Intelligence and Race

[Ander]

I was reading a thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72039) in Chit Chat about the scientist James Watson who recently made claims that black people are not as intelligent as white people.

First of all, I'd like to clarify that a) I'm not a racist, and b) I am not endorsing Dr. Watson's view in any way, but I think this kind of issue is something we should take a look at.

To be fair and to eliminate any kind of racist element here, let's not name any specific races or groups of people. For this discussion we will simply use Race A and B.

What if someday in the future we found several cases in which highly respected scientists actually found evidence suggesting that A is more intelligent than B? Or even that B is more physically able than A? What if after years and years of experiments and tests, this was found to be "true?" What if decades from now science textbooks state that a certain race is more intelligent than another. What if it was established as "scientific fact?"

Is it something I would like to see? No, not at all. Personally I don't know whether any "races" (if these even exist) are actually superior to others in any way, but I like to believe that we are all just humans with our own little similarities and differences. All I am trying to do is bring some intelligent discussion to the idea that this could happen. While us leftists are not racists, the fact is that overall we don't actually know the truth. If someone was to ask me if I believe that A is superior to B I would say no. But in the end, my belief is not written in stone.

Also, is it fair that we respect and accept a scientist's claims until they say something we don't like?

Thoughts?

PS: Please don't come in here and shout me down as a racist and a reactionary because I'm neither. I'm just trying to analyze this (controversial) idea with as little bias as possible.

[Lord Testicles]

First of all, they would have to prove that races exist in a biological sense, and even if we ignore that point, if "race B" was found to be more intelligent than "race A" it would most likely be down to social factors. You could just as easily say that the bourgoeisie are more inelligent than proles, but that would be because of socio-economic factors like they can afford a higher level of education as well things like personal tutors, not because of biology. Also what are we using to measure intellect?

[RedAnarchist]

I don't see why Race A would be more intelligent than Race B. How do you define intelligence anyway? Is it how well a person does in school? Is it how well they do on an IQ test? Besides, unless these races were very small and each person within that race was very similar, then you couldn't say A is more intelligent than B.

[Wanted Man]

What is the whole point of this hypothetic? Just say what you mean.

[bootleg42]

It's all bull shit. Everyone can learn according to their environment. Most of the people who make those "race and intelligence" claims are racists themselves (or closet racists). Notice how most of the scientists who make this claim are white. When colored scientists (in significant numbers) come out and say it, then maybe it would be believable but that never happened and I can assure everyone that will never happen because it's not true.

Fuck all racists. Long live communism.

[mikelepore]

The truth or falsity of a hypothesis doesn't depend on who said it, what their motives are, or how respected they are. What matters here is that it's a hypothesis that doesn't have any evidence to support it. Let someone first try to develop a definition and a measurement for "intelligence" that's free of cultural bias. Until that is done, the claim has to be rejected. When there's no available data, the proper conclusion for any hypothesis is "null", "undemonstrated".

[Lynx]

Do you believe people should be treated as individuals?
If you do, then whatever scientists say about the group that person belongs to becomes irrelevant. Even if you believe what scientists say, you cannot apply those beliefs if you intend to treat someone as an individual.

Racists apply their beliefs by only seeing groups. If they incorporate their belief(s) as part of their self-image (ie. personal code of ethics), then those beliefs become cast in stone.

[ComradeR]

The concept of different "Races" does not exist according to our DNA (this is a proven fact), so no Intelligence is in no way linked to "race".

[The-Spark]

To really prove that one race is more intelligent than the other you have to take
Race A and Race B and raise them in the exact same way, teach them the exact same things etc. Even than you would have to do this multiple times.

DNA tells us already that there is no real difference with intelligence as concerned to races.

I think Dr. Watson was just doing bad science.

[gilhyle]

I think this is very well posed question. There is a point here that sometimes the left seems to run away from unpalatable sciience.

