What I think is funny is how it’s OK to say that one group may be faster than another, or more resistant to cold, or better able to breathe thin air - it’s not saying that they are better, just different. But we always equate ‘smarter’ with ‘better’. Intelligence is such a touchy issue with us, why?
The human brain uses a lot of nutrients and energy. Something like 1/5 to 1/4 of the oxygen we take in is used by the brain. Mankind’s rapid increase in brain size means that a bigger brain provided a survival advantage that outweighed the cost of having to maintain such a needy organ. Homo erectus probably had to eat a lot more than an australopithecine the same size, because of his larger brain.
I think that in the right conditions, a smaller brain would be a survival advantage today. Already, human brains are smaller on average now than they were 25,000 years ago. Yes, you can be smart with a small brain and dumb with a big one, but there is some correlation between brain size and intelligence, and there must be some reason why our brains are getting smaller. I don’t think a modern man HAS to be as smart today as a hunter gatherer does to survive and have progeny.
Anyway, back to the original topic. I don’t think DITWD was wrong at all in saying that the idea that it was impossible for different ‘races’ to differ in the way their brain functions is a fallacy.
Intellect is a product of your environment. Einstein was an expert in physics, but I doubt he’d be very good at gathering food in the Amazon. Different cultures have different Intellegnce Quota capabilities. There are equally smart people, but there isn’t a standardised test that can adequately test races across the board.
But I digress. Intellect is not a racial boundary. It varies person to person, rather than from race to race.
Define ‘intellect’. If it’s your thinking skills and knowledge, yes, it is largely based on your environment - but your potential is limited by birth.
I imagine if Einstein was born in a hunter-gatherer society and didn’t have any health problems (I don’t know much about his medical history, but he seemed healthy), he probably would have been a quick learner, understood what he was taught by his elders, and might even have figured out some new ways of doing things (or at least ways of doing things better) and become very successful in his tribe. He might have developed an understanding of his tribe’s mythology and laws that lead him to be perceived as a very wise man, and that could have led him to a position of honor where he didn’t have to hunt and gather food.
Biggirl. Did you go to College? Have a degree? Take a course called “Physical Anthropology”? “Race” has a specific definition in Anthropolgy, and in Zoology. A “race” is a grouping, with defined differences in appearance (at least), that does not rise to the level(of differences) of a 'species". If you are one of a group of taxonomists that also use the term “sub-species”- then “race” does not rise to the level of a 'sub-species"- however there is great overlap in the 2 terms. Oxford defines “race” as: “Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics”.
Whether or not your “PC” world says that races do NOT exist- they do. Coroners can USUALLY look at bones & tell you what race the person was. However- not always- as a race is less (different)than a species, there is always overlap. Thre are dark Caucasians, light Negros, tall Orientals- etc. If humans were actually different species- you would almost always be able to tell the two apart by skeletal remains. But Humans are not different species.
As for the term “negriod”- you’re posting here- thus you must have a computer. Why did you not try the 'search function" before shooting your mouth off? I did- and found hundreds of sites that use “negroid” as a scientific term. Here are 2 of them http://www.news.bbc.co.uk./hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_43000/ 43094.stm
In which the BBC covers a Physical Anthopologist who is comparing skulls- and can & does differentiate them between those with “Mongoloid” (Oriental) and “Negroid”. And http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov98/910156408.An.r.html
Where a scientist is asked to differ between muscle tissue in races. He goes on about the different theories of race (and true, does discuss the one which says “races do not exist per se”. However- he also goes on to point out that many scientists are reluctant to answer such questions- as they are afraid of being called racists. Which is exactly what you & DDG did. Thus- even scientists are leery of doing any studies that define or show differences in races- as they are called “racists” by the ignorant.
I am still trying to figure out you comment about the Haarlem Globetrotters- perhaps my sports allusion confused you. See, the Haarlem Globetrotters are showmen, who are so good at what they do (basketball) that they run rings around, and generally make fools of their opponent “stooge” team. I was saying that a Chinese olympic team would be able to do the same thing to a group of untrained folks- no matter the height advantage. Thus- training & personal abilities are WAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE MINOR RACIAL ONES. Got that? Who you are, as an individual- is way, way more important that your race. But your race is not completely insignificant either. If you do not think so- what is the % of Caucasians who have sickle-cell anemia?
