I violated some sort of taboo by pointing out that your theory inescapably predicts that Japan is a land hopelessly mired in backwardness?
My bad…
Is it, or is it not, possible for external cultural factors to outweigh inherent merit? Yes or no?
It’s traditional to insert padding between mutually exclusive statements (particularly blatant ones such as oppositely-directed sequences of cause and effect). This maintains a polite fiction of showing respect for the reader’s intelligence.
Given that the human population bottlenecked at a level barely sufficient to maintain viability during the latter period, both groups have the same set of ancestors (there just weren’t enough humans alive to maintain two meaningfully distinct gene pools).
Second page of the thread, still waiting for somebody to bring somethin’.
It needn’t be “race” as now conventionally defined; if you’ve got a cite for non-IQ psychological differences between the English and the Irish or whatever, bring it. “Non-IQ” only because we’ve got another thread running on IQ specifically. Therefore it doesn’t belong here, but for some reason it keeps coming in . . .
It’s obviously not going to persuade New Deal Democrat to argue against old-school racist claptrap.
But for my own amusement I will posit that the idea one “Caucasian” or “white” race exists is a recent, and deliberate, invention.
It’s worth noting that the ancient world’s Greeks and Romans didn’t recognize a “white race,” and that my Celtic Welsh/Irish ancestors were regarded as racial inferiors by “white” Englishmen for a long, long time before we “became” “white.”
Don’t forget this one!
Cite for the numbers being so low. Cite for it being one event rather than several or continuous? Do you even know what the name of the theory I’m talking about is?
…and Africans too, unless you’re saying there was no prehistoric backflow at all.
Cite? For “Everyone”, I mean, I know there’s some Neanderthal traces in some people.
And what about Denisovans?
Cite for which racial characteristics were “acquired” after Africa (as opposed to pre-existing characteristics expressed in smaller populations - like epicanthic folds)
He is talking about the chopstick using “orientals” subrace of Asian. The non-chopstick using races don’t have the brain enhancing chopstick gene. On the bright side, they probably have huge penises.
Wait, are you saying that their income is affecting their IQ? But, but, but, I thought the overriding determinant of IQ was genetics. I thought all the research on IQ and wealth indicates that it takes pretty abject poverty to stunt IQ. Isn’t that one of the basic building blocks of your “IQ is genetic arguments”? So Hong Kong has been Hong Kong for about 100 years, Taiwan had been Taiwan for less than that. What do you think accounts fro the genetic drift of over half a standard deviation in IQ?
The overriding determinant is genetics. Nevertheless, standard of living and quality of education are also important. The economic future of China is still uncertain. Nevertheless, if the economy continues to improve, I am confident the average IQ in China will increase by at least a few points.
Post #59, response?
DNA differences correlate with physical differences. Nevertheless, while Negroes look similar to Australian Aborigines, their DNA is very different.
So DNA correlates with physical differences, except when it doesn’t. That’s very helpful.
Quote one: IQ affects GDP
Quote two: GDP affects IQ
Which one is it?
Do African countries have lower IQ’s from lower GDP or the other way around. How do you decide which one?
Say I just plug in ‘Africa’ for ‘mainland China’ in the second quote:
Would you agree with that statement?
That might answer my previous post. IQ affects GDP, except when it doesn’t. Then its the other way around.
It usually does.
It’s an infinite positive feedback loop. A rich guy gets smarter, so he gets richer, which makes him smarter, etc. After a few generations, you have a country full of Bill Gateses running around. We’d invade and take their lunch money, but we can’t get past the firewall.
IQ and standard of living effect each other, but it is not an endless feedback loop.
Hi All, I am a 26yo male from Delhi. Came across this very nice forum and wanted to register.
On topic, I believe IQ depends on mostly on education but also on genes n culture n eating habits.
In 1947, when the British left India, india had literacy rate of just 16%, now its arnd 75%(still quite low). So the avg. IQ would have increased significantly from '47. I remember we had an IQ test when I was in school, almost everyone had scores in 130’s, 140’s n few 150’s. So the avg IQ figure of 81 for India maybe outdated. I think whites, Hispanics, Indians, East Asians all have almost similar avg IQ. Maybe Blacks have slightly lower average. Although I think whites are by far the most inquisitive n innovative(different from IQ) people followed by Indian n East Asians.
An Indian I believe, is much less prone to psychological disorders(depression , OCD etc). Because of prevalence of yoga(acceptance , meditation for self-realization), plenty of sunshine, plenty of people(so less chances of insulation from society) in India. But these are cultural n environmental factors not genetic.
The definition of a chair versus that of table is a “social construct.” But maybe the difference between chairs and tables is not arbitrary enough to be analogous to “race.” The definitions of the regions “Colorado” and “Kansas” are social constructs. They are completely arbitrary human inventions. But it doesn’t change the fact that mountains are physically different from plains. yes, Colorado also has plains and Kansas has some tall hills. But anyone rejecting statements regarding the gross topographic differences between Colorado and Kansas on these grounds would be rightly called ridiculous.
But wholly politically-motivated arguments usually are ridiculous.
Race is just very extended family. It is a meaningful word. It is as well defined as the word “family.” People use it without confusion. Its meaning is more generally agreed on than the word “racist”. You can never know what behavior someone else will claim is “racist.” Whether race is biologically meaningful or not is irrelevant. A physicist could say that the distinction between shit and honey is merely a superficial one and not physical because their constituent protons, electrons, and neutrons are absolutely indistinguishable.
As to the OP question, Eskimos, so I am told, have an almost superhuman visual memory, an ability which is not reflected in IQ tests. This would be explained as having evolved to be able to travel over featureless snow-covered terrain. Studies with children measuring natives against whites suggest this is an innate ability.
If memory serves, the study also showed that males’ ability in this regard is significantly better than females. Just tossing out this factoid as a unPC freebie.
Human beings aren’t interchangeable. It’s ironic that the people who most value diversity are the first ones to cry foul when it is pointed out that people actually are diverse.