What if your race is the dumbest of them all?

[Kyriakos]

Did you miss the quotes in post #75?

I try to miss stepping on ants on the pavement. They may be small, but have a purpose and can carry on living, much like such 'studies' presenting supposed facts about so multifaceted an issue as intelligence, rendering an entire ethnic group as superior mentally. I think such a result is not intelligent at all. Let alone that mere reality shows there are many very dumb jewish people around, much like with any other ethnic group. Remember those watchers of the carpet-bombing at Gaza? Really intelligent.

@Hehehe, you could leave further racism aside, i do not represent Greece, nor is there some high collective of "intellectuals" anywhere, so try to refrain from the same trope.

 

[Ryika]

I try to miss stepping on ants on the pavement. They may be small, but have a purpose and can carry on living, much like such 'studies' presenting supposed facts about so multifaceted an issue as intelligence, rendering an entire ethnic group as superior mentally. I think such a result is not intelligent at all.

So basically "I do not have to review these studies and see whether there's something to them, because f I close my eyes, they do not exist!"

 

[Hehehe]

I try to miss stepping on ants on the pavement. They may be small, but have a purpose and can carry on living, much like such 'studies' presenting supposed facts about so multifaceted an issue as intelligence, rendering an entire ethnic group as superior mentally. I think such a result is not intelligent at all.

@Hehehe, you could leave further racism aside, i do not represent Greece, nor is there some high collective of "intellectuals" anywhere, so try to refrain from the same trope.

So that's it? In the face of overwhelming evidence, you're just going to stick your fingers into your ears and scream "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, you sure both got me.

 

[Ryika]

I don't even understand what you're afraid of the idea that some groups may have higher average IQs than others, after all, we're not even specifically talking about about inherent IQ here. The reasons may be entirely cultural.

Or maybe there's actually some truth to that silly theory that somebody told me one time, which went something like: "Because Jews were not allowed to do real jobs in ancient times, they had to become accountants, and because they had no alternatives, only those who were good at math managed to survive, which is why Jews are now very good at logical thinking." A poetic story really, of how hardship made them stronger. You should write a children's book about it.

In either case, wealth also correlates with IQ, do you also feel like you have to close your eyes before the possibility that wealthy people are on average more intelligent than poor people?

 

[El_Machinae]

Are you saying that this is a topic which is no-no on CFC? CFC has a smart userbase. If people here are spreading false claims, then these claims will get shot down.

The premise is that race and intelligence have correlates on a genetic level, and that the genes that cause us to visually create a 'race' are tied to genes that affect the intelligence potential of a person.

That's the type of misunderstanding that the racists salivate over while gleaning these thread for more reasons to think that some other race is inferior.

 

[FriendlyFire]

@Hehehe, you could leave further racism aside, i do not represent Greece, nor is there some high collective of "intellectuals" anywhere, so try to refrain from the same trope.

Nobel prizes for scientific achievements have gone to a large number of Jews, is probably a reasonable snap shot of current modern era
Previous though scientifc achievements were centered in the Middle East and for a brief time also Greece, this changed after Islam took an anti-science path and Greek went bankrupt via economic collapse(s)
It seems to me that intelligence is likely more then just race, but rather how advanced a country is and its culture.

The Greeks are probably an example of being scientifically advanced and now being a poor backwards country and are culturally stereotyped as being ummm bad at money and corrupt

 

[Hehehe]

The premise is that race and intelligence have correlates on a genetic level, and that the genes that cause us to visually create a 'race' are tied to genes that affect the intelligence potential of a person.

That's the type of misunderstanding that the racists salivate over while gleaning these thread for more reasons to think that some other race is inferior.

The truth is that there are persistent racial differences in intelligence. The science is complicated, but it is pretty much certain that these differences are at least partly due to genetics. Now what would you have us do with this information? Hide it because we don't want racist saliva? All of our social policies throughout the Western world are based on the idea that intelligence is equal across all groups. This is an idea that simply isn't supported by anything. We can continue to ignore the reality of genetics, but we cannot will our delusions into changing the fabric of reality. Reality is what it is, regardless of whether or not we choose to ignore it.