Do all scientists agree on what defines a “race” of Humans- no. There is much disagreement. Some almost go to the point of having Humans be difffernt “sub-species”. Some defy that “race” exists. Many break Humans down into 3 “major” and several “minor” races. Some have dozens of races. Now clearly, you are one of the 'fringe" (altho you are clearly not a scientist) that states there are no “races” of humans. Fine- altho your views are held by a minority in the scientific community- they are still valid. But don’t call every other scientist (and me)- who holds a different opinion on racial boundaries- a 'racist". That is pure ignorance.
Whoo. Got so worked up by the stubborn denial that I forgot to address another point…
Keep in mind that the human brain hasn’t entirely been figured out yet. As such, any comment that denies any link between brain function and a genetic cause is folly.
In addition, the sheer number of functions that the brain does is overwhelming… automatic control over respiratory, circulatory, and nervous systems, conscious storage capacity, unconscious storage capacity, information processing, sensory perceptions, logic center, creativity, imagination, analysis, etc… I’m curious if anyone’s ever done a study to determine short-term memory retention rates (for example) as averaged along the races.
So to say “Intelligence is not determined by race” is as silly as to say that it is, since intelligence is certainly arbitrary and can be measured in many different ways.
Think of it this way… Pablo Picasso was a great painter. Albert Einstein was a great scientist. Who had a greater intelligence?
Yes, it has been. Unfortunately, it has not been defined well, or scientifically. DITWD’s last attempt at a definition is so vague as to be useless. I assert that the only scientific definition of human races is that they do not exist. To repeat a quote from DDG’s post that I found apropos:
Well, I don’t know any specific studies that compare the intellectual abilties of both groups. The problem is in defining what intellectual abilities are. The two groups live in entirely different cultural milleus and environments. What may be considered outstanding intellectual capabilities for the bushmen may not be the same for the aborigiones, and vice versa. The range of variability for intellectual abilities will probably be the same for both groups. This has been studied extensively and was even pointed out in the “Bell Curve”.
Look, no reputable scientist disputes that there exists differences in intellectual capabilties. What scientists dispute is that you can’t validly classify/categorize these differences based on outward physical appearances (or “race”).
If you want do so, keep in mind that your definition of race will be a cultural one, not a valid scientific one.
exactly. it will probably be the same. however, ‘probably’ implies the possibility that they won’t be the same.
i didn’t read the study, but i’ll concede that you can’t genetically categorize the differences based solely on the outward physical characteristics. however, when those physical traits are genetically similar (as in the aborigines example) i haven’t seen any evidence that it’s impossible that they be accompanied by physical traits that are not so obvious, like brain function and intellectual capacity. if those long threads you cited contain that evidence, can you post the gist of it here?
that’s what i said earlier. it’s just a word with an arbitrary meaning. if we use the genetic definition, then for this discussion (analyzing ditwd’s comment), race is a combination of all the genetically linked groups that have a similar visible physical characteristic. and in the interest of social sensitivity, i suggested using hair color instead of skin color as the characteristic in question.
Another nitpick. Because I am lurking in this discussion and I am bored right now.
I defy you to find one example of where energy efficiency has defined an evolutionary path. The very nature of evolution (survival of the fittest) means that those who have the most offspring are the ones passing on their traits.
Our body has tons of systems which are horribly inefficient. Making these processes more efficient is probably not a large selective advantage in an energy-rich environment. Who cares if you eat 20% more than your brother if there is plenty of food around?
Invariably, the individuals who live in the most energy-rich environments have the most offspring, and therefore determine the path of evolution. Therefore, energy efficiency is taken right out because our ancestors could afford to waste lots of energy (because they all came from energy rich environments). The mutations which give rise to energy efficient systems are often just lost.
At least this is the way I learned it in graduate school.
I interpreted your words in the context of this discussion, as an assertion that because differences in color are a result of adaptation to UV radiation, groups with different skin color could not possibly have differences in intelligence level. I responded to this suggestion. If you meant something else, feel free to correct.
