# What is the evidence that races are equal in intelligence?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [June 8, 2001, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996 "2001-06-08T01:05:43Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 6
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/101 "2001-06-13T03:13:14Z")
**IzzyR** :
> [@](#):
>
> Are you seriously denying that there is an element of PC in this discussion? Or are you only saying that you don’t think there should be one?
I would never claim that no one has posted to this thread from a PC perspective. I do not know the motives or personal orientation of everyone involved and it is probable that someone here finds it PC to align themselves with those who point out the lack of a physical/biological reality for race.
However, I am also pointing out that the scientists who have done the most work to establish that there is no genetic component that can be classified as “racial” were attacked by the PC crowd for trying to disrupt (or steal the heritage or something) of various native peoples and that those PC advocates were successful in reducing the amount of money that the U.S. Congress appropriated for their research.
So we are left with a situation in which a group of PC advocates attack genetic scientists in the middles stages of their studies, and when the studies are released by the non-PC scientists, the results are attacked as being PC. (My irony meter is red-lined on this aspect of the discussion.)
**Autumn Wind Chick** :
> [@](#):
>
> It’s fascinating to watch the mental gymnastics that race-deniers go through in order to bless uses of race that they deem appropriate, such as in organ donation, while condemning those that are non-pc, such as athletics.
It is very nearly as fascinating as watching the mental gymnastics that you perform to make claims contrary to fact.
It has been pointed out that there may be a useful aspect _in the United States_ to use the _cultural_ definition of “race” to identify local populations _in the United States_ for more frequent questioning or testing regarding various health situations.
It has also been pointed out that even that limited use of “race” has been questioned by the editorial board of the _New England Journal of Medicine_.
In other words, if a certain population in Africa is subject to higher levels of hypertension, Type II Diabetes, or Sickle Cell Anemia, tests on otherwise healthy individuals who appear to have African ancestors may turn up problems in those individuals at a higher rate than tests run on the whole population of the U.S. Similarly, gene-matching for organ transplants may have a _better_ chance of success among that group than from among the whole population. Focussing funding on a group from which a smaller group has a known characteristic increases the chance that the money will be productive, even though the larger group will have no more need than the general population.
However, if the traits or diseases you are seeking are associated with the Ibo, (from around Nigeria), and if you are interviewing a person whose ancestors were taken from Madagascar, you have no better chance of a match than if you tested a Swede. You are more likely to find a person with Ibo characteristics from among a group of people with dark skin and wiry hair than among pale-skinned blondes. From this perspective, a person’s appearance gives a nice “first cut” for examination.
Unfortunately, without actually doing the tests, you really do not know whether you are talking with a person whose ancestors were from the region around Nigeria or Madagascar or Kenya or anywhere else.
Similarly, when encouraging a group of people to seek tests for health problems, focussing the advertising on the groups who, by culture, are associated, makes economic sense. There will be huge numbers of people among the _American_ black population who are not more at risk for hypertension, diabetes, or Sickle Cell than anyone whose ancestors came from Ireland, Japan, or Samoa. However, because there is a genetic sub-group _within_ the population of American blacks who are susceptible to those diseases, advertising toward the larger cultural group will have the effect of netting the smaller group.
If you sent the same tests, in equal distribution, to every nation in Africa, you would be wasting a lot of money because there is no single “race” in Africa who is subject to those diseases at higher levels than people throughout the world.
---
### Author:  [@celestina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/celestina)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/102 "2001-06-13T03:25:51Z")
AWC, was that picture of those dudes running finally at last an attempt on your part to define “race”? If so, I’m still confused about how running around on a track relates to intelligence or tests. The only test that running on a track makes me think of is testing one’s physical endurance, which actually is something that can be tested. And I imagine–I’m not a runner–there’s some strategy involved in winning track races that would require quite a bit of thought.
