Elta
我不会把这种
Having seen a lot of stuff on Race recently here and not wanting to comment without thread jacking I've decided to post a few things here.
* All information given here was from pbs-anthropology 101 and wiki. I am not going to provide any specific references because this is not exactly a college level paper by any means and if you think I am wrong you can search for the contra info your self.
For the most part people around the world even babies as young as 3 years old are able to identify 5 or 6 major "races". We define them by skin types - hair color and facial features for the most part. In pre civilization eras this was important for each groups survival to identify people quickly.
The only problem with that is that it gives the false impression that we are all in clearly separate groups
Here is a little map of human migration up to 10,000 B.C.
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html ( AKA the rise of mass agriculture )
That doesn't even show stuff like Roman conquest of Celtic Iberia (not to mention the multitude of other conquest of it)
There are people who get sickle cell anemia more often than others - usually people in Africa in parts where it helps to be resistant to malaria.
People in the northern parts of Europe that are the same as Aboriginal Australians. While people in Southern europe usually have the same patterns common with african and chinese people. There are groups of people that are much more tolerante to dairy than others - these are people descended from groups of people who were around when animal husbandry spread.
The point I am getting at here is that it was not long term isolation that gave people in particular regions of the world certain looks and brain types. Migration - conquest - rich merchants - sexual selection - exposure to the sun - the amount of time spent in row boats - nutrition - random mutation. etc etc X 1,000,000 There are millions of "races" if you try to to define it off of more than looks.
More on this sort of stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalli-Sforza
"races" and intelligence
* before I start let me say that I do not take IQ scores to be the be all end all of anything and I know that there are several types of intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Bodily-Kinesthetic\
but, it is usually IQ test that tell you how well most people do the work place, I won't ignore that. I do look forward to the day that these new MRI scans replace iq test that can have scores which range differently every time the person takes the test.
It seems easy to say that this "race" or this one is better "just look at the iqs!" right? .....
Well is seems that There are a number of factors that effect IQs other than race alone.
For example aboriginal Australians have been said to have a visual memory of 145 (just as a reference point since the average white aussie has a visual memory iq of 100)
does this mean that they are naturally better at these sort of things?
Maybe - the people still living in the bush have scores over 145 on average while the city people are usually around 120. It is probably part training - from all of the animal tracking type stuff and part genetic IMO
This is not unlike IQ scores most experts agree that it is 40-70% hereditary and the rest would be environmental and educational. At least this is what adoptions of children of different races seem to indicate.
Another thing I found interesting is that the oldest child from a family of four that are within 20 years of each other (oldest 20 years older than youngest at most) usually has an IQ 17 points higher than the youngest
this is more than the white-black gap. This probably has something to do with over mentoring of the older to younger ones or something like that I suppose. (no studies to tells us why yet according to my anthropology teacher since it was only concluded 5 years ago in it's first "real" study)
Bridging the gap According to a time magazine article last year called bridging the gap every country and each of the 2300 + ethnic groups tested had higher levels of iq than the last major test (the one I referenced above)
with the lower scoring groups moving up higher than the higher ones (white american now 102 and black american 89 for example - the gap is 2 points lower now)
* Aboriginal Australians living in large cites made the largest jump with a 11 point move up (all test done on people age 20-25 years old - as allways)
My conclusion is that Nutrition, environment and education have a lot to do with all of it and that the assumed superiority of one group over another is irrelevant because of the ever changing scores and the gap being larger between youngest and oldest siblings is even more shocking.
Race and athletics
No doubt most of us have heard of how great the Kalenjin tribe of Kenya is at distance running
If you are to say that the average american cross country high school senior runner has a Runners IQ of 100 than the average kenyan professional runner has a runners IQ of 110.
That is impressive but not awe inspiring - they are the most dominating group of athletes in the world but, a 10% difference is not a big deal.
The difference between a mediocre base ball club and a great one is less than 10% same with a mediocre and a horrible one. ( if you look at a 1 place team in the National league or American league in american baseball they very very rarely score a winning percentage over .600 and the worst of the worst rarely score under .400)
P.S. donate to wikipedia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6mCO5lXsSU
They are fund rasing again.
And shake your mighty fist of rage at them for letting people edit out things that are even the slightest bit controversial. I had a bunch of cool things to talk about that were deleted.
Yofo Safa Fofo,
Elta A. Perras.