I don’t have enough time to engage in another race merry go round, so please let me refer posters to this thread to the following past threads wherein myself and Tomndeb (and others equally or more knowledgeable such as edwino) addressed the myth of race:
(1) Race as a biological construct is meaningless, deceptive and positively gets in the way of a scientific understanding of human populations
(2) No so-called race (in the white-black frame of reference) has any underlying biological coherency, making assertions and assumptions based on an assumed underlying genetic homogeniety FALSE and WHOLLY UNSCIENTIFIC.
(3) As such the generalizations bandied about on race, including those above, are largely based on common logical perceptual errors: notably fallacy of composition, selection bias.
(4) Valid units of genetically based schema for understanding and organizing human populations will resolve at much smaller units than the popular myths known as race. Current work in population genetics is working on precisely these questions
So, may intelligence vary by population? Yes, although given our species history of mixing I am sceptical meaningful differences are to be found on population levels. Will they map onto the big races. No, one would have to have and underlying coherency which does not exist.
Biggirls objection stands, those arguing for race --ignoring Daniel who is hopeless-- here need to address actual science not vague generalizations and popular mythologies.
Please do read through the threads: those of us with some knowledge of the issue provided copious citations from original literature, not pop rehashing. Otherwise, I suggest ignorance lives on despite the board’s stated objectives.
(Those who actually read this matierial will note the depressing frequency with which one has to repeat the same information to defeat entrenched ideas.)
Take care
ps: biggirl, I categorically deny any knowledge of physics.
Your input is greatly appreciated, but perhaps you could clarify yourself in the specific context of this discussion. It seems to me that your summary basically concludes that DITWD is correct, but that he misused the term “race”, which does not have a true meaning in a scientific context.
As you say, it is possible that intelligence varies by population, (though you are skeptical that it actually does so in any meaningful way). So basically you agree with DITWD, but merely don’t like using the term “race” in this context, preferring the term “population” instead.
If I am wrong in my interpretation of your words please clarify. Thanks. (I don’t mean to drag you into a debate that you’re sick and tired of, but you did post your synopsis here, and it seems to interpret as I’ve said.)
And the possiblity that they aren’t the same could be attributed to other factors (such as cultural/environmental). Even if they’re not the same, what does it mean? What can one infer from the differences? Say the bushmen are shown to have intellectual abilities that are greater than the aborigones (define intellectual abilties however you like). Where’s the link genetically? On what biological basis do the differences exist? It certainly isn’t in outward physical appearances. I’m not a geneticist, so I don’t know whether or not research has identified the gene/genes that can be linked to intellectual abilities. But I would bet money that those links have not been found. And even if they were found, one still has to take into consideration how those genes influence/affect other genes, as well as considering environmental/cultural factors.
Even if for the sake of argument that one can isolate the specific gene/genes that are responsible for the differences in intellectual abilities, it doesn’t necessarily follow that those groups who have those genes confer any special biological advantage over those that do not.
Sorry, zwaldd, I really wish I could dig into those threads and others, but I don’t have a lot of free time. Anyone else care to step in?
Sure, go ahead and use hair color. Use any classification scheme you want (eye color, body build, height, hair texture, whatever). I have no problem classifying/ categorizing peole based on outward, phyical appearances. But I’m afraid that you will not find ANY of those biological characteristics linked to differences in mental abilties and/or brain functions. There probably is a genetic link to intellectual abilties. But we can’t get that by using outward physical characteristics. The two don’t correlate.
You can argue whether Caucasians have slightly lower mental abilties than Negroids. Just remember that the two groups are cultural/social constructs. And that the differences in these two groups mental abilties (where and if they exist) will be based on environmental/cultural factors, not biological ones. Nuture, rather than Nature.
:::rubbing crystal ball:::
Collounsbury, stop making cheese!! I summon thee!!
well i don’t want to ask collounsbury to repeat himself (lord knows i hate doing it), but i would still like to see the study and the quote that explains similar physical characteristics in, for example, asians (like straight black hair) if they are not based on genetic similarity. unfortunately, my connection to the sdmb is too slow for me to keep drilling into past threads, finding the right page with the right link, and then perusing the link for the applicable evidence.
however, even if there is no genetic link between common physical characteristics, the fact remains that common physical characteristics exist, for whatever reason. i still don’t see why it’s impossible for them to exist past visible traits.