I’m going to leave this thread now because frankly reading it has given me a migraine. But I must say that testing human beings in an attempt to measure their intelligence is a futile effort since we are all individuals and individuals have the intriguing capacity to defy categorization.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/103 "2001-06-13T06:46:03Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \*
> Let me try, briefly once more -and please do excuse some strange spelling errors, I have yet to acclimatize to the French keyboard once more:
Face it Collounsbury, it ain’t the French keyboard.Remember _gratitious_. You English blame the French for everything.
> [@](#):
>
> _Collounsbury_
> As for Jillgat’s usage in re NCDC etc Edwino some weeks back posted a fine link to a NEJM article on this very subject and the hangover of genetic group assumptions among clinical researchers, often inappropriately.
That is a scary charge. Someone should inform these researchers that they are uninformed.
> [@](#):
>
> _Collounsbury_
> Here we go again. I am sure that you may be able to muster some recollection of our last encounter wherein I identified rather fundamental factual problems with the description “African American of West African ancestry” in terms of attempting to imply as you do some kind of essential coherence. Unsurprisingly this did not quite sink in. Let me give it another go.
Listen Collounsbury and listen good. I am not implying coherence among black people other than being black. So my only response to your charge is that you are trying to redefine my position erroneously
> [@](#):
>
> _Collounsbury_
> (a) AfAm descent in quite diverse in re Africa vs non-Af with significant and locally dependent inputs of Am Ind and of course European (and for Carib derived folks, Chinese and India) inputs. Such variation renders rather ridiculous the bland and ultimately fundamentally inaccurate “West African descent” since of course you are simply privilidging some superficial morphological signs which happen to show up without real meaningful indication of overwhelming presence of any “West African” derived package of traits, presuming for the sake of argument there is such. I called this racialism last time for in the final analysis that’s all it is, albiet rejiggered to appear more sophisticated.
I had to read this last quote several times and still don’t understand it, so I am unable to respond.
> [@](#):
>
> _Collounsbury_
> (b) In re AfAm heritage from Africa we still find immense diversity, since (i) Central and even East African (Mocambique notably) populations contributed to AfAm pops --not the frequent reference in Creoles to Africans as Kongos – although as I recall per Phillip Curtin’s work the vast region of West Africa does provide a majority of North American blacks. Even within this zone there is immense diversity, and a notable difference in physical types between North Sahelian/Saharan folks and southern “forest zone” folks, which corresponds to some fairly important ecological divisions. Again, here again following authorities such as Curtin and Thorton, Am blacks come from both areas, per slaving records, and thus can not be described as coming from a homogenous area (any more than humanity in general is homogenous, for a similar comparision, imagine characterizing an area stretching from Spain to Russia as being of one people, and this without the extent data indicating higher diversity among the relevant populations.
The vast majority African Americans who recognize themselves as such can be presumed to have ancestry from western Africa. It is people from this population and countries of western Africa who predominate in the 100 meter sprint. I will concede that of the 498 blacks who hold the top 500 times, a small percentage may not have any ancestry from western Africa. Big deal!
> [@](#):
>
> _Collounsbury_
> In light of these two fundamental observations, I fail to see very much scientific basis for a description which if it is to have an explanatory value at all, must presume a degree of hologeniety in the target population (or if we opt for a weaker suggestion, must presume a degree of homogeniety private to the runners which is dependent on a presumed trait package passed on from these ‘black’ ancestors, despite the immense incoherence just outlined) It takes some degree of willful ignorance not to see how tortured this explanation becomes, never mind the counterfactual that West Africans themelves don’t stand out, although some small subset of East Africans do. Presumably the sole explanation for them is some West African heritage.
>
> In short, your characterization is best described as hyper-reductionist with a willful ignoring, I might say ignorance, of fundamentally contradictory data. Yet tyou carry on, apparently as it provides an appropriately simple explanation. Assuming the conclusion is what we call this.
