Race and Intelligence?

[antiracist]

OK, I assume that we've all heard racist rants about certain races being less intelligent than the others.

Now, my question is how exactly do we scientifically refute this?
Let's take the controversial "IQ and the wealth of nations" book or some other similar "survey".

What are the best arguments against the "conclusions" that book (and others of such kind) imply?

In short, what are the scientific arguments against the theory that some races are "more intelligent" than the others?

Thanks.

[Tovarisch]

It's not that some races are born smarter, it's just that some races either value education more, or have more chances to access education. Jewish people are not really anymore intelligent than any people of any other races, it's just that Jews were oppressed by Christians from participating in most physical jobs during the Medieval times. Jewish people had to study to become scholars, and this led to the high value of education in the Jewish communities. Japanese and Chinese people are similar; their culture values education and wit, and they appear to be smarter than everyone else, when in reality, Japanese and Chinese people just study more.

And African people are not really less intelligent than anyone else. It's just that four centuries of the slave trade and imperialism caused irreversible damage to African cultures, and many countries in Africa suffered from poverty. Poverty reduces people's chances of getting a good education.

I believe that given equal chances of education, all races will be equal

[NewLeft]

See Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man and Race, Genes and Ability by Oubré for a modern follow up.

Give me the arguments and I can try breaking them apart.

[Ostrinski]

People's brains develop to help them adapt to their environment. If you are born and raised in an environment where physical skills and assets are more practical for your survival and integration into your community and surroundings, then your brain's development will be more oriented toward physical tasks. On the contrary, if you're raised in modern Western society, your brain's development is going to be more intellectually oriented than physical, again because of surroundings.

So what is mistaken for lesser intelligence, is really just a different kind of intelligence. That is the key issue. Only by our western standards is, say, someone from New Guinea less intelligence than someone with a western upbringing and education. Conversely, by New Guinea standards our western student wouldn't really be all that intelligent at all, as he or she would not have the means to adapt to life in an environment different from his or her own.

It has nothing to do with "race," whatever that is.

Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel goes into detail about this.

[Sasha]

Short answer: iq tests used where develloped by white europan/us scientist and as such favour white european kids. To make an assament of indivial intelligence iq tests are already considerd to be a faulty "best of only bad tools" to use them as a tool to make a comparison between races/cultures is scientific dishonest at best.

[Anarpest]

Races don't necessarily exist. At least, there isn't much of a real, biological basis for it, it's more of a prejudice which evolved over the years and at this point doesn't always make a lot of sense. Lots of 'races' which could just as well be distinct, such as many European groups, are now labelled 'white,' with the only real connection being one of cultural hegemony over 'black' people; that is, racism becomes the criterion of race, rather than the other way around.

[Blake's Baby]

OK, I assume that we've all heard racist rants about certain races being less intelligent than the others.

Now, my question is how exactly do we scientifically refute this?
Let's take the controversial "IQ and the wealth of nations" book or some other similar "survey".

What are the best arguments against the "conclusions" that book (and others of such kind) imply?

In short, what are the scientific arguments against the theory that some races are "more intelligent" than the others?

Thanks.

For a supposed 'anti-racist' you have a very racist framework.

The scientific argument is that the concept of 'race' is total shit. The biological differences between different groups of people are tiny. 'Race' doesn't exist as a biological concept. We are all human, members of the human race, and that's all there is. Having green eyes or curly hair really makes no difference.

As it's generally white people who come out with this shit, you can go on to agree with them and say that they're right, generally Asians (South or East, it matters not) are better at scoring high on IQ tests than white people. So either IQ testing is flawed as a measure of 'intelligence', or whites are stupider than Asians. Ask which they think it is. Suggest that perhaps cultural factors including poverty and level of education (particularly parents' education) are related to ability to pass IQ tests. Offer the opinion that IQ tests measure nothing more than the ability to pass IQ tests (which in the end is what it boils down to).

[Mr. Natural]

I just want to second Brospierre's recommendation of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. It conclusively demolishes racism. The differences that exist between the achievements of various peoples are of geographical origin. Africa, for instance, possesses no large mammals capable of domestication, while Europe had many.

