I'm having an argument where it's been stated that black people are less intelligent than white people which I think is BS. However, according to wikipedia,

Intelligence quotient (IQ) tests performed in the United States have consistently demonstrated a significant degree of variation between different racial groups, with the average score of the African American population being lower—and that of the Asian American population being higher—than that of the European-American population. At the same time, there is considerable overlap between these group scores, and individuals of each group can be found at all points on the IQ spectrum. Similar findings have been reported for related populations around the world, although these studies are generally considered less reliable due to the relative paucity of test data and the difficulties inherent in the cross-cultural comparison of intelligence test scores. While the existence of racial IQ gaps is well-documented and not subject to much dispute, there is no consensus among researchers as to their cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Forgetting about "there being no such thing as race" and also getting away from circumstances (i.e. I could argue that blacks are more deprived only to have that countered with see, they're so stupid it's their fault they live like that)

This doesn't help as this is another argument i'm hearing,

The average IQ of 70 for sub-Saharan Africans is lower than that of African Americans because 20% of the latters' gene pool is European

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 405AA6qsrz

Meaning that Blacks with white genes in them are basically more intelligent than pure blacks.

Also in the Wiki article, it shows Asians as being more intelligent than whites.

Are there any studies whereby they test people of equal backgrounds - surely this would be a correct test wouldn't it rather than testing Africans in a village or red necks on a sunday?

The number of IQ tests performed in some countries in subsaharan africa is so low that it's unlikely they even have statistical relevance. Also, nourishment affects the IQ of someone that grows up with bad nourishment, and it's clear subsaharan africa more often is hit by famines than, say, the US.

One of the professors that have tried to show racial average IQs as an important factor in the development of economies around the world even made up numbers - for one central Asian nation, he took the average of Turkey, China and India - none of which even shared a border with that country.

so the research claiming big differences is largely made up of pseudoscience, whereas science attempting to debunk it is not much done.

Firstly, IQ tests are intended to measure mental retardation, nothing more. People give them too much thought really.

Secondly, IQ tests are significantly based on culture, language, and obviously education level. Comparing them like done in that wiki article is incorrect, and I believe impossible actually. (you can only say 'relative to the population this amount is under average whereas this amount is under average here but you can't make a direct comparison of values.)

Uhmm there's a lot more I feel like putting here but I gotta head to calc, maybe after.

100m its quicker than the 400 metres and therefore less boring

Are there any studies whereby they test people of equal backgrounds - surely this would be a correct test wouldn't it rather than testing Africans in a village or red necks on a sunday?

Yes, this would be fair. Getting a large number of children (of a different "race") with similar backgrounds. Give them a similar education and then check their IQ after their high school education is over.

Then...IF you found some sort of difference. You need to determine what exact genetic phenomena is going on.

Unfortunately, when people point at the average IQ of each race on wikipedia. They are committing a number of fallacies. Levels of education have a big effect on IQ, so you would need to factor stuff like this in.

I'm sure you have opened a big can of worms here, and this debate will go on for pages. But I generally find your average Joe making the "IQ is connected to race" claim is simply looking for data that suits their bigoted opinion. Hence the lack-of reasoning behind their wikipedia hit-and-run arguments.


I could be wrong, maybe the scientific literature says something else. I haven't dug too deeply into this question. However from my experience with the claim, it doesn't have a whole lot of substance.

Most of the Nigerian guys I know or have known all have degrees at least. My wife who's Nigerian is studying law and at the top of her class. This really is meaningless I suppose, but without something to counter these claims, how do you change someone's mind with all this BS out there?

Surely tests done in developed countries with people from similar backgrounds would be accurate?

until science comes up, pseudoscience lives on and their champions. Most of these developing countires do have a very poor nutrition, there is now another theory which claims that infections in childhood are largely responsible for drops in IQ. In India, the situation for nutrition and health is pathetic. In africa atleast there is a uniform lack of development and hence perhaps a uniform method and resolve to get rid of it.

Teague wrote: This really is meaningless I suppose, but without something to counter these claims, how do you change someone's mind with all this BS out there?

Maybe you could tell them that if what they are saying is true. We should embrace asians as our intellectual overlords. We should ensure they get all the top jobs in society to ensure that productivity is maximized. And ensure that all those dumb whities and blacks get back to manufacturing and labor.

Car-race. Chariot-races are painful for the horses.

Well the claim is along the lines of, "We should stop immigration and let people develope in their own countries and not let them in our countries and let the side down. I'm not racists, it's just a fact that black people are more stupid and should stay in africa" Typical David Duke shit.

My first counter to that was, "well that works both ways and we should stay the fuck out of theirs but that isn't going to happen so STFU!" However it's not much because they support that idea

Of course it's the Chinese then the Blacks.

Whites are the dumbest.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:

Teague wrote: This really is meaningless I suppose, but without something to counter these claims, how do you change someone's mind with all this BS out there?

Maybe you could tell them that if what they are saying is true. We should embrace asians as our intellectual overlords. We should ensure they get all the top jobs in society to ensure that productivity is maximized. And ensure that all those dumb whities and blacks get back to manufacturing and labor.

I'm taking the argument that way, but first asked if Asians should "go home" as well and waiting to see the response but that point is what I thought. If Asians are more intellectual, by thatlogic they should be in charge as they will do a better job.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:
I could be wrong, maybe the scientific literature says something else. I haven't dug too deeply into this question. However from my experience with the claim, it doesn't have a whole lot of substance.

I can't find anything done on this so all thatseems to be out there is pages on "balcks are less intelligent". Maybe nobody wants to study it because it's too sensitive but no study into it means this nonsense get's spouted as fact and trying to argue your point is difficult with nothing to back it up with. Stuff like...

My friends mother is a genetic councillor and a highly respected genetics lecturer.

Anyway, we got to talking about different things and she informed me that it is a genetic fact that intelligence is primarily to due with your genetic inheritance.
She also told me that other ancillary factors such as educational opportunities were of couse a factor but only in the development of the intelligence that you inherited.
she said anyone can read a pile of educational books, but if the level of intelligence (IQ) is not present in order for you understand them then it is it pointless.

She went on to tell me that it is not only a genetic fact that intelligence is primarily inherited though your genetics, it is also a genetic fact that black people such as africans are GENERALLY less intelligent then white people or that of asian race.

She said she views it as being no different to the fact that women (of all races) are GENERALLY inferior when it comes to being good at mathematics. She said this also due to genetics in females and is primarily due to the high levels of oestrigeon in comparrison to testoserone and also the differences between the workings to the male and female brain.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 405AA6qsrz

See a genetiscist says so, what have you got!?



(sorry girls, your stupid as well it seems )

mrjonno wrote:100m its quicker than the 400 metres and therefore less boring

The relay. It involves no equipment requirement other than a baton, and requires co-operation of all the runners on the team. It's much more of a good moral message than any other race, and potentially uses no non-renewable resources. So that makes it the smarter race.

Teague wrote:
(sorry girls, your stupid as well it seems )

Some recent research indicates that men and women average about the same when it comes to this. HOWEVER, the distribution is different - there's more men out in the tails on both ends, and fewer laides. So fewer entirely mathematically talentless women than men, but also the opposite: fewer world-class caliber super-genious women.

Obviously brown people are smarter

Ok done calc. (my prof is asian by the way... haha)

The main problem with what this person claims lies in the premise that IQ tests are indication of intellectual abilities. It also rests on a related premise that the IQ of a person is the max potential obtainable by the person.

Both of these are wrong.

As I stated before the IQ test is intended to measure mental retardation. NOT intelligence. It is sometimes useful as a tool to compare persons within a society within a certain aspect but it's utterly useless to say 'higher IQ indicates higher intelligence.' Because it does not (well by my definition of intelligence at least, which is a difficult word to define) It's basically a standardized test with certain questions useful in identifying persons who are vastly lower than average intellectual capabilities. So really all you end up with is 'relative to the average of ... so and so ended up such and such points higher' and the points are based on a standard deviation. So it's cool but can you really say 'so and so is more intelligent because they scored such and such higher'? Perhaps, but this will not always be true.

The second point has to do with the whole 'genetics' aspect of it. This is based on the premise that because a person scores on an IQ test that is their personal maximum. This is not true. There are MANY factors which play into a IQ score... and a persons IQ score can (and should) fluctuate based on the test, the language of the test, the education they receive since last testing, their culture, etc..

The only scientifically plausible way I could see such an experiment would be to take representative amounts of various 'races' and put them in equal circumstances. Meaning, EVERYTHING equal, same education, same amount of free time, same amount of money, everything. Then perhaps an IQ test would be more representative, but still not the 'major determinant'...

The score you get in an IQ test measures how good you are at IQ tests and not much else. Quickness of thinking and lateral thinking are measured to some extent, but essentially they measure things which the traditional middle class family would consider useful mental skills and abilities to have to do well in the professions they traditionally have held.

Other forms of 'intelligence' exist of course. One presumes there are things that require nimble thinking which are useful for nomadic people, farmers, people who live within different social settings and so on.

My point is that the measurement is not an objective one for what one might describe as 'overarching' intelligence.