I can’t understand the above quote so I can not respond
> [@](#):
>
> _Collounsbury_
> . Now, if one wants to engage facts and so forth, and let go of a priori positions, it should be become rather easier to understand and free you of unfactual positions/
>
> So hand wave up false characterizations all you want, the science points in other directions.
It seems to me that you haven’t provided any facts, and haven’t challenged the fact I presented, but merely my characterization of the fact that 498 of the top 500 times in Olympic history are held by men who sport dark skins.
When it comes to genetics I sometimes wonder if the scientists are able to interpret the knowledge they are gaining correctly. Several days ago I heard that the chimpanzee is more closely related to us than the gorrilla, based on genetic evidence. Science can point us in the wrong direction if our understanding is incomplete.
\*\*
[/QUOTE]
---
### Author:  [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/104 "2001-06-13T07:49:57Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by grienspace \*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Collounsbury_
> > (a) AfAm descent in quite diverse in re Africa vs non-Af with significant and locally dependent inputs of Am Ind and of course European (and for Carib derived folks, Chinese and India) inputs. Such variation renders rather ridiculous the bland and ultimately fundamentally inaccurate “West African descent” since of course you are simply privilidging some superficial morphological signs which happen to show up without real meaningful indication of overwhelming presence of any “West African” derived package of traits, presuming for the sake of argument there is such. I called this racialism last time for in the final analysis that’s all it is, albiet rejiggered to appear more sophisticated.
>
> I had to read this last quote several times and still don’t understand it, so I am unable to respond.
I believe Collounsbury is noting that African Americans have ancestors from a variety of regions in Africa as well as Europe and Asia (via the Native American group). Characterizing a person as being of wholly “West African descent” based upon their skin color (an example of a "superficial morphological sign) is to indulge in an inaccuracy. Just trying to help.
---
### Author:  [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/105 "2001-06-13T07:50:39Z")
**Grienspace** : Okay, you lost me there at the end.
I’m not going to debate you on the athletic question because it has been done to death by people far more capable than I. But I’m curious about what you meant in your last paragraph. You said…
> [@](#):
>
> When it comes to genetics I sometimes if the scientists are able to interpret the knowledge they are gaining correctly. Several days ago I heard that the chimpanzee was more closely related to us than the gorilla, based on genetic evidence. Science can point us in the wrong direction if our evidence is incomplete.
Now maybe I’m misunderstanding you - But are you implying that the conclusions reached about primate relationships as stated above are somehow ludicrous or silly? You _seem_ to be saying that and using that conclusion as an example of how science can misinterpret eidence.
In fact the genetic evidence has just confirmed what most primatologists and physical anthropologists have thought for decades. Where there was controversy in the past, I believe it has been over the relative position of the Orangutan. I don’t think _anyone_ has seriously suggested sister group status for the gorilla vis-a-vis humans for a long, long time. If there has been any surprise to come out of the genetic work, it’s that the bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee ( now considered a separate species ) is actually our closest living relative, rather than the chimpanzee proper. And once folks took a closer look at the bonobo’s, that turned out to be not such a great surprise after all. The only reason it probably didn’t come up sooner, is that they used to be a pretty obscure and little studied species, that at one time was just considered a curious subspecies of the main chimpanzee line.
Anyway I was just curious if I was reading your comments correctly.
- Tamerlane
---
### Author:  [@Andy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/106 "2001-06-13T09:00:23Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Biggirl \*
> So, how many of you that posted to this thread said the the OP _wasn’t_ a racist and had asked an innocent question with no agenda?
I’m not sure anyone made that judgement did they?
I said I didn’t think the OP was necessarily racist.
Although her last post reveals her motives to me.
---
### Author:  [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/107 "2001-06-13T09:35:52Z")
It’s fascinating to watch the mental gymnastics that bigots go through in order to avoid defining race.
Of course, it’s easy enough to crush these little games.