I find it somewhat surprising that there aren't significant racial differences, but that is the case.

As the human species emerged in Africa, anti-black racism is especially irrational and it is akin to a sexism/patriarchy in which the sex that gives birth to us all is somehow inferior.

[Franz Fanonipants]

my solution:

don't argue with racists

[Franz Fanonipants]

I just want to second Brospierre's recommendation of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. It conclusively demolishes racism. The differences that exist between the achievements of various peoples are of geographical origin. Africa, for instance, possesses no large mammals capable of domestication, while Europe had many.

guns germs and steel is fucking terrible because people read it and make statements like this.

domestication of the cow happened in Africa first.

anyways, 1491 is way better at being like "hey fuckers check out this crazy ecological episteme!" w/out the pathology of subjugation model that diamond slavishly adheres to

[#FF0000]

i feel like a lot of people here are missing the fact that race literally doesn't exist outside of it being a social construct.

i like how racists who try to science point to IQ tests but apparently didn't read what the Human Genome Project and all of biology has to say about race

[Franz Fanonipants]

i feel like a lot of people here are missing the fact that race literally doesn't exist.

yeah i mean that too

[l'Enfermé]

Well races don't really exist, if you wanna be scientific. Some "races"(should we use the phrase ethnic groups instead?) are indeed more intellectually developed than others if you wanna measure it with tests, but it's a matter of culture and education, not inherent ability/talent. Genetics doesn't have anything to do with. The culture thing for example explains why say East Asians do better at tests than Germanics or Slavs, even in the same schools.

Some peoples are less "intelligent"(whatever that means)because of cultural backwardness, it's not an issue of race/genetics.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'd also like to mention (as it hasn't been mentioned here yet) that nutrition is a factor in intelligence/development. That's especially a problem in impoverished countries where people don't get the nutrition they need for healthy development.

That's not the only factor in intelligence, of course, just a contributing one.

[black magick hustla]

the only problem with anytthing is that "intellgence" (whatever thats supposed to mean, ilel for iq tests visualizing the sides of an unfolded tetrahedron or some bullshit) is politicized. who cares how good u r at filling those dumb tests, nobody makes a big deal about height or curly hair

[zonmoy]

OK, I assume that we've all heard racist rants about certain races being less intelligent than the others.

Now, my question is how exactly do we scientifically refute this?
Let's take the controversial "IQ and the wealth of nations" book or some other similar "survey".

What are the best arguments against the "conclusions" that book (and others of such kind) imply?

In short, what are the scientific arguments against the theory that some races are "more intelligent" than the others?

Thanks.

Well, it wouldn't be too hard to create an experiment to test such an hypothesis, simply take newborns of different races, one of each so called race, control for all factors before birth of course, raise one group with a couple that are Mensa members, raise one group in a family in the worst part of town, see which of those families turns out better, Most likely it will be the ones raised with highly intelligent and successful parents regardless of race.

[Rafiq]

The fact that those nations are wealthy and have superior education systems?

[Zukunftsmusik]

The fact that those nations are wealthy and have superior education systems?

do you think more academic education results in "more" intelligence?

I think it has more to do with the definition of intelligence (practical/intellectual), and what Brospierre said.

[Proukunin]

To be honest..I think that a person who has taught themselves through books and the internet can be just as intelligent as a person who has received academic education through college.

I graduated highschool and went to college but dropped out and I know that I've learned more throughout that whole time by reading books on my own and reading articles on the internet.

As far as race goes..I'm sure it's evident that a child in a poor third world country that didn't have any proper education regardless of its race would grow up less intelligent than a child that has received academic education in a first world country..unless that child had access to books and so on, so forth.


Idk, I don't really think too much about the intelligence of different races.

[Franz Fanonipants]

To be honest..I think that a person who has taught themselves through books and the internet can be just as intelligent as a person who has received academic education through college.

its not a question of intelligence there

being autodidact has some pretty serious limits, mainly no peer review or real rigor

[Rafiq]

do you think more academic education results in "more" intelligence?

I think it has more to do with the definition of intelligence (practical/intellectual), and what Brospierre said.