Granted on this one the science is abysmal......but if it were well done, the left sometimes gives the impression that it would still run away from the results.

Is there no such thing as race in the analysis of human beings ? Clearly there is such a thing as race in the analysis of physiology. Certain 'races' have more layers of skin than others....better ability to digest certain things, different physical fetures etc. Wouldnt it be strange if tht stopped at brain features ? It must be possible for there to be differences in brain features between races.

If we accept that, then we come to the nature/nurture debate. Personally Im very much at the nurture end of this. I've seen evidence of a chimpaneze educated to produce beautiful paintings. There is an Elephant Orchestra in Thailand which produces impressive music. BUT people are not a blank sheet. There must be some potential for a limit conception based on brain features.

OK so that leads me to the conclusion that there might be brain differences based on race and these might understood to involve some tendential effect on learning capacity or some such thing.

Furthermore, the 'what is intelligence anyway' point seems superficial, except in one way set out below : fine, we dont mean 'intelligence', we mean IQ test scores adjusted for cultural differences....now can we get on ?

It seems to me all that is the uninteresting stuff, that soft left political correctness does not want to admit. The politically interesting points only arise then. Firstly, what is the point in finding such differences ? They are mostly likely trivial in size or effect far less important than nurture and maybe of little more effect than differences between blue eyed and brown eyed or red haired and dark haired people. Remember, there are interestingly trivial correlations between intelligence as conventionally defined and the state of your teeth - there are lots of such correlations.

Secondly people always assume that if the race/intelligence link is conceded it will benefit caucasians. The left is particularly susceptible to this subtle racism. I dont see any convincing evidence to back that assumption up, and despite Watson its still mostly an assumption. (There is some more to say about this in terms of the emergence of homo sapiens sapiens and the changes to brain structure but Ill skip that )

In conclusion :

1. yes there could be racial differences in intelligence
2. it is of no valid political significance
3. attempts to give it political significance only serve reactionary purposes.

[Cult of Reason]

Should it matter? What difference does it make if one 'race' is on average more intelligent than another?

[MarxSchmarx]

To really prove that one race is more intelligent than the other you have to take Race A and Race B and raise them in the exact same way, teach them the exact same things etc. Even than you would have to do this multiple times.

You mean individuals of "race" A versus individuals of "race" B, right?


The concept of different "Races" does not exist according to our DNA (this is a proven fact)

Well it in fact does. It's understood to mean "a subpopulation sharing a nearest common ancestor." (Edit: It's) just that the choice of phenotypes used by, e.g., racists, don't correspond to the groupings predicted by DNA (e.g., Australian aborigines are "genetically" closer to the Japanese than they are to the Malinese).

But race aside, let's look at individual variation in intelligence. Unfortunately, there ARE political consequences under capitalism for people born with "more intelligent genes", just like there are advantages to being born today with genes to be a supermodel. We should be conscious of these differences, and design political and economic structures and systems that do not accidentally or deliberately reward genetic differences in abilities.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:03 am
Should it matter? What difference does it make if one 'race' is on average more intelligent than another?
Defenders of capitalism use the claim as an excuse for the system's effects. For example, if there is a higher-than-average rate of unemployment in a particular demographic community, defenders of capitalism will say that it's not because the it's a malfunctioning economic system, but because the human beings are biologically defective.

In a sane social system, one that would nurture the full potential of every individual, it wouldn't matter if there were any kinds of demographic patterns in who can swim, who can solve puzzles, or who can do nuclear physics.

Unfortunately, proponents of capitalism can't admit that the social institutions are miserable, so they need to find a handy list of reasons to blame society's problems on our "human nature."

[Luís Henrique]

If there were statistically significant differences between "races", there would be statistically significant difference between them concerning the age in which people learn to speak. This, however, doesn't happen.

