U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-12-2018, 12:33 AM
 
Location: Ohio
19,692 posts, read 14,151,738 times
Reputation: 15870

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raysuxx View Post
So I have a few alt-right friends who keep pushing the notion that there is a difference between IQ levels in different racial groups, arguing this has, in part, led to the disparity in success between different groups both around the world and within nations. My assumption was that any disparities could be explained by differences in social, cultural and educational opportunities and that if those were counted for then you would expect to see disparities disappear.
However, the more I've contemplated this idea the more I have thought about how natural selection might actually create discernible psychological differences on a racial and societal level.
We don't need to look far to see that the environment has shaped everything from height to weight to skin colour to levels of sexual dimorphism between races. Is it ridiculous to argue that the pressures of animal domestication, cultural differences, civilization, religion and technology didn't also lead to psychological differences regarding IQ, conformity, aggression and other traits?
If so what evidence is there for this? and if not, why didn't this evolution occur along with physical adaptation?
Psychology has no bearing on IQ, and it did not evolve differently.

All groups on Earth developed the exact same way initially.

They were gatherers and completely nomadic, because they had no other technology. Once they acquired the technology, they became hunter-gatherers, but were still nomadic.

Once they were able to domesticate certain animals, they became semi-nomadic, but being semi-nomadic created certain problems. While an area might provide food for their domesticated animal herds, there wasn't necessarily food for people.

Some very wise people in the Americas, in Africa and the Middle East, and in Asia began the process of domesticating plants.

For example, someone in the Americas noticed a certain grass had seed pods, and that the seeds in the pod were of varying sizes. They kept the largest of the seeds, ate the smaller ones, then planted the larger seeds they retained. Over time, the grass grew taller, and the seeds more uniform in size, but some pods had more seeds than other pods, so those seeds were kept and planted. A few thousand years later, it reached its greatest efficiency, and nothing more could be done with it for another two thousand years.

You call that grass "corn."

The Middle East didn't have corn, but it had a number of other emmers, including several varieties of wheat, plus sorghum, rye, barley and the like. A wise person there began the domestication of those grasses.

In Africa, they didn't have corn or other cereal grasses, but they did have tarot, a kind of tuber similar to yams or sweet potatoes, and a very wise person there domesticated that.

In Asia, a very wise person domesticated rice.

Up to that point, every group on Earth was concerned with one thing: survival, and the psychology of survival is the same everywhere on Earth.

Being sedentary did not solve the problem societies had, because some societies remained semi-nomadic or nomadic. Concerned with their survival, these semi-nomadic and nomadic societies would often raid sedentary villages to get food.

That resulted in constant and continual conflict.

Necessity is the mother of invention. If you don't need it, you don't invent it.

Conflict requires weapons, then stronger weapons, then better weapons, then shields, then armor to protect yourself, but then that only leads to the development of stand-off weapons, like the pike, which allows you to engage an opponent from a distance, instead of getting up in your face, and it's really useful against horse cavalry as well.

But, that requires access to resources.

The ancient Middle East had walled cities, but no timber, so there were no siege engines, whereas when walled-cities appeared in Medieval Europe, they were surrounded by thousands of acres of forest, so timber was a-plenty, and you could build siege engines to defeat the walls.

Oil formed in pools on the surface in the Middle East. The Sumerians had dozens of names for the oils, all based on the particular and peculiar properties of the oils.

We do the same, only we classify oils based on the length of their hydro-carbon chains, so we have condensate, very light oil, light oil, intermediate oil, heavy oil, very heavy oil and tars.

Very light and light oils produce lots of gasoline, but little diesel, aviation fuels or asphalts for building materials, while heavy and very heavy oils produce little gasoline, but lots of diesel, aviation fuels, tars and asphalts for building materials.