Now if you're against discrimination, then yes, I agree 100 %. All people should be treated the same, regardless of their race or intelligence. There's more to life than intelligence, and we have to provide everybody with equal opportunities. This is both for moral and for practical reasons.

Also, accepting differences in intelligence doesn't mean that one "race" is superior to another. Intelligence is a mistake that evolution is in the process of stamping out (intelligent people have less kids). There are no "superior" or "inferior" races, only ones that are better adapted to their environment.

 

[civver_764]

The premise is that race and intelligence have correlates on a genetic level, and that the genes that cause us to visually create a 'race' are tied to genes that affect the intelligence potential of a person.

That's the type of misunderstanding that the racists salivate over while gleaning these thread for more reasons to think that some other race is inferior.

All races have their pros and cons. I'm certainly not upset that black people dominate the NBA, I have no problem recognizing their superiority in that area.

I'm also not upset that Asian people dominate test scores, it is what it is. There is more to life than just intelligence, and we shouldn't fear the truth.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hehehe, I am absolutely not disputing the racial difference between intelligence. What I am disputing is the underlying premise of the thread, where there is a definitive genetic component to this racial difference. They're entirely different things and the racists are going to salivate over this misunderstanding

 

[Perfection]

If we have sufficient knowledge of the nature of intelligence to conclusively make such a fine grained determination then we ought have the technology to enhance it, rendering the discussion moot.

 

[Ryika]

Hehehe, I am absolutely not disputing the racial difference between intelligence. What I am disputing is the underlying premise of the thread, where there is a definitive genetic component to this racial difference. They're entirely different things and the racists are going to salivate over this misunderstanding

Which is part of why the thread puts "your" race at the bottom of the hierarchy. Nobody can take part in the "thought experiment" from a perspective of a person who is in the race that they consider "superior".

 

[civver_764]

Hehehe, I am absolutely not disputing the racial difference between intelligence. What I am disputing is the underlying premise of the thread, where there is a definitive genetic component to this racial difference. They're entirely different things and the racists are going to salivate over this misunderstanding

Is this because you don't think there is a genetic component, or is it because you're scared that there is?

 

[El_Machinae]

Neither. I don't think racists can be helped to understand in the discussion. They will just use cognitive bias to misunderstand things so that they can perceive genetic superiority. And so the conversation itself is destructive. They will just get fancier words, and that's about it

 

[Hehehe]

Hehehe, I am absolutely not disputing the racial difference between intelligence. What I am disputing is the underlying premise of the thread, where there is a definitive genetic component to this racial difference. They're entirely different things and the racists are going to salivate over this misunderstanding

The idea that there are racial differences in IQ, even in first world countries, is not a "misunderstanding". It is very well established. Likewise, the idea that intelligence is partly genetic is also very well established. Also, the idea that race differences are partially genetic, is not a "misunderstanding". It is a verifiable fact, and no amount of saliva is going to change that.

If you want, we can go in-depth with this topic, but I would ask that I get to make a new thread for it, and that I get time to prepare my opening post and write some key replies beforehand.

If we have sufficient knowledge of the nature of intelligence to conclusively make such a fine grained determination then we ought have the technology to enhance it, rendering the discussion moot.

This is the interesting part. We don't have that technology yet, but we will have it very soon. We can already read the human genome, but the problem is that we don't know what most of the genes do. There are already some genes that have been linked to traits such as intelligence, but the exact mechanism of how they work is still a mystery.

Already, it is almost possible to do IVF selection. It's like fertility treatments, where fertilized eggs are implanted into a woman. If we could understand the genome better, we could read the genes of the fertilized eggs to see if they possess the kind of qualities that parents would want and then implant those that do.

