Are whites more intellignet than blacks?

[system]

*Originally posted by DadaKopf *
my point was quite simple: i don’t think anyone can define intelligence.

Agreed.

base it on biology: how do you make epirical into something meaningful without projecting already conceived notions you as an individual or a society is and isnt aware of.

Deeper understanding of brain function will of course allow for some degree of precision about the boundaries of intelligence.

It’s about one contentious issue: is intelligence bioligical/scientific or is it cultural/environmental?

Both.

[erislover]

I’m going to pretend that we’ve all read the fact that the biological differences are negligible if nonexistent apart from the superficial constructs we place there.

My answer: yes, in general, blacks are less intelligent than whites IF you mean as a result of society’s testing of its citizens. There are clearly MANY blacks who are more intelligent than intelligent whites, and surely no one who has seen the mountain men and others in extreme poverty (the whites) can say that they are smart. But again, this is in our assessment of their intelligence by our criteria.

One can then, as usual, question the criteria, who made the criteria, etc etc.

What I know from personal experience is that some blacks are subjected to less than optimal contexts for learning. Their capacity, and their ability once presented with a fair shot, is and should not be in question.

[dude]

Hard work and being practical can count for a lot more ( well thats what my mensa book says ).

Darwin would say ‘being adapted’ is important, iq is only part of this.

[dal_timgar]

i have a psychology book from the late 60’s that i used in college. it defines intelligence as “what intelligence tests measure.” even if you leave out the race issue i have a serious problem wiht the significance of intelligence tests. i’ve communicated with a woman on the internet who said her scores have varied over a range of 28 points. if IQ is strictly genetic how do you get the variation. i don’t have multiple scores to compare but i have noticed significant variations in my mental performance. diet and exercise can affect it. emotional states can probably do it.

but a big thing is the design of the test. how many tests involve a lot of reading and are timed? so is it a test partly reading and comprehension in addition to problem solving ability? my sister reads novels at least 3 times as fast as i do. we went to the same grammar school but se says they had reading machines but i never saw them.

Dal Timgar

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

*originally posted by DadaKopf *
**…there was some guy, Eisler maybe, who, in the 60s, scientifically proved that black Americans were 10% less intelligent [IQ wise] than Whites. The fact that it came out amid a period of civil rights movements and right-wing conservative backlashes made him an easy target or inspiration for many. He still maintains that his findings are entirely factual and correct.

**
Er, I believe you are confusing Loren Eiseley with someone else.

About Loren Eiseley.
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/notables/eiseley.html

Is the study you’re referring to Audrey Shuey’s book, The Testing of Negro Intelligence, 1966? Here is a reference to it, (yeah, I know, it’s from a racist website) :rolleyes:

http://www.saxonnews.org/racialrealities3.htm

Here are the facts from a few prominent studies (of hundreds) about IQ and race. Audrey M. Shuey, in a book entitled The Testing of Negro Intelligence, (Social Science Press, New York, 1966) brought together over 380 studies testing American Blacks and Whites. These studies included Blacks and Whites from different socio-economic backgrounds over a 50 year period. The conclusion was this: that average Black IQ scores were 15 and 20 points lower than White averages. As Dr. Shuey stated:

“It appears evident that … White children scored consistently above colored children, on the average.”

Interestingly, Dr. Shuey’s book was “hardly reviewed” by the egalitarian media due to its devastating effect on the notion that the environment was the sole determining factor in IQ differences (Hans J. Eysenck, The I.Q. Argument, The Library Press, 1971, p. 16).

Here’s another perspective.
http://www.swcp.com/~ldraper/slim/biblios/baryk.html

Cultural Considerations in Intelligence Testing:
An Annotated Bibliography

Shuey, Audrey M. The Testing of Negro Intelligence. 1958. New York:
Social Science Press, 1966. In a study of
intelligence testing and race, this book should be read. It contains
results of intelligence testing of black children compared to white
children over a period of fifty years. The bias is strongly nature, or
genetic, and therefore does not endorse factors such as economics,
education of parents, nutrition, expectations, etc. The author divides the
book by age of test subjects, military background, and includes sections
for deviates (e.g., high-scoring blacks) and delinquents. Noted for its
unreadability, the book consists largely of tables and charts, separated by
explanatory text. This book is difficult going and not for the casual
reader. May be useful for the scholarly researcher.