In Europe, coal was visible in seams in mountains, cliffs, and rocky hills, but you didn't have that in Central or South America, Africa or southern Asia. You could dig coal out of a visible coal seam and use it as a fuel, but in Central/South America, Africa and southern Asia, they had to rely on charcoal from timber.

And the point is you can't mine what you can't see.

In addition to coal seams, there were seams of tin, copper, gold, silver, lead, iron and other metals. Once you dig out the easy parts, you have to start digging into the mountain or hillside to get the rest of it, you know, mining.

Europe was a situation unlike any other on Earth.

You had groups in the Caucus Mountains/Lake Baikal Region that would grow in population until the food resources were so severely taxed, that population collapse was inevitable.

Those groups migrated west into Europe.

Before the Turks, there were the Mongols, and before that, Avars and Tartars, and before that Slavs, and before that Huns and Magyars, and before that a number of Germanic tribes like the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Alans, etc, and before that the Getae, Dacae and others as described by Herodotus, and before that, many others like the Celts.

One Celtic tribe migrated in a giant circle around Europe, and everywhere they set up shop, they founded a town/region called Galicia, which is why there is one in France, one in Spain, one in Turkey and one in Poland.

Such population pressures did not exist in sub-Saharan Africa, and didn't arise in southern Asia or in Central/South America until very, very late in the game.

Geography plays a role, too, because while Europe, Asia and North America are blessed with hundreds of navigable rivers, there are none in Africa and only one in South America. Before you say the Nile, the Nile is in North Africa, and it is only navigable from the 3rd cataract to the Mediterranean. You can't go from the Blue Nile or White Nile to the Nile and then to the Mediterranean, because of the cataracts.

Not only did the jungles of Africa restrict and constrain the population, there number of deadly diseases is far larger in number, plus a variety of wild animals that would attack you, and then a number of deadly reptiles.

In Europe you only had to contend with bears and wolves. There are no big cats in Europe, except for a few species of lynx, what some call a bobcat, but lynx will flee at the sight of humans.

Those things acted as a bar to trade, so African villages were largely isolated.

In spite of that, African villages were anarcho-democracies. There was no government, although the winner of the weekly or monthly wrestling match held in the village might be the titular head of the village. The had a justice system. The taking of life was defined as masculine or feminine. Masculine was akin to murder, and the perpetrator executed, but feminine equated to manslaughter, the taking of a life by accident or negligence, and the subject was banished from the village for 7 years.

Trade does a number of things, in addition to providing food and goods that you can't produce, which increases your Standard of Living, it gives you access to technology, which also increases your Standard of Living.

Trade was abundant in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, and those regions traded with each other as well, while it was for the most part totally absent in sub-Saharan Africa.

Trade was quite large in Central America, too, but on a limited scale, only with Peru, Bolivia and Colombia, which all had access to the Panamanian Isthmus, and so contact with those in Central America, but there was practically no trade or even contact between the hundreds of tribal groups in North America with those in Central America.

Although Asia was largely isolated from the rest of the world, they had the same population pressures giving rise to conflicts, which ultimately led to the invention of gun-powder and they had access to resources the sub-Saharan Africans didn't have.

Even though the Muslim Arab Empire conducted extensive trade, it was only with the periphery in Africa, limited to those places that border the Sahara (it means "desert" so Sahara Desert is stupid because it's redundant) and on the coastal areas.

The trading that the Muslim Arab Empire conducted was largely the slave trade, 700 years before White Europeans got involved after being introduced to the slave trade by Muslims in Spain in the 1500s.

It wasn't until the late 1880s and 1890s that anyone was able to penetrate into the interior of sub-Saharan Africa.

Left to their own devices, the 100s of Native American tribal groups would have most likely evolved exactly as European tribal groups did.

Many Native American tribal groups practiced slavery, and some engaged in the slave trade centuries before Europeans arrived. The nomadic Plains Indian tribes were at constant warfare with semi-nomadic and settled tribes.