I haven't taken a detailed look at CRISPR, but further down the line, it should be possible to just plant whatever genes one desires into the human genome. Imagine the possibilities. We could genetically engineer geniuses that are way beyond what this world has ever seen. It is still a mystery as to how many genes in total are responsible for human intelligence, but as a ballpark figure, 150 might be close. Imagine, for example, if we could create a person who has the most beneficial variants of all of those 150 genes? Even the greatest geniuses throughout history have had perhaps 50 positive variants, and we could create people who have all 150.

There are ethical considerations to this kind of thing, and the idea that intelligence is partly genetic is a bit of a taboo. But the Chinese don't care about either of those things, so we should see interesting results in the (near?) future.

 

[El_Machinae]

The idea that there are racial differences in IQ, even in first world countries, is not a "misunderstanding". It is very well established. Likewise, the idea that intelligence is partly genetic is also very well established. Also, the idea that race differences are partially genetic, is not a "misunderstanding". It is a verifiable fact, and no amount of saliva is going to change that.

If you want, we can go in-depth with this topic, but I would ask that I get to make a new thread for it, and that I get time to prepare my opening post and write some key replies beforehand.

You are signaling that you can add some nuance to this discussion, but then failing to acknowledge my nuance. I've already agreed that there are racial differences. You already know that I know that there's a genetic component to intelligence.

And so, I then have to make a calculation - am I talking to someone worth talking to? So far, you've hinted at having a nuanced view. But then, none of your words indicate that you understand the colloquial errors that people are making. You 'unpacked' my sentence to not address (at all) my underlying concern. Are you only going to write things that racists will salivate at?

The poison of the thread's premise, that there's sufficient correlation between the genetics that trigger our heuristic of race and the genetics of intelligence, isn't worth engaging. There's no need to make a new thread. Valessa wanted to talk about genetics and IQ. It already unpacked cultural influences, and asked that we play with the premise that we can measurably associate genes with lip fatness with net IQ.

Even if you add some nuance, the racists reading the thread won't understand the broader point - they're only going to use more fancy words when trying to discuss racial superiority. Cause they'll throw in genetic buzzwords.

 

[Hehehe]

You are signaling that you can add some nuance to this discussion, but then failing to acknowledge my nuance. I've already agreed that there are racial differences. You already know that I know that there's a genetic component to intelligence.

And so, I then have to make a calculation - am I talking to someone worth talking to? So far, you've hinted at having a nuanced view. But then, none of your words indicate that you understand the colloquial errors that people are making. You 'unpacked' my sentence to not address (at all) my underlying concern. Are you only going to write things that racists will salivate at?

The poison of the thread's premise, that there's sufficient correlation between the genetics that trigger our heuristic of race and the genetics of intelligence, isn't worth engaging. There's no need to make a new thread. Valessa wanted to talk about genetics and IQ. It already unpacked cultural influences, and asked that we play with the premise that we can measurably associate genes with lip fatness with net IQ.

Even if you add some nuance, the racists reading the thread won't understand the broader point - they're only going to use more fancy words when trying to discuss racial superiority. Cause they'll throw in genetic buzzwords.

Are we talking past each other here? I'm afraid you will have to be more specific. What kind of nuance are you talking about here? Nuance in regards to what?

Are you suggesting that there are certain ethical considerations to dealing with this kind of information? I realize that it could be misused, but the information is there anyway. If there are people who have bad intentions, they will be able to misuse this information anyway. Besides, I do believe that this information won't lead to the kind of horrors that we saw with the Nazi regime, if that is what you're afraid of. I suppose this is going off-topic, but I consider antisemitism to be different from racism. I believe that the Nazis just used their racial pseudoscience as nothing more than ad-hoc justification for what they were doing. I believe that they didn't hate Jewish people because Jews were inferior, but because they weren't.