Oh, my bad.

When it comes to *intelligence*, yes, brospierre is 100% spot on.

[NewLeft]

I debated a fucking neo-nazi over intelligence for hours. They use biological distance, the Minnesota transracial adoption study, studies from the 18th century.. These are people who will deny any science that contradicts them. The last guy called me lysenkoism and left.

vvvvv
He called him a "race realist" libertarian,

[Ostrinski]

>2012
>Arguing with Nazis

I hope you guys don't do this.

[Proukunin]

its not a question of intelligence there

being autodidact has some pretty serious limits, mainly no peer review or real rigor

Yes, but what i'm stating is that you don't necessarily have to have a teacher or professor to be just as intelligent as a college educated person.

I mean a person could read the same exact textbook by himself and without a teacher and understand it all the same.

I'm not sure what the difference is but to me intelligence combines common sense with learning, problem solving and understanding. Whether or not that person learns from another person or by them self.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I mean a person could read the same exact textbook by himself and without a teacher and understand it all the same.

nope

not pedagogically sound AND on the topic of the OP actually pretty much wrong in terms of thinking that material conditions give EVERYONE the time and cultural capital to read the textbook by themselves and gain any kind of working knowledge from it

e: this is not to say that there must be a teacher/authority over knowledge in the learning situation, rather authority in an educational context esp. a revolutionary educational context needs to draw on a communal experience

there's a reason why most internet autodidacts are libertarians

[Proukunin]

So you believe that there is no way one person can understand a textbook by reading it by himself and without a teacher and understand it as a college educated person would?

I mean I see where you are coming from with teaching and how it builds a persons intelligence along with pedagogy.

But do you think that a person who is autodidact will never be as intelligent as a person who learns by teachings?
Leonardo da Vinci was autodidact.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

OK, I assume that we've all heard racist rants about certain races being less intelligent than the others.

Now, my question is how exactly do we scientifically refute this?
Let's take the controversial "IQ and the wealth of nations" book or some other similar "survey".

What are the best arguments against the "conclusions" that book (and others of such kind) imply?

In short, what are the scientific arguments against the theory that some races are "more intelligent" than the others?

Thanks.
All of the studies that try to show the relative intelligence of the various race are scientific hogwash. For one thing, race, is really not a terribly meaningful delineator and more of social construct. But even if one accepts race as meaningful in terms of biological differences the books, such as IQ and the wealth of nations, and The Bell Curve, are shit. For example in the Bell Curve, Hernstein and Murray make the argument that since intelligence is about 45-55% heritable, one's lineage is the most important factor in intelligence. Therefore, they argue, blacks on average have lower IQs in the US than whites. Ergo, they are just less intelligence -- this explains their lower SES status.

This sounds reasonable, but it is not. They make the cardinal sin of comparing different populations. Unless you can argue that conditions for blacks and whites in the US are equivalent (an idiotic argument if you look at the demographics), than this hypothesis is based on fatally flawed reasoning. In fact, The Bell Curve, lauded by the Wall Street Journal, should have received an F had it been a Master's thesis.

Why? Well you get into deep shit when you compare different populations and then draw conclusions. Stephen J. Gould, who wrote brilliantly about this topic uses this example. He takes height, which is 90% heritable and points out that in the 1950s average height in the US was many inches more than in Japan. Now this is much stronger than the case for intelligence. But guess what? All of the variability in height between the groups had to do with nutrition. Eating the same diet, there was no difference in average heights.

The political program for all of these right-wing pseudo-scientific pond scum is that they want to show that oppressed people, disadvantaged people, are in their bad situations because the are inherently less able. It is just the natural order of things. Poor people are poor because they are stupid. So there is really no point in trying to help them gain equality.

[Proukunin]

nope

not pedagogically sound AND on the topic of the OP actually pretty much wrong in terms of thinking that material conditions give EVERYONE the time and cultural capital to read the textbook by themselves and gain any kind of working knowledge from it

e: this is not to say that there must be a teacher/authority over knowledge in the learning situation, rather authority in an educational context esp. a revolutionary educational context needs to draw on a communal experience

there's a reason why most internet autodidacts are libertarians

I read more books than internet articles.
I was also very much in to Marxist-Leninism when I first read radical political theories.