[Brian_Bunnyhurt]

What interests me here is not the search for groups that are more of less capable, but the scientific non-necessity (or even unscientific need) to redefine individuals themselves within an historically stygmatized group, outside of the scope of being measurably smart themselves. (Why would this matter? Well, for starters, science has disproven any danger to interbreeding and the need to physically inbreed, and perhaps the opposite, IMO.) The problem arises when a black genius is denied opportunity because this study assumed an unscientific need.

If we first prove that some people are smarter than others and then prove that they can be individually misidentified by being linked to a group, what is the logical rebuttal? I say two things: A. That science or philosophy has failed to established that breeding smartness is better if it also means breeding dumbness at the same time, and B. It politically implies that some people need more protection than others in a “fair game” environment where someone can be unjustly limited by prejudice if they have their IQ tatooed on their forehead. It does not even come close to implying that smart people deserve more privileges–that is an assumption of less smart people. Again, the problem arises when logical protections are afforded to groups rather than individuals, when the study itself may have falsely justified prejudice to the group.

By not having this scientific necessity and legal protection in place, the full implications of the study are clever by half. If these studies lead someone who is less intelligent and also “white” to conclude that this makes “blacks” available for exploitation in a microcosm (ie, “I’m white and 80 IQ, but you’re black and 80 IQ, so shine my shoes right now, because the studies show my grouping is smarter than your grouping, and by the way, we should also breed together since we’re both 80’s.”) then the group designation seems to consistently contradict itself, which is unscientific (IMO) while also being “scientifically” anti-egalitarian.

What about the assumption that being measurably smarter than someone else is better? Is it valid? Does it overestimate the need for science and scientists at a social cost? What about the argument that smart people are more devious and economically dangerous? We can’t even assume that elevating smart people leads us anywhere but where they want to lead us–nor can we assume that smart is honest. Therefore, is the study dishonest in any sense? If it can quickly lead to misunderstanding (and injustice) so easily, it seems so. It is missing the key element of necessity in order to understand the implications.

[system]

*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
Is the study you’re referring to Audrey Shuey’s book, The Testing of Negro Intelligence, 1966? Here is a reference to it, (yeah, I know, it’s from a racist website) :rolleyes:

No accident there.

Interestingly, Dr. Shuey’s book was “hardly reviewed” by the egalitarian media due to its devastating effect on the notion that the environment was the sole determining factor in IQ differences (Hans J. Eysenck, The I.Q. Argument, The Library Press, 1971, p. 16).

I think this Eysenck may be the author the poster was thinking of… This little gem above makes me laugh.

[Darqangelle]

I feel a distinct pulling on my leg…

And a friend of mine put it oh-so-eloquently:

“Mensa is full of people who are really good a writing IQ tests.”

Me: “So if you get a high score on an IQ test?”
Him: “It means you got a high score on an IQ test.”

I still love that guy.

[IzzyR]

In a slight hijack to this race thread (it’s the only one going at present), I would like to ask Collounsbury et al to comment on this column by Cecil Adams. (Or, if that’s already been dealt with, direct me to the location). Thank you.

[system]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**In a slight hijack to this race thread (it’s the only one going at present), I would like to ask Collounsbury et al to comment on this column by Cecil Adams. (Or, if that’s already been dealt with, direct me to the location). Thank you. **

Shrug, Cecil shows himself to be fallible. Using Coon who by pub date on this, what 1981?, was clearly on the margins was not delving into the best material on hand even at the time. However, this just goes to show how far the science has advanced. Genetic analysis only really took off in the late 1980s and came to --well not maturity since we’re still maturing IMHO but at least reasonable applicability in the 1990s.

Would be nice if perhaps this was revisted in light of the genetic evidence etc. (There was also a staff report abouta year ago but this dissappointingly failed to address genetic evidence and bizarrely relayed Coon’s son’s opinions. Why escapes me given he lacks credentials. If they wanted a MREH perspective Wolpoff at Michigan would have been the man.)

Dustbin of history as the saying goes.

[Jois]

Cecil might have gone back to Coon because, as Cecil said, “The most elaborate expression of this theory was given by the anthropologist Carleton Coon in the mid-60s.”

Coon’s work even went further back than the mid-60s but the “new generation” like Wolpoff, Brace, Throne and others stripped out the racial overtones and pretty much skirted around the “most elaborate expression” in MREH.

Coon, IIRC, used the term “Regional Continuity” instead of MREH.

Jois