DNA does have a factor in IQ. Look at savants or children that are in college. They were not trained their gifts ... As far as Race, that is also determined by DNA. Not the broad color of your skin determines your intelligence. But DNA is definitely part of everyone's intelligence. Some people's entire family tree are idiots
All evidence would suggest that intelligence is partially genetically determined. However there is no proof- only theory at present. That is not the controversial part. The controversial part is linking RACE to intelligence. Race is NOT determined by genetics. Genetics plays a strong role in certain traits. This is a “gender vs sex” nuance that is misunderstood often. Race is a social construct. A man made classification system. If you travel the modern world or can travel through time- not only do raves change but WHO is considered what race changes based on where and when you are. So a direct genetic clone of a person who was called one race in one part of the world or at one time, could very well be considered a different race at another place and time even though their genetics are identical. So discussing genetics and race together is already Shakey in most cases. For instance many people can have traits associated with a certain “race” but have no real genetic ties to the group..
... associated with that race. But just because someone has dark hair it doesn’t make them Asian does it? Pale skin doesn’t make you European- and not all people from those regions have those traits either. What’s more- and this is a big issue in the scientific genetics community- it’s dubiois even to tie genes to a geographic region. So we can’t say your a certain “race” because you or your ancestors lived somewhere- we can’t say that because you have certain beliefs or customs that you belong to a certain race. We can’t say that because you have certain features you belong to a certain race. No single factor necessarily dictates race- ethnicity, nationality, genetic sub type, these are some factors that play into “race-“ but in the end- sometimes race is based on one factor. Much of the world would call someone “black” regardless of ancestry- but because of skin color- so that includes many Asians, islanders, Latinos and Hispanics, and so on. If we say “African” what “race” are we...
... talking about? Individuals areas have very unique ethnicities with distinct features associated with their genetics- and then there are white South Africans as well... so you see- “race” is not a scientific construct. It is imprecise. It’s a cultural construct designed so that any groups which interact can easily classify broad generalizations about groups. It hinges on mutual agreement and understanding but is subjective to the individual level, and has no official system or criteria which one can be classified. Ever take a genetics test? “Race” is not one of the things they can or do test DNA for. People can speculate a “race” based off ancestry information, but it isn’t something you can actually perform a test or determine from a survey. It’s a language of sorts, changing and varied. Not a science.
1. IQ is just test of cognitive functions. High IQ is meaning that you CAN learning faster and is not meaning you are smart. It is potential speed. It's not offensive to have middle IQ. For example, you will never run as fast as Usain Bolt.
2. Where is problem that IQ depends on DNA? All depend on DNA.
If, just for arguments sake, race did factor into intelligence, would anyone believe the data?
A female researcher did a study about something like this and she was universally shunned for what the data said.
I don't know from any of this but I can't help but feel like if there was a racial correlation it would be ignored for PC's sake.
Yep. No one likes to be told they have legitimate limitations simply because of their existence. We can easily accept we're never going to be a sports star but to say you just aren't capable of being as smart as someone else? Our pride steps in and we start blaming the person who told us instead of facing reality. And lets face it that all PC is, is pandering to someone else's pride or ego not reality.
I like how it's ok for you to stereotype people whom you disagree with. But i'll bet you come unglued if someone suggests that men are generally better than women at some things.
I like how you chastise them for their broad and speculative generalization by responding with a broad and speculative generalization of your own. Perhaps it was intentionally ironic. Either way- the wheel keeps turning I suppose.
In a world where people are hated on so much for not believing in scientific evidence suggesting certain things, why is it so hard to believe that science could prove that 1 race was generally smarter due to brain development differences caused by genetic anomalies in evolution? This is not a racist statement he is making. Let's turn the tables and say that it proved that people from Africa were genetically disposed to higher IQ ratings than white people. Would he have been stripped of these titles then? Would people believe the science then? If so then it really shows how hypocritical people can be. Just my 2 cents.
I think you miss a major point. “People from Africa” are not a race. Charlize Theron is from Africa. Within Africa you will find a host of ethnicities and genetically distinct peoples. So saying “people from Africa are smarter...” is as dubious as saying “people of xyz race are smarter...” because people of a given race can’t be told by genetics or region or ancestry- because “race” is a social construct. I have posted on this above- so let me present to you what Harvard has to say on the matter:
“ ‘Race’ cannot be biologically defined due to genetic variation among human individuals and populations. (A) The old concept of the “five races:” African, Asian, European, Native American, and Oceanian. According to this view, variation between the races is large, and thus, the each race is a separate category. Additionally, individual races are thought to have a relatively uniform genetic identity. (B) Actual genetic variation in humans. Human populations do roughly cluster into geographical regions. However, variation between different regions is small, thus blurring the lines between populations. Furthermore, variation within a single region is large, and there is no uniform identity.“
In other words- different cultures and eras take a bunch of data about a person such as physical traits, where they are from, ethnic details etc- and classify them in broad categories that contain certain assumptions. So if you cake up with proof that “Africans were more intelligent” that wouldn’t be genetic proof since you are talking about a whole continent and not any particular group of people- and that continent is so genetically diverse that any continent wide advantage to intelligence would most likely be traced to cultural or environmental factors native to the location and independent of the people. It’s like saying “the Chinese are genetically good at math!” Umm... not all Chinese are good at math, and one of the reasons many are is cultural and having to do with attitudes on studying, school, etc as well as the fact that some people in any group will have some aptitude’s for things others don’t. Perhaps some of that “natural talent” is genetic- but since within a Chinese...
