safe to say that there is a difference between all races and I don't see a problem recognising that. I think it would be ignorant to say that all races are the same there are clear physical differences that are more than just skin colour. I'm not saying its a bad thing though. I think it is safe to make certain judgements about certain groups of people. Here's my explanation for this.

I'm from Liverpool and I get called a scouser. Scousers are known for lots of things one of these things is stealing. I am not a thief. I've been in shops in other parts of the country and had people follow me round to make sure I don't steal anything. I don't take offence to this because I know that a lot of scousers are scum bags. I understand its not the same as something like what black people have had to put up with but its quite similar.

It's really hard for me to get what I mean down into writing I'm just not very good at it I'll keep trying though anyway.

I know its not this simple but I'm going to keep this black and white.

My view is that if black people were left in Africa they wouldn't change. There are no developed black societies by this I mean there has been no growth on their own. Black history goes as far back as slavery and that's pretty much it. Before that there were tribes doing the same things for 1000's of years. My question is why didn't they change? Its thought we all originally came from what is now Africa so its not like they didn't have time to grow. What I'm trying to say is that they got to a certain point and stopped. I personally think its safe to say this was because of intelligence. If you look at Asia they have history going back thousands of years too.

I really don't think I've explained myself well but its the best I can do. I'm not saying everything I've said is right its just my view on it all.

Going back to the Creationism V Evolution side of things for a second. For all you Creationist out there. If the first humans were Adam and Eve why do we have so many different races if not for evolution?

[Spider Lad]

My view is that if black people were left in Africa they wouldn't change. There are no developed black societies by this I mean there has been no growth on their own. Black history goes as far back as slavery and that's pretty much it. Before that there were tribes doing the same things for 1000's of years. My question is why didn't they change? Its thought we all originally came from what is now Africa so its not like they didn't have time to grow. What I'm trying to say is that they got to a certain point and stopped. I personally think its safe to say this was because of intelligence. If you look at Asia they have history going back thousands of years too.

You mean you could look at Africans as an evolutionary 'crocodile' or 'shark'? Relatively unchanged from their ancestors because they've managed to survive in their environment well as they are.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Spider Lad

[1a2bcio8]

Evolution can happen over short periods too, even in large mammals. The ivory poaching industry put pressures on elephants which resulted in selection favouring those elephants which grew shorter tusks. Those with shorter tusks would survive longer into adulthood and have more oportunities to reproduce resulting in an increase in the gene pool of genes which favour this feature.

Yeah fair point. I guess if a virus infected the whole of the human race and within 20 days caused the death of all those whose immune system, in reference to ther genes, were not upto resisting such a virus then that genetic trait would obviously become the dominant one in a gene pool. I guess my mind had turned toward a trait such as giraffes and their necks which would have been, I expect, a much longer process of change. But maybe not?

[1a2bcio8]

One problem with this argument is measurement of intelligence.

Saying a people are more intelligent due to the fact they are more "Technologically and industrially advanced" is a bit flawed.

So called "primitive" tribes in Africa, South America and Asia have an equal intelligence to modern "western" man but their "intelligence" is used in different ways .

By the way "Primitive" doesn't mean less intelligent but rather "Closer to the ancestor".

Take the Chinese for instance.

Miles ahead of the western man for centuries technologically, when suddenly industrial revolution and they were left standing for a while.

Greed and not intelligence is what has made the "western man" advance so far technologically and industrially.

The tribes in Africa, South America and Asia had the intelligence to create such a technological boom but also the intelligence to not do it.

If the Western Man is so intelligent why do we continue f**king everything up, it can't go on forever yet in our deluded "intelligent" minds it can.

Also it takes intelligence to track and hunt well enough to sustain your family/tribe.

The bit about slavery I am afraid to say I think is just garbage.

The kids parents would have kept the children s brains working on things that mattered which would have stimulated their brains as equally as any maths lesson.

Your talking about education not intelligence, two different things.

I think that the type of intelligence displayed in developed countries is more advanced. This is in the sense where intelligent practice is the practice of concepts (ideas). Quite simply, the ideas we have are greatly more complex, broad and detailed than the ideas you'll find in "primitive" countries. That doesn't outrules the potential of these "primitive" people actually achieving a same understanding that we do it's just that their education doesn't allow for a practice of complexity to the same degree. So it is a difference of intelligence but it's most likely founded on a difference of education. Am I saying the same as you here or something different? I'm not entirely sure to be honest.

An interesting point about individuals who have to hunt, gather, etc. is that instead of a high intelligence in the sense that we possess (conceptual), they often have a higher level of awareness with regards to their environment and intuition. Both of which we are pretty shit with these days as we're all trapped behind the vail of our ideas. You might actually surmize this as a type of stupidy I guess.

[Spider Lad]

The tribes in Africa, South America and Asia had the intelligence to create such a technological boom but also the intelligence to not do it.

Also it takes intelligence to track and hunt well enough to sustain your family/tribe.

To suggest that not developing was a conscious decision is laughable.

Might I remind you that hunter gatherers also lived in what we now call Europe for a long, long time. People we would call primitive by todays standards.

[1a2bcio8]

My view is that if black people were left in Africa they wouldn't change. There are no developed black societies by this I mean there has been no growth on their own. Black history goes as far back as slavery and that's pretty much it. Before that there were tribes doing the same things for 1000's of years. My question is why didn't they change? Its thought we all originally came from what is now Africa so its not like they didn't have time to grow. What I'm trying to say is that they got to a certain point and stopped. I personally think its safe to say this was because of intelligence. If you look at Asia they have history going back thousands of years too.

What could actually explain the differences in conceptual intelligence between races or groups of people is whether they formed civilizations or not. The difference this makes in allowing for a development of conceptual intelligence is that it often frees up groups of people so that, rather than spending their time hunting, gathering, farming, etc. they can spend their time thinking and developing ideas. Although of course this does depend on technology (and thus intelligence) as well in order for a larger wealth of basic neccesities to be produced for individuals beyond those that produce them. I think though that an important question might be, "what differences between races allows for the choice between large groups of people with significant hierarchical differences (civilization) or smaller groups with insignificant hierarchical differences, that best free individuals for the practice of intelligence?". Also, "Is the cause related, not to a genetic cause but rather something more random in relation to the environment or thinking?". Perhaps though the basis of civilization is substantially genetic?

Edited October 30, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[Matt Vandart]

To suggest that not developing was a conscious decision is laughable.

Might I remind you that hunter gatherers also lived in what we now call Europe for a long, long time. People we would call primitive by todays standards.

Not Laughable at all.

Again it takes the viewers definition of developing.

Building massive industries is not development to a tribe that have values placed elsewhere.

Many "Primative tribes" in South America, America and Around Australiasia took that conscious decision to remain "in balance with nature" and educated it to their offspring.

Just because the "Europeans" went this way doesn't mean that all tribes would have gone that way. These European tribes you speak of by the way were steadily replaced, integrated and developed by peoples of middle eastern origin.

Before anyone thinks it I'm not a hippy by the way, I'm actually a very active industrialist.