So I'm not a 100 % sure of what kind of nuance would you like to have here. The data is what it is, and there is only so much room for nuance. As for the ethical side of things, we need to argue the case for morality, and also to remind people that this won't be an issue in the future. I value truth for its own sake, and just because the data is what it is, that doesn't justify drawing unjust and discriminatory policy proposals based on it.

 

[bernie14]

I think that even if selected for by environmental factors (including cultural influences/pressures but excluding artificial factors such as breeding), multifactorial traits such as intelligence, muscle coordination, etc, will only affect a very small number of individuals. Now, a small number of individuals can certainly shift a statistical average (aside from all the methodological flaws that are inherent to IQ tests). I think that part of the problem we are having is that we love to generalize (see, I did it right there! ) as such, sound theories of evolution become social darwinism.

 

[Kyriakos]

The idea that there are racial differences in IQ, even in first world countries, is not a "misunderstanding". It is very well established. Likewise, the idea that intelligence is partly genetic is also very well established. Also, the idea that race differences are partially genetic, is not a "misunderstanding". It is a verifiable fact, and no amount of saliva is going to change that.

If you want, we can go in-depth with this topic, but I would ask that I get to make a new thread for it, and that I get time to prepare my opening post and write some key replies beforehand.



This is the interesting part. We don't have that technology yet, but we will have it very soon. We can already read the human genome, but the problem is that we don't know what most of the genes do. There are already some genes that have been linked to traits such as intelligence, but the exact mechanism of how they work is still a mystery.

Already, it is almost possible to do IVF selection. It's like fertility treatments, where fertilized eggs are implanted into a woman. If we could understand the genome better, we could read the genes of the fertilized eggs to see if they possess the kind of qualities that parents would want and then implant those that do.

I haven't taken a detailed look at CRISPR, but further down the line, it should be possible to just plant whatever genes one desires into the human genome. Imagine the possibilities. We could genetically engineer geniuses that are way beyond what this world has ever seen. It is still a mystery as to how many genes in total are responsible for human intelligence, but as a ballpark figure, 150 might be close. Imagine, for example, if we could create a person who has the most beneficial variants of all of those 150 genes? Even the greatest geniuses throughout history have had perhaps 50 positive variants, and we could create people who have all 150.

There are ethical considerations to this kind of thing, and the idea that intelligence is partly genetic is a bit of a taboo. But the Chinese don't care about either of those things, so we should see interesting results in the (near?) future.

You are in the realm of fantasy with your view that we are about to create people with higher IQ, and that 'down the pipeline' also with >150 IQ due to being near to mapping what intelligence is. Intelligence is a degree of complexity in one's ability to either think (conscious), feel (conscious and part subconscious) or intuitively (subconscious) form a sense of something. The issue is not something out of cheap sci-fi, and nor do the human genome studies that are in their absolute infancy allow for analyzing with facts what intelligence is formed by. Furthermore, intelligence is not something which ever should be the subject of racist thought; it is just incompatible. In intelligent people, racism is a blind spot at best, and at worst a mental cancer dragging them down.

 

[Perfection]

The idea that there are racial differences in IQ, even in first world countries, is not a "misunderstanding". It is very well established. Likewise, the idea that intelligence is partly genetic is also very well established. Also, the idea that race differences are partially genetic, is not a "misunderstanding". It is a verifiable fact, and no amount of saliva is going to change that.

The conclusion that a racial disparity shown in an IQ study being due to the fact that race A in general has "better genes for intelligence" than race B does not follow from what you've said. Given the fact that supposed inherent differences in mental capacities was historically widely used as a justification for discrimination, it behooves us to be extremely careful in talking about these claims. In particular we want to make damn sure that we're not providing excuses for bigots to discriminate based on flimsy evidence and conjecture.

Moreso we need to recognize that both IQ and racial categorization are not scientifically ironclad concepts - they are loaded with societal baggage that needs to be unpacked before we can even make sense of the issues involved.

Finally there's a so what factor. Why should we care so much about broad generalizations which routinely doesn't apply to individuals?