At least 7 tribal groups are known to have been exterminated by genocidal campaigns, and the oral histories of more than several dozen tribal groups relate the genocidal extermination of dozens and dozens of tribal groups, all before Europeans arrived.

Several tribal groups were mining topaz, quartz and silver. It wouldn't have been long before the discovery of coal, and then other metals, leading to better weapons, which would have given some tribal groups a distinct advantage over other tribal groups.

Since some tribal groups were already organized as federation and confederations, it wouldn't have taken long for them to evolve into nation-States in the same way European tribal groups formed federations and confederations and ultimately evolved into nation-States.

However, I do believe there are differences intellectually, but those differences arise from language.

Asians use characters rather than alphabets.

The use of characters instead of an alphabet stimulates different areas of the brain, which I believe gives rise to heightened intelligence in math and sciences for the average Asian over non-Asians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-12-2018, 07:21 AM
 
3,871 posts, read 1,899,836 times
Reputation: 5374
Racial superiority is a spurious concept. Differences between individuals can be greater than between races in any human attribute.

At the same time, I saw a graphic that showed the average IQ of every nation. The IQ of Central African countries was the same as Forrest Gump's. Not kidding.

That there are wide IQ differences among races has been known since Alfred Binnet invented the IQ test. Jews have the highest IQ. Orientals the 2nd highest, various white races fill in the next tier of ranks. Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, American Indians come after them and Central Africans bring up the rear.

This explains history. It also explains the present world. Further elaboration is for footnotes.

IQ is only one aspect of racial diversity. Temperaments, physical abilities, whatever other dimensions of humanity one can suggest also have racial components. Like beauty and color, racial diversity is not merely skin deep.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2018, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Outside US
1,048 posts, read 428,289 times
Reputation: 1410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raysuxx View Post
So I have a few alt-right friends who keep pushing the notion that there is a difference between IQ levels in different racial groups, arguing this has, in part, led to the disparity in success between different groups both around the world and within nations. My assumption was that any disparities could be explained by differences in social, cultural and educational opportunities and that if those were counted for then you would expect to see disparities disappear.
However, the more I've contemplated this idea the more I have thought about how natural selection might actually create discernible psychological differences on a racial and societal level.
We don't need to look far to see that the environment has shaped everything from height to weight to skin colour to levels of sexual dimorphism between races. Is it ridiculous to argue that the pressures of animal domestication, cultural differences, civilization, religion and technology didn't also lead to psychological differences regarding IQ, conformity, aggression and other traits?
If so what evidence is there for this? and if not, why didn't this evolution occur along with physical adaptation?
The question is WHY?

There are differences in Intelligence (IQ) among regions, ethnic groups, and races.

It's an old fact.

Important, is not to apply it to individuals.

And, there are different types of intelligence.

A human being cannot reduced to a number.

As a whole, look at the prison population (state data).

IQs are 10 points less than the free population and the Standard Deviation is the same. The more violent the crime, the lower the IQ.

Look at GDP of economies of the 179 nation states.

Lots of poverty, crime, and problems, and the correlation of low IQ is there.

Opposite is true for wealthier nations.

This is a Taboo topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2018, 09:22 AM
 
14,640 posts, read 3,883,622 times
Reputation: 10665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan View Post
That there are wide IQ differences among races has been known since Alfred Binnet invented the IQ test. Jews have the highest IQ. Orientals the 2nd highest, various white races fill in the next tier of ranks.
You see how easily time can pass you by??

Some facts. No, Jews don't have the highest IQ's any longer, Japanese, S. Koreans (in general) do, and Asians as a whole.....and there are a LOT of Asians and only a few Jews.

The IQ of the country of Israel is quite low - below 100 on average.....

https://www.scoopwhoop.com/inotherne...ls/#.mcs2b7bxk

Note that Italians, who were considered "dumb" by "White" Americans, have a vastly higher IQ than those who considered them stupid......we should take that as a lesson for today.....