And as far as the OP, I wasn't stating that all intelligence comes from a book..of course it has a physical side and I agree with what Brospierre has said about a person growing up with different surroundings..

But reading is just as much a big part of intelligence to me at least.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

It's not that some races are born smarter, it's just that some races either value education more, or have more chances to access education. Jewish people are not really anymore intelligent than any people of any other races, it's just that Jews were oppressed by Christians from participating in most physical jobs during the Medieval times. Jewish people had to study to become scholars, and this led to the high value of education in the Jewish communities. Japanese and Chinese people are similar; their culture values education and wit, and they appear to be smarter than everyone else, when in reality, Japanese and Chinese people just study more.

And African people are not really less intelligent than anyone else. It's just that four centuries of the slave trade and imperialism caused irreversible damage to African cultures, and many countries in Africa suffered from poverty. Poverty reduces people's chances of getting a good education.

I believe that given equal chances of education, all races will be equal
I appreciate your wish for equal access to education, but your argument makes no sense to me. Are you implying that race on its own has cultural implications? It sounds very much like the black in Africa, in your argument, springs fully formed in the ruling ideas of his location before he can even absorb them. You don't seem to differentiate between culture and race, and I believe that to be an error.

Also, I disagree with your assessment of the Jewish people. They cannot be held to be a race any more than Christians or Catholics. They are a religion, not a race.

[Regicollis]

The only valid links between "race" and intelligence I can see have nothing to do with genetics.

Malnutrition prevents the brain from developing and can thus reduce intelligence. But biology is not enough. In order to unleash the potential intelligence it has to be stimulated by a good education system.

Brown people are more often than pink people living in countries with insufficient access to nutrition and education which will explain a lower intelligence.

The scientific rebuttal should thus be to tell the scientific racist to go home and correct his data for education and nutrition and then come back to discuss it.

[Nox]

Even if different races have different levels of intelligence, why do people automatically come to the conclusion that less intelligent races should be treated worse?

[dodger]

No disrespect to the OP but this "question" is like TB...YOU THINK IT HAS GONE FOR GOOD. It comes back in a more virulent or unpleasant form. We all know the answers by now, if not by reading or study....then simple observation and experience. Who knows , perhaps I have been blessed. I never heard at work or socially any of this issue brought up. Not in a serious way. Plenty of comical examples or friendly rivalry. Is there an academic industry that I have gone through life completely unaware of? "Demonizing" of groups with attendant "victim" izing, seemingly the other side of the coin, is unproductive. Ignore it if you can , I do. Most sensible people do. Only fools go chasing after hares.

[Althusser]

I never intentionally go out and start arguments with neo-nazis but, when I see their comments on the internet, I can't help but reply. I've been called an honorary nigger once after arguing with a neo-nazi who is under the impression that the jews have this big plan to end racism and bring cultures together, also known to him as white genocide, in order to take over the world.

[Franz Fanonipants]

So you believe that there is no way one person can understand a textbook by reading it by himself and without a teacher and understand it as a college educated person would?

I mean I see where you are coming from with teaching and how it builds a persons intelligence along with pedagogy.

But do you think that a person who is autodidact will never be as intelligent as a person who learns by teachings?
Leonardo da Vinci was autodidact.

without a community. you don't necessarily need someone who is an authority on the subject (it couldn't hurt, of course) but you do need someone or a group of people who can serve as guides to connecting new knowledge with existing knowledge.

theoretically, you can do this on your own, but it can be v. difficult without the structure and support of others.

also, da Vinci i'm pretty sure received instruction in addition to his personal studies. dude was a relatively rich florentine. don't swallow bourgeois lines about the power of the individual to learn.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I never intentionally go out and start arguments with neo-nazis but, when I see their comments on the internet, I can't help but reply. I've been called an honorary nigger once after arguing with a neo-nazi who is under the impression that the jews have this big plan to end racism and bring cultures together, also known to him as white genocide, in order to take over the world.

i'm sure that was constructive