[Note: if you’ve been sitting there holding it, you might want to go take a pee before you get started on this. I have outdone myself. My bad.]
Well, Daniel~, I don’t think I’m getting all worked up over nothing. You made a racist statement and I called you on it. I don’t like racism. Racism is ignorant. You seem to have some blank spots in the subject of “race” which I would like to fill in, if I may. Let’s pretend you posted a question in GQ, “Are there genetic differences between the races?”
We’re not here to talk about the Harlem Globetrotters, or your “individual differences.” We’re here to talk about the possible GENERAL genetic basis for differences between the races.
Daniel, this thread IS pertinent to what we were discussing in GD. We were discussing whether Gould or Hovind was the liar. You cast aspersions on Gould’s credibility by saying, in effect, “Gould’s an idiot because he believes that all human races are genetically the same.” You disagreed–“all human races are not genetically the same, Negroes are taller and faster.”
Um, no. Sorry. You’re wrong. Gould attacks on a completely scientific basis, the same as I am. He analyzes. He looks at the source. He accepts nothing unquestioningly. He looks for confirmation from other reputable sources. He looks for cites, and he posts them. He’s not someone speaking from preconceived notions, i.e. “prejudice”, and neither am I. We are both of us speaking from what Science has told us is the Truth. If Science should come along next year and tell me that the Truth is that blacks are great natural athletes, taller, faster, and dumber than whites, but fantastic dancers, then I would change my opinion. And so would Stephen Jay Gould.
Um, their theory and numbers HAVE been attacked, and refuted, on the basis of many better studies. I believe that’s Gould’s point in The Mismeasure of Man, as well as Peters’, in the linked cite above.
You seem to think that Gould is speaking from mere prejudice. I don’t know where you could have gotten this idea.
You say:
Implicit in this statement is the belief that Gould and the other evolutionists immediately and irrationally jump on any study that purports to show that one race is inferior than another, attacking it as “racist”. Implicit in THIS is the fact that you think they’re wrong for doing this, because you think the study might be right. You think one race might be inferior to another.
You say:
Yes, there are minor cosmetic differences. Some races have darker hair and darker skin than others. But we’re not here to talk about minor cosmetic differences. We’re here to talk about big things like intelligence and physical strength and speed.
I’ll go back to the “little green men” analogy. What you have repeated 5 times in a row here, saying, “Some races might be better at some things” is exactly like saying, “Little green men might be living on Mars.” The difference between the two statements is, scientists haven’t spent the last 100 years or so looking for little green men on Mars.
Scientists HAVE spent the last 100 years or so looking for evidence that the races of Man are genetically different. Even before the science of genetics was invented, scientists around the world were measuring skulls, weighing brains, giving all sorts of different kinds of intelligence tests, trying to prove a connection between skin color (“race”) and intelligence. Then when blood types were discovered, people started trying to correlate that with race, and intelligence.
Then finally DNA analysis came in, and they’ve been experiementing and testing for, what, about 30 years now? And you know what? The consensus in the entire worldwide scientific community, after over a century of research, is–there ain’t no such thing as a correlation between race and intelligence, and any other kind of talent, like music or playing basketball or picking stocks on the NYSE. There ain’t even any way to tell, from DNA, what “race” a person is. That’s why, in all the anthropological textbooks, including the Adult Education course I cited, they say, “We don’t have any scientific way to tell what ‘race’ is.”
So the point about “define race” is actually moot. As the one cite says, “Using the standard biological definition of race, you can come up with anywhere from 3 to 100 races.”
Daniel, you really don’t see that these two statements are contradictory?
“I do NOT think there are little green men on Mars.”
“I agree there is a small possibility there MIGHT be little green men on Mars.”
How about these two statements?
“I did NOT say that “there are little green men on Mars”. I do NOT think so.”
“BUT I think it is POSSIBLE.”