Jews may be getting dumber (just a guess) because they are fighting too much (Israel) and mixing too much (USA)....although I have one super-smart Jewish branch of my family that married into a Japanese/Korean/Taiwanese family! I suspect that branch will do quite well.

Take 1,000 members of a country that has an average 90 IQ and move them to Japan (and school them, etc.) and I'd wager that in two generations they would be over 100.

In that sense, IQ is nothing different than a sewer system. Can you imagine if we all started threads saying "hey, I poop in air conditioned tile-lined bathrooms and it flows into sewers built 100 years ago, so I am superior to you"....

Fact is, many of those villages in Peru don't need a sewer system.

If nothing else this thread shows how the USA refuses to invest in the most valuable asset - mothers and education. We make heroes out of snipers and billionaires instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2018, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Seattle WA, USA
3,904 posts, read 2,184,626 times
Reputation: 2587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
All groups on Earth developed the exact same way initially.
All groups on Earth developed the exact same way initially.

They were gatherers and completely nomadic, because they had no other technology. Once they acquired the technology, they became hunter-gatherers, but were still nomadic.

Not exactly, there were coastal and inland populations, the coastal populations were more sedentary and had and sea food is rich in nutrients that are good for brain development such as omega and iodine, in fact prior to iodized salt, inland populations had a huge problem with iodine deficiency and in many parts of the world this still continues such as in China where inland populations with iodine deficiency have IQ scores that are 12 points lower on average, and there have been studies that once iodine is introduced into the diet IQ scores rise by as much as 15 points

Geography plays a role, too, because while Europe, Asia and North America are blessed with hundreds of navigable rivers, there are none in Africa and only one in South America. Before you say the Nile, the Nile is in North Africa, and it is only navigable from the 3rd cataract to the Mediterranean. You can't go from the Blue Nile or White Nile to the Nile and then to the Mediterranean, because of the cataracts.

Africa has other large rivers such as the Congo, Zambezi, and Niger. However there are some large waterfalls which cuts off access to the ocean, but that shouldn't impede all trade out right. For instance in Russia most rivers either flow to the arctic, or empty to the land locked Caspian sea, but this didn't prevent Russia from using the rivers for local trade, and often times they had land links between the rivers to facilitate trade over long distances, which is how Siberia was settled, or how the Vikings reached the Black sea.

Not only did the jungles of Africa restrict and constrain the population, there number of deadly diseases is far larger in number, plus a variety of wild animals that would attack you, and then a number of deadly reptiles.

The Amazon is also covered in thick jungles and populated by dangerous animals but civilizations still developed there, though they all were decimated once African diseases were introduced, so there is that.

In Europe you only had to contend with bears and wolves. There are no big cats in Europe, except for a few species of lynx, what some call a bobcat, but lynx will flee at the sight of humans.

That is the case with northern Europe, but not in the south where Lions lived


And Asia also has Tigers


And Leopards


And India has all three yet that didn't stop them from developing, plus if you go back to the Pleistocene humanity contended with cave lions/bears/hyenas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2018, 01:39 PM
 
3,871 posts, read 1,899,836 times
Reputation: 5374
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
You see how easily time can pass you by??

Some facts. No, Jews don't have the highest IQ's any longer, Japanese, S. Koreans (in general) do, and Asians as a whole.....and there are a LOT of Asians and only a few Jews.

The IQ of the country of Israel is quite low - below 100 on average.....
Time has had a lot of time to pass me by. I've tried not to make it too easy for it either.

I saw that about Jews. But remember; Israel's population is 30% or so non-Jewish. Prime Minister Netanyahu is one of the 10 smartest men in the world (in one list). If you look at any list of the 20 or 30 smartest people in the world, you will find 5 or more Jews on it, more than any other ethnic group usually. This is remarkable since they make up less than 1% of the world's population.