How? Well, just keep asking, and eventually:
> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by Autumn Wind Chick_
> assume that “race” is meant in the exact same way as it is meant when used by public health authorities in the context of finding matching donors for bodily tissues.
So that would be colour of skin then?
Hurts to have your agenda exposed, eh?
OK, since large numbers of black-skinned people, many from similar geographical regions, where malaria was prevalent, were brought to the USA, it is a possible time-saver (assuming you want to test for sickle cell anemia) to examine such people.
Of course black-skinned people not from malarial regions will not have that medical condition. And other people from malarial regions, who don’t have black skin, will have it.
Does this confuse you?
Yes, black-skinned people do have something in common. They have black skin.
Now scientists have been unable to find anything else that they have genetically in common.
You seem to think they have, and that we should test for it.
Did you read my post about eye-colour?
Do you agree that blue-eyed people are the pure race?
Can we extend this to include blonde hair?
Do you know why I’m asking these quesions?
---
### Author:  [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/108 "2001-06-13T13:43:02Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by flowbark \*
> Drawing conclusions about a larger group based on a small number of olympic athletes seems odious to this poster.
>
> Statistically, this involves using the tail of a distribution to form conclusions about the average. Not an intelligent practice. If anything, I would think that it would say more about the variance, although I would prefer a more direct measurement. Heck, maybe it’s the kurtosis that varies.
This is correct but inappropriate for this instance. Clearly, using the tail of a distribution to draw conclusions about the average is invalid, as you say. But in comparing two different populations, the tails can be compared and used to suggest that the two populations have different distributions, which would imply the _possiblity_ that the means are also different.
This is NOT intended to support any specific conclusions that AWC was attempting to draw from her picture, whatever they might have been.
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by tomndebb \*
> I would never claim that no one has posted to this thread from a PC perspective. I do not know the motives or personal orientation of everyone involved and it is probable that someone here finds it PC to align themselves with those who point out the lack of a physical/biological reality for race.
>
> However, I am also pointing out that the scientists who have done the most work to establish that there is no genetic component that can be classified as “racial” were attacked by the PC crowd for trying to disrupt (or steal the heritage or something) of various native peoples and that those PC advocates were successful in reducing the amount of money that the U.S. Congress appropriated for their research.
>
> So we are left with a situation in which a group of PC advocates attack genetic scientists in the middles stages of their studies, and when the studies are released by the non-PC scientists, the results are attacked as being PC. (My irony meter is red-lined on this aspect of the discussion.)
So we don’t disagree. It is the nature of political correctness that the “correct” viewpoint is dependent on the context of political and social realities at hand, and the agenda of the groups involved, and ironies of this sort abound.
But I would note that when PC references are made in this discussion, it is generally the suggestion that some find “it PC to align themselves with those who point out the lack of a physical/biological reality for race.”
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/109 "2001-06-13T13:51:06Z")
Actually, I have a related question…but first, some background. It seems like most of the definitions of “race” people have used relate to skin color, which we all know is caused by concentrations of melanin, a natural pigment, under the skin. Now, in general, I’m pretty light skinned…however, I do have a birthmark…a concentration of melanin on the outside of my left wrist, which leads to that skin being significantly darker than the rest of my body. So, my question is, “What is the evidence that people with dark birthmarks on their wrist are equal in intelligence to people who do not have them?” This is something I’d really like to know.
---
### Author:  [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/110 "2001-06-13T14:13:17Z")
Captain Amazing
> [@](#):
>
> So, my question is, “What is the evidence that people with dark birthmarks on their wrist are equal in intelligence to people who do not have them?”
Sadly, none. In fact there is a lot of evidence that they are dumber. Much much dumber.
😃
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/111 "2001-06-13T14:28:18Z")
I’m sorry, I’m not exactly sure what point you’re making, **IzzyR**.
So far, the references to PC in this thread, prior to my most recent post, are the following:
**IzzyR** 06-11-2001 12:59
> [@](#):
>
> Here’s where I disagree with my fellow un-PCniks.