... population sample you will find huge genetic diversity which would make it by default an unfounded assumption to say all Chinese possessed those genes. In point of fact- there are few genes that we can say are universally possessed by one population group entirely, and beyond that, the idea of a person or people either being “pure” genetically to one group or all having the same exact mix of genes from various sources on any large scale is laughable. So yes- by its nature the idea that all Africans would be smarter than everyone else is quite a leap- but it is more plausible than the idea that a certain “race” would all have the propensity to a certain intellect even though that “race” is as diverse as the differences between them and a totally “different race.”
IQ isn’t legitimate anyway. It’s a foolish test. Intelligence can be determined by genes though, for sure. Race does not determine intelligence, but connections can still be drawn between perceived race and intelligence. However, it is difficult to measure this, because race isn’t easily defined, and because it’s hard to remove other factors like culture. Race is something like dog breeds. We’re all the same species, and groups of us have shared traits.
I always thought the disparity was cultural and not purely genetic...e.g. an African American adolescent being accused of being too "white" for doing well in school or the trope of the Asian schoolboy being chastised for bringing home a B+ grade.
Everyone, regardless of race, is capable of achieving great things or sinking to the bottom of the barrel, the difference being effort put in and support from peers and family.
I would have to agree there is some cultural component not only to the obstacles holding a person back in discovering their potential, but also in social factors that influence people to not want to discover potential. These are often not based on a racial ethnicity as much as they tend to be based in class and background. You have wealthy folks, often those who inherit or make money through social skills who in their arrogance are proud that they don’t have to know certain things, and consider willful ignorance a virtue of privelage. Paris Hilton has in the last made such statements for example. You also have people who- as you say, point to a persons success in systems like acesemocs or finances and legal compliance as a sign they are “race traitors.” If you notice though- you don’t see a lot of educated and successful folks doing this. ND Tyson doesn’t go around calling black scientists uncle toms or the like in general. A mid western or poor Detroit white kid however....
.... is more likely to label an educated and erudite peer as some sort of sell out, someone who “thinks their better,” or as perhaps a “liberal” “snowflake” or “cuck.” Even amongst middle class children- those who excel at intellectual pursuits or are seemingly more intelligent than their peers, this with self discipline or who stalwartly avoid trouble with authority are likely to be labeled as outcasts. Sometimes it may be on race- wether Latino, Black, white, or Asian- of your intellectual abilities cause behavior that others see as a rejection of your culture as opposed to choosing to follow a path which works best for you- people may well label you a “traitor,” and wether or not that group is a race or other peer group the mechanism is the same. You’re more likely to see this in lower class settings where many are less successful, and thus the success of one makes them feel worse about themselves. However there is an additional component. There generally must be an adversarial...
... relationship with another group. Many elements of early American culture were adopted specifically as an act of defiance against the British. “They do this so we do this!” That becomes part of a cultural identity. Just as 60+ years later and a complete change of government- many Americans still in some measure base feelings about Russia, Vietnam, etc. off of previous encounters they may not even have lived through. So when a group has been marginalized, when in large part one can blame or trace the circumstances they are born into to the direct actions of another “group,” there tends to be a rejection of that group. When you have established your own culture despite and in defiance of threat by another, and someone you see as “one of yours” willingly rejects what’s been created by “your people” they can be seen as a collaborator. Part of the system that is “against you.”
... because many groups have been racially, ideologically, geographically, or socioeconomically prevented from participation in mainstream society- which often bases what is “wrong” off those people’s very existence and behavior, many virtues and behaviors prized in mainstream society were often not as valued. Being strong beats being smart when the only ways to make money and get what you want are to be strong. So I have to agree that there is an ELEMENT of that, that sometimes people do hold each other back or a desire to maintain a certain identity does- but I think that is less racial and more just based in group identity. Wether it’s a southerner who 200~ years later still doesn’t want to be labeled a yankee and so “tows the line,” a poor kid who doesn’t want to be labeled as “boujee,” someone in a church who doesn’t agree with their pastor that homosexuality is a sin, and wants to ask questions because they don’t see that part of the Bible anywhere.. etc.
2. Where is problem that IQ depends on DNA? All depend on DNA.
A female researcher did a study about something like this and she was universally shunned for what the data said.
I don't know from any of this but I can't help but feel like if there was a racial correlation it would be ignored for PC's sake.
Everyone, regardless of race, is capable of achieving great things or sinking to the bottom of the barrel, the difference being effort put in and support from peers and family.