To the OP's question, it can be answered "yes" unequivocally. Skin color is the most observable but least significant difference among the races. People who want to celebrate diversity have more to celebrate than they might think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2018, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Central IL
15,043 posts, read 8,401,067 times
Reputation: 35226
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
You see how easily time can pass you by??

Some facts. No, Jews don't have the highest IQ's any longer, Japanese, S. Koreans (in general) do, and Asians as a whole.....and there are a LOT of Asians and only a few Jews.

The IQ of the country of Israel is quite low - below 100 on average.....

https://www.scoopwhoop.com/inotherne...ls/#.mcs2b7bxk

Note that Italians, who were considered "dumb" by "White" Americans, have a vastly higher IQ than those who considered them stupid......we should take that as a lesson for today.....

Jews may be getting dumber (just a guess) because they are fighting too much (Israel) and mixing too much (USA)....although I have one super-smart Jewish branch of my family that married into a Japanese/Korean/Taiwanese family! I suspect that branch will do quite well.

Take 1,000 members of a country that has an average 90 IQ and move them to Japan (and school them, etc.) and I'd wager that in two generations they would be over 100.

In that sense, IQ is nothing different than a sewer system. Can you imagine if we all started threads saying "hey, I poop in air conditioned tile-lined bathrooms and it flows into sewers built 100 years ago, so I am superior to you"....

Fact is, many of those villages in Peru don't need a sewer system.

If nothing else this thread shows how the USA refuses to invest in the most valuable asset - mothers and education. We make heroes out of snipers and billionaires instead.
Here is a source by country:
https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country

It is not believable, however - most African countries have IQs in the 60's. But an IQ in the 60's is the equivalent of a 3rd grader! All these people live independently - they aren't under the care of guardians! Obviously most IQ tests are biased toward the formally educated. Some tests are notably not biased in this way but aren't as commonly used. And I have no idea how these averages by country were arrived at. But I think there are major measurement issues that completely cloud the bigger issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2018, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Central Washington
927 posts, read 289,734 times
Reputation: 1543
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
You see how easily time can pass you by??

Some facts. No, Jews don't have the highest IQ's any longer, Japanese, S. Koreans (in general) do, and Asians as a whole.....and there are a LOT of Asians and only a few Jews.

The IQ of the country of Israel is quite low - below 100 on average.....

https://www.scoopwhoop.com/inotherne...ls/#.mcs2b7bxk

Note that Italians, who were considered "dumb" by "White" Americans, have a vastly higher IQ than those who considered them stupid......we should take that as a lesson for today.....
It depends which Jews you are referring to. Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ between 107 and 115, putting them, at worst tied with Hong Kong. https://infogalactic.com/info/Ashken...h_intelligence

You're wrong about Italians having a "vastly higher IQ" than white Americans. In fact, of the ten states with the highest proportion of white residents, seven of them have higher average IQ's than Italians (102), one only half a point less, and the last two only three points behind.

Interestingly, not one of the states with the lowest white population scored higher than Italy. Only one state was the same, the other nine were between 1-8 points lower. Three out of the four lowest scoring states also have the lowest white population.
https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/we-compared-average-iq-score-in-all-50-states-results-are-eye-opening.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2018, 04:41 PM
 
Location: DC metropolitan area
632 posts, read 280,990 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
Many decades behind - and even behind basic logic and common sense.

Anyone with a high IQ, like yours truly, know not to take any of these internet "lists" of 10 or 25 things with any cred. After all, why wouldn't be be 19 things? or 14 things? or 27 things? Only one reason - marketing and click bait.

Just as a simple and provable example of this folly, take one "fact" from that list:

"we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs permanently. Whether recent attempts show promise is still a matter of considerable scientific debate"

Read it. Soak it up. Carefully. Then read this - from 30+ year ago....

In the 1980's Japan embarked upon a National Effort to raise the IQ of the population. It was an amazing success, with IQ's being raised as much as 6 points ACROSS THE ENTIRE POPULATION