**Autumn Wind Chick** 06-11-2001 08:53 PM
> [@](#):
>
> Fortunately for blacks and other American minorities, the medical community does not totally believe in this PC nonsense and is aggressively seeking potential donors of various bodily tissues among non-white races.
**tomndebb** 06-11-2001 11:24 PM
first quoting **AWC** , then
> [@](#):
>
> The key word in this statement is “American.” The key error is “PC nonsense.”
> [@](#):
>
> I find the claim of “PC” directed against the arguments that race does not exist quite funny.
[quote]
It was the PC crowd who went to Congress and made sure that Cavalli-Sforza’s Genetic Diversity study was underfunded. In other words, the loudest opponents of Cavalli-Sforza are the most PC people around. Yet the opponents of the data that he has collected enjoy throwing the epithet “PC” at his work.
[quote]
**IzzyR** 06-12-2001 08:23 AM
> [@](#):
>
> Are you seriously denying that there is an element of PC in this discussion?
**Autumn Wind Chick** 06-12-2001 07:39 PM
> [@](#):
>
> It’s fascinating to watch the mental gymnastics that race-deniers go through in order to bless uses of race that they deem appropriate, such as in organ donation, while condemning those that are non-pc, such as athletics.
So, aside from your self-identification that you are not PC, the only time the issue has arisen is when **AWC** has claimed that only PC people deny the reality of race. Since the example she provided was clearly one of _cultural_ association, (which we accepted months ago), not biology or genetics, and since the information has been provided that shows that there is no one “black” race, I’m not sure where the discussion goes next.
Anyone accusing me of just being PC will be laughed out of the Forum. ( **Collounsbury** PC? ::: snort ::: ) The scientific evidence says that there are too many different populations in Africa (or Asia, Europe, or the Americas) to lump all the people with a few similar characteristic appearances into any group large enough to be a “race.” Even if, for example, the whole “Western Equatorial African Sprinter” mess (that I won’t go near on a bet) turned out to have a genetic component, we would be left with the fact that the Eastern Equatorial Africans, the Northwestern Desert (Sahara) Dwellers, the Southeastern savannah dwellers, the South-central Desert (Kalahari) Dwellers, and the folks out on Madagascar do not share those same genetic sprinting traits, but do share some physical similarities\*, meaning we would have (at least) five races in Africa, not one. (\*I could distinguish with a fair degree of accuracy the Greeks from the Swedes in a room that was nearly all Greeks and Swedes: are they separate races?)
Now, can a PC type person join the argument on one side or the other? Sure. That hardly makes the discussion one governed by PC constraints. I am not happy to see the “racist” label hurled at **AWC** , because I find that that impedes discussion and understanding. On the other hand, she has done nothing to diminish the perception that she may be racist by posting nothing but about a half dozen "drive-by"s prior to this thread in which she simply hurled out the epithets “race-deniers” and “PC types” while the only “evidence” she has produced for her position is a photograph of a couple people in a race.
---
### Author:  [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/112 "2001-06-13T15:05:04Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by tomndebb \*
> Anyone accusing me of just being PC will be laughed out of the Forum.
I should clarify that I did not mean to suggest that you personally were approaching this topic from a PC perspective, nor do your measured and educated posts on this subject give any credence to such a suggestion (from what I’ve seen of them). In fact, I’m not accusing any particular person of being PC. But I do think that it is likely that PC is a driving force behind this (non-race) opinion, and that many who hold it (and particularly the extreme version in which it is expressed by some) are influenced by PC considerations.
---
### Author:  [@Danimal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danimal)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/113 "2001-06-13T15:08:38Z")
There does not appear to be any progress here in finding a mutually agreeable definition of “race,” in no small part because the word does not correspond to any identifiable genetic group.
Perhaps we can finesse the issue by instead agreeing on what race is _not._
I put to you:
Race is not your education.
Race is not your sex.