Well? Either you think there might be little green men on Mars, or you don’t. Either you think it’s possible for some races to have superior intelligence, or you don’t. You can’t say, “There’s no difference between the races,” and then say, “But there MIGHT be.” Now, a person can say, “Shoot, I don’t seriously think there are little green men on Mars, but it’s fun to imagine that there MIGHT be.” But the difference is, the person who says this knows that the idea of little green men is just his imagination. (…runnin’ away with me…it–was–just my imaginaa-aa-tion…runnin’…awaaay…) You don’t sound like the idea that there are genetic differences between the races is “just your imagination”.
Okay, show me a cite for that. I doubt if you can, because I think it’s pure speculation on your part, and I might add, racist speculation. You’re a product of the 1960s like me, Daniel. That was the era of the Black Athlete replacing the White Athlete. We both grew up with the TV image of tall lanky black basketball players. And I remember all the speculation, both racist and non-racist, as to why exactly there were so many black basketball players. Racists said, “Well, they’re just naturally taller and more athletic, so it’s understandable”. Non-racists pointed out, “Well, it’s one of the few ways out of the ghetto.”
And when I hear you say things like, “Blacks are taller and faster”, I have the nasty suspicion that the very next thing you’re going to say is going to be, “…and they’re great dancers, too, got that natural rhythm, you know.”
I’d like to see a cite for this, too, please. Educate me. All I’ve heard so far is “everybody knows” stuff.
You don’t see that these two statements are contradictory?
You are 100% correct–scientists do not agree on what defines race. Then how can a coroner look at bones and tell you what race the person was? Answer–he can’t. I’d like to see a cite for that factoid, please. Educate me. I am familiar with the science of forensics, and it was my understanding that actually there’s no way to take a set of bones and tell definitely what race it’s from, or even whether it’s male or female. You can use DNA now to tell if “remains” are male or female, but not just from looking at the bones.
You’re saying, “The reason there aren’t any studies that show differences between the races is because scientists are frightened of what they might find out. If they do find that there are differences, they might be labelled ‘racists,’ so they just don’t do the studies, so that explains why there aren’t any studies showing differences between the races.”
Daniel, a reputable scientist will not shrink from doing a study just because he’s afraid of what he might find out, or of what other people might think of him. You sound like you’re saying, “The reason there aren’t any studies that show there are little green men on Mars is because scientists are frightened of what they might find out. If they do find little green men on Mars, they might be labelled ‘psychos’, so they just don’t do the studies, so that explains why there aren’t any studies showing there are little green men on Mars.”
Um, no. Our views are held by a majority in the scientific community. BTW, made any progress in finding someone besides Rushton to cite?
Your BBC link doesn’t work for me at all–even with Copy and Pasting the URL into the window. And I might point out that just because the BBC may have found one scientist who was willing to go on camera and expound on the supposed racial differences between skulls doesn’t mean that that’s generally accepted within the anthropological and forensic scientific community.
And, geez, Daniel, :rolleyes: your second cite from madsci.org is from a friggin’ CHIROPRACTOR!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Thomas M. Greiner, Assistant Professor of Anatomy / Physical Anthropology, New York Chiropractic College . Sheesh. And he doesn’t even SAY anything useful, except to confirm MY point, that there’s no scientific answer as to whether there’s a difference between Negroid and Caucasian muscle and bone structure.
Yes. Thank you for understanding me. Yes, what I am saying is that anyone who says there are fundamental genetic differences between the races other than minor cosmetic differences such as skin color, is a racist. And yes, I am saying that anyone who judges other people’s physical and mental abilities solely on the basis of their “race” is a racist. And yes, I am saying that anyone who says any race is even a little bit inferior or superior than any other race is also a racist.
Spot on. Excellent. A gold star for Daniel~.
So you disagree, eh? Well, then, I guess you’re a racist. With a gold star.
good - no use of the word probably here, so we’re on the right track. all i ask is for one quote, one study to show where you got this info. not a 12 paragraph post, not a link to a 5 page thread, but a simple, applicable quote from a scientific study. provide one piece of evidence that intellect can’t be linked to common visible traits. not evidence that it hasn’t been linked (hell, i can do a study right now that won’t link it), but that it can’t be linked.
As I understand it it’s not merely a preference for “population” over “race”, but rather that the two terms have quite different conotations. Namely, that populations are a fraction of the size of the commonly recognized races. The native inhabitants of Tahiti might qualify as a population, while their race would be Asian or Pacific Islander.
My bad.]