Luís Henrique

[Dimentio]

If there were differences, they would not be a legitimisation for either exploitment or discrimination.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 28, 2007 03:37 pm
If there were statistically significant differences between "races", there would be statistically significant difference between them concerning the age in which people learn to speak. This, however, doesn't happen.

Luís Henrique
Doesn't follow at all. We were talking about IQ, not language acquisition. I dont think there is evidence that Speed of language acquisition and I.Q scores are strongly correlated. Thats not to say that it wouldnt be interesting to see research on the question - Im not aware of it, you obviously are.

Nor do I believe the question posed is about individuals of a particular race - that is in many ways why the differences in average IQ score that may exist (or may not exist) between different phenotypes (if you wanna use that term) are politically insiginificant. The range of variation within one group will almost certainly overlap with the range of the other group to such an extent that one cannot draw any conclusions about an individual presenting before a court, for a job or before an educational system from the observed phenotype. But that doesnt mean there is no variation. It is one of the reasons there is such determination to deny that race and IQ scores might be correlated - it is assumed that anyone raising the question is talking about individuals. Not so.

To take another example. The scores of males and females - as I understand it - vary with female scores being grouped more closely and male scores being more spread out. There is a difference, but it is politically insignificant. It is also, of course, politically insignificant because of all the other skills/capacities that come into play in real social situations which are not measured by such tests.

There is no need for anyone on this site to remind anyone else of the barbaric manner in which myths about race are abused to justify capitalism, and more precisely, imperialism. We all know that - that is not the point. It is beside the point.

(Im conscious of one thing in commenting on this. The late Peter Fryer wrote a history of racism which has an appendix in it attacking the concept of race. I havent read that. I dont know what the arguments in it are. I know Peter Fryer spent many years of work on the issue and I certainly feel vulnerable discussing the issue without the benefit of having assessed his arguments.)

I think the reasonable conclusion on this issue is that phenotype may correlate with a differentiated average score. I think, on reflection, no one should spend much effort studying the point, since it is almost certain to have no practical significance. I therefore suspect people who study it of racist motives.......but I dont deny that there could be some reality behind what they study........and in my gut my intuition tells me that if it was properly studied the great people of Africa would score probably far better than us degenerate 'caucasians' :P I also look forward to one of the benefits of globalisation that all these differentiated phenotypes will become so confused that the debate will be pointless (although, sadly, I notice how slow it has been for that to happen in a place like Latin America where it should have worked decades ago - capitalism will resort to racism with the slightest of excuses).

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:10 pm
If there were differences, they would not be a legitimisation for either exploitment or discrimination.
And if you implement social changes to address those differences in a positive way, accusations of reverse discrimination are soon leveled :mellow:

[Dimentio]

There are differences in intelligence levels between individuals.

I do not think it would be a good idea to use affirmative action to for example specify that people with an IQ below 70 should be quoted into Rocket Engineering facilities.

I am critical to affirmative action in general as well. We could not expect the state to provide any solutions before or after capitalism has been abolished.

1. By demands of inclusion into capitalist society, we are not solving anything.

2. We are starting to create a new caste system.

I would also like to have it less stratified to white heterosexual males, but affirmative action creates and strengthens racism.

[Lynx]

Affirmative action was intended to counter institutionalized racism. Nothing at all to do with meeting the needs of individuals with low IQ's. Reverse discrimination is an accusation that can be made whenever one group receives preferential treatment.

[Dimentio]

I was not implying that affirmative action is done to help people with low IQ, I am saying that if we hypothetically instituted some sort of quoting system for that group, we would leap into a serious problem.

As for affirmative action in general, I think it most often leads to the continuation of the institutionalisation of oppression.

[TC]

An even more basic problem to hypothetical questions of whether there was "evidence" that one race was more intelligent than others than the absence of biologically distinct races is the absence of any evidence of general intelligence. The fact that you can measure different skills considered to be markers of intelligence (computational, memory, processing speed, etc) does not prove that there is any such thing as a general level of intelligence. By their nature IQ scores cannot be materially relevant because they are an average of artificially and arbitrarily weighted, and artificially and arbitrarily selected, rates of performance on different tasks. Someone's "intelligence" could be seen to be higher or lower simply by excluding particular tasks, or including additional ones, or weighting them differently, when assessing their IQ.