Race is not the geographic place you live.
Race is not the upbringing you received.
Race is not your religion.
Race is not your peer group.
I further suggest that when some or all of the above not-race factors are corrected for, studies show humans to have equal ranges of intelligence. Thus no matter what your definition of race may happen to be, and indeed regardless of whether you consider races to exist, it can be shown that something other than race accounts for variations in human intelligence.
---
### Author:  [@berdollos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/berdollos)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/114 "2001-06-13T16:09:03Z")
If you go to google and look up african and iq, you will find much evidence that black iq’s are lower than caucasians.
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/115 "2001-06-13T16:35:53Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by berdollos \*
> \*\*If you go to google and look up african and iq, you will find much evidence that black iq’s are lower than caucasians. \*\*
aww, come on, this is GD, you get to provide the cites, not just say ‘I know they’re there…’
---
### Author:  [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/116 "2001-06-13T17:30:31Z")
Okay **Autumn Wind Chick** , since you like pictures you should go for this.
[Can you determine the racial background of these two women by looking at this photo?](http://www.geocities.com/yellowlamia/race.html)
While you’re at it, it would be nice to learn what traits they can be expected to possess based upon their racial background. Are they likely to be good at math? Hard workers? Excellent sprinters? Fond of shellfish?
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/117 "2001-06-13T17:35:51Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by IzzyR \*
> \*\*Captain Amazing
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > So, my question is, “What is the evidence that people with dark birthmarks on their wrist are equal in intelligence to people who do not have them?”
>
> Sadly, none. In fact there is a lot of evidence that they are dumber. Much much dumber.
> 😃 \*\*
Cite? 😃
Just a comment about this whole discussion, AWC. Unless you define race and intellegence, your question is really unanswerable, and it doesn’t seem to me that you’re willing to do that. I also don’t know why you’d expect to find differences in intellegence between various races, even assuming that races exist in some sort of definable sense, because we can’t even answer the question, (with the exception of certain conditions that lead to mental retardation), “Is there a genetic component to intellegence?”
---
### Author:  [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2001, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/118 "2001-06-13T20:24:49Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Danimal \*
> There does not appear to be any progress here in finding a mutually agreeable definition of “race,” in no small part because the word does not correspond to any identifiable genetic group.
No, we’ve had a breakthrough:
> [@](#):
>
> \*originally posted by Autumn Wind Chick \*
> … assume that “race” is meant in the exact same way as it is meant when used by public health authorities in the context of finding matching donors for bodily tissues.
So race is skin colour.
I would like to hear from Autumn Wind Chick (and berdollos)
which races there are.
I would guess they mean:
White, Black, Asian, Jews and perhaps Spanish.
So presumably the white race includes the US, Canada, Europe (except for Spain / Portugal), Russia, Australia, New Zealand…
Blacks covers Africa, Aboriginals, the Caribbean…
Asian from Asia (well, obviously)
Jews come from the Middle East (I don’t know if they think there’s a race of Arabs)
Spanish covers S. America, Cuba…
That leaves Eskimos, Native Americans, Greeks and Turks to fit in somewhere.
Over to you, Autumn Wind Chick / berdollos.
---
### Author:  [@sjgouldrocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjgouldrocks)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2001, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/119 "2001-06-14T01:48:19Z")
AWC, for you to compare organ donation to intelligence just shows what a racist you are.
They are totally different things, except for **glee** who probably needs a brain transplant!!
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2001, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996/120 "2001-06-14T03:15:51Z")
**sjgouldrocks** , hurling charges of racism do not move this discussion forward in any way. Hurling charges of racism without explaining how you arrived at your conclusion simply aims this thread toward the **Pit** , where it doesn’t really need to go.
As to your comment to **glee** : you either need to work much harder on your perception of sarcasm or on your delivery of facetious irony.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996.md?page=5)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-that-races-are-equal-in-intelligence/67996.md?page=7)