* All information given here was from pbs-anthropology 101 and wiki. I am not going to provide any specific references because this is not exactly a college level paper by any means and if you think I am wrong you can search for the contra info your self.
For the most part people around the world even babies as young as 3 years old are able to identify 5 or 6 major "races". We define them by skin types - hair color and facial features for the most part. In pre civilization eras this was important for each groups survival to identify people quickly.
The only problem with that is that it gives the false impression that we are all in clearly separate groups
Here is a little map of human migration up to 10,000 B.C.
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html ( AKA the rise of mass agriculture )
That doesn't even show stuff like Roman conquest of Celtic Iberia (not to mention the multitude of other conquest of it)
There are people who get sickle cell anemia more often than others - usually people in Africa in parts where it helps to be resistant to malaria.
People in the northern parts of Europe that are the same as Aboriginal Australians. While people in Southern europe usually have the same patterns common with african and chinese people. There are groups of people that are much more tolerante to dairy than others - these are people descended from groups of people who were around when animal husbandry spread.
The point I am getting at here is that it was not long term isolation that gave people in particular regions of the world certain looks and brain types. Migration - conquest - rich merchants - sexual selection - exposure to the sun - the amount of time spent in row boats - nutrition - random mutation. etc etc X 1,000,000 There are millions of "races" if you try to to define it off of more than looks.
More on this sort of stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalli-Sforza
"races" and intelligence
* before I start let me say that I do not take IQ scores to be the be all end all of anything and I know that there are several types of intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Bodily-Kinesthetic\
but, it is usually IQ test that tell you how well most people do the work place, I won't ignore that. I do look forward to the day that these new MRI scans replace iq test that can have scores which range differently every time the person takes the test.
* not listed here Aboriginal Australians 60 - "Hispanics" 95 - Malay and Pacific islanders - 95 - Jewish europeans (White lookin Jewish people) 110
It seems easy to say that this "race" or this one is better "just look at the iqs!" right? .....
Well is seems that There are a number of factors that effect IQs other than race alone.
For example aboriginal Australians have been said to have a visual memory of 145 (just as a reference point since the average white aussie has a visual memory iq of 100)
does this mean that they are naturally better at these sort of things?
Maybe - the people still living in the bush have scores over 145 on average while the city people are usually around 120. It is probably part training - from all of the animal tracking type stuff and part genetic IMO
This is not unlike IQ scores most experts agree that it is 40-70% hereditary and the rest would be environmental and educational. At least this is what adoptions of children of different races seem to indicate.
Another thing I found interesting is that the oldest child from a family of four that are within 20 years of each other (oldest 20 years older than youngest at most) usually has an IQ 17 points higher than the youngest
this is more than the white-black gap. This probably has something to do with over mentoring of the older to younger ones or something like that I suppose. (no studies to tells us why yet according to my anthropology teacher since it was only concluded 5 years ago in it's first "real" study) Bridging the gap According to a time magazine article last year called bridging the gap every country and each of the 2300 + ethnic groups tested had higher levels of iq than the last major test (the one I referenced above)
with the lower scoring groups moving up higher than the higher ones (white american now 102 and black american 89 for example - the gap is 2 points lower now)
* Aboriginal Australians living in large cites made the largest jump with a 11 point move up (all test done on people age 20-25 years old - as allways)
My conclusion is that Nutrition, environment and education have a lot to do with all of it and that the assumed superiority of one group over another is irrelevant because of the ever changing scores and the gap being larger between youngest and oldest siblings is even more shocking.
Race and athletics
No doubt most of us have heard of how great the Kalenjin tribe of Kenya is at distance running
Super impressive right?
If you are to say that the average american cross country high school senior runner has a Runners IQ of 100 than the average kenyan professional runner has a runners IQ of 110.
That is impressive but not awe inspiring - they are the most dominating group of athletes in the world but, a 10% difference is not a big deal.
The difference between a mediocre base ball club and a great one is less than 10% same with a mediocre and a horrible one. ( if you look at a 1 place team in the National league or American league in american baseball they very very rarely score a winning percentage over .600 and the worst of the worst rarely score under .400)
P.S. donate to wikipedia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6mCO5lXsSU
They are fund rasing again.
And shake your mighty fist of rage at them for letting people edit out things that are even the slightest bit controversial. I had a bunch of cool things to talk about that were deleted.
Yofo Safa Fofo,
Elta A. Perras.