[KC]

Race doesn't exist in the objective world. It is merely a social construction, which doesn't have a basis in anything at all (nope, not even skin color).

[gilhyle]

Race is not species. Race does exist, it just isnt very important. The critique of IQ that it doesnt mean general intelligence answers nothing. Fine it doesnt mean general intelligence.

[KC]

Race does exist, it just isnt very important.

Then you can define it, list the different races, and how they are classified?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

All people of all colors of skin are of the human race-- therefore all these different "races" aren't even relevant in that regard. Everyone belongs to the human race-- regardless of skin color-- therefore there are not different "races".

[Comrade Rage]

Race doesn't have an impact on intelligence. That's not debateable.

However culture may have an impact on someone's intelligence. Not even cultures that are formed along national lines, but cultures that are formed by locations within a country, or lifestyle, i.e. 'Rednecks'.

I'd argue that rednecks are less intelligent than non-rednecks (who-may even live in the same area.)
Reason being is that that culture just doesn't support education in most contexts.

[MarxSchmarx]

Affirmative action was intended to counter institutionalized racism. Nothing at all to do with meeting the needs of individuals with low IQ'

I thought "affirmative action" also applied to people with disabilities, including many cognitive disabilities?

If it doesn't at present, it should.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 01, 2007 01:05 am
Race doesn't have an impact on intelligence. That's not debateable.


Why Not ?

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:37 am

Affirmative action was intended to counter institutionalized racism. Nothing at all to do with meeting the needs of individuals with low IQ'

I thought "affirmative action" also applied to people with disabilities, including many cognitive disabilities?

If it doesn't at present, it should.
In Canada we have 'accessibility' requirements, based on the Charter of Rights. This applies more to physical disabilities than mental ones. Affirmative action in the US is marked by a quota system. I have not heard of quotas for people with low IQ, if they are helped it is more along the lines of functional independence (I presume).

[blackstone]

Originally posted by gilhyle+November 02, 2007 01:19 pm--> (gilhyle @ November 02, 2007 01:19 pm)
COMRADE [email protected] 01, 2007 01:05 am
Race doesn't have an impact on intelligence. That's not debateable.


Why Not ? [/b]
How can it be?

[Ander]

I wasn't trying to imply anything, I was just trying to create some debate. It appears that gilhyle understood that and pushed the discussion along quite nicely. My main focus wasn't only on the race issue, it also has a lot to do with the fact that leftists reject "unpalatable science" as gilhyle put it.

I also thought that TragicClown made an important point.


How can it be?

How can it not? The question can go either way!

[KC]

Why Not ?

Because in order for it to have an impact on intelligence it would first have to exist.

[MarxSchmarx]

How can it be?


How can it not? The question can go either way!


No, it cannot. The null hypothesis is that there is no effect of "race" on "intelligence." Occam's razor, monsieur.

If we want to take a scientific approach to this, it is not too much to ask that we all be committed to parsimony.

Therefore, the burden is on anybody claiming there is an effect to both (1) formulate a mechanistic explanation, and (2) demonstrate this effect statistically.

Despite centuries of trying, neither of these requirements have been met. The conclusion:

The null hypothesis that "race" does not affect "intelligence" remains correct.

[gilhyle]

I dont have much problem with that - although I would reformulate it a bit differently : there is no strong evidence of a significant effect of race on intelligence (however defined).

That is, of course, VERY different from the other position put here that race does not exist. I havent heard any good arguments for that claim here.

[KC]

That is, of course, VERY different from the other position put here that race does not exist. I havent heard any good arguments for that claim here.

I have yet to hear a good argument for the claim that it does.

So go right ahead.

[Dros]

It seems highly unlikely that this would happen, but if it did, I would be able to accept it if all the evidence was proper. I believe that society ought not interfere with science.

It is unlikely that this will happen for several reasons. (most of these have been brought up before)

A.) "Race" is not biological and therefore it won't influence biological indicators of intelligence like brain mass etc.

B.) It would be difficult/impossible to effectively isolate whether or not any differential in intelligence was social or biological.

C.) Is is very difficult/impossible to measure intelligence in a meaningful way.

For these reasons, I doubt that this will ever happen.

Now about Watson. Watson's claims are not scientific or the result of any scientific data. They are his personal racist claims.

Secondly, Dr. Watson's charecter and ethics have always been spurious. His "discovery" of the structure of DNA is based almost entirely in the work of Rosalind Franklin who did most of the leg work and was on the verge of the discovery herself. Watson and Crick obtained her data unethically and without her consent and used her own data and analysis to make their model.

[Comrade Rage]

Aside from small biological differences like color of skin, as well as different sizes of lips and noses, 'race' is differentiated more by culture and geography.

I agree that we are all human. While there may be different varieties of humans, we are all human-that's our race. There are different varieties of cats and dogs but they are all still cats and dogs.

[mikelepore]

Where most people say "race", I think the scientific term is "cline" -- a change in phenotype that was originally produced due to by isolated geographical locations, but too minor to call for the definition of separate species.

[Ol' Dirty]

Humans can't be grouped into races. To be a subspeicies distinct from the rest of the species, it has to meet one of two cirterion:

1. It can have its own distinct genetic lineage, meaning that it evolved in enough isolation that it never (or, rarely) mated with individuals outside its borders, or

2. the genetic distance between one population and another has to be significantly greater than the genetic variability that exists within the populations themselves.

More at: http://www.enotalone.com/article/5044.html

Scientific racism is bullshit. It's always been bullshit. Any credible geneticist will acknoledge that it's bullshit.

Scientific racism is just an excuse for the horrors of colonialism, imperialism, genocide, chattle slavery, and other bullshit ideas.

Don't beleive the hype.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:48 pm
Scientific racism is bullshit. It's always been bullshit. Any credible geneticist will acknoledge that it's bullshit.

Scientific racism is just an excuse for the horrors of colonialism, imperialism, genocide, chattle slavery, and other bullshit ideas.

Don't beleive the hype.
Don't forget about the racist version of eugenics practiced by the likes of Mengele. Painful, sadistic experiments that produced NOTHING.

I think that the racists always knew the weakness of their arguments, so they've always sought to justify their view points with 'research'.

[piet11111]

regarding race and crime i am baffled by the fact that almost all serial killers are white men.

i dont believe race has anything to do with that but what social/environmental conditions
can cause this statisical anomaly ?

[S.O.I]

i do believe that every ethnicities have different traits. its about history. people had to evolve in different ways in different places in order to survive.

but this is simply a postive thing, and we should make the best of it. after all inntelligence is not all that matters.

there are even many different types of inntelligence. none are better than the other. every one of them are neccecary, in theire own special way.

[RedArmyFaction]

Apparently, people with black hair and blue eyes are likely to be more intelligent that people with black hair and brown eyes.................and people with blonde hair are just plain dumb !! Now, the blonde part, i can't believe !! We all know jokes about blondes.................they must have some element of truth to it !

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:31 pm
Apparently, people with black hair and blue eyes are likely to be more intelligent that people with black hair and brown eyes.................and people with blonde hair are just plain dumb !! Now, the blonde part, i can't believe !! We all know jokes about blondes.................they must have some element of truth to it !
RAF, does every one of your posts have to have at LEAST one tired old stereotype in it?

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd298/COMRADE_CRUM/failcat.jpg

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

This thread doesn't even really to be in the science and environment forum, since it deals purely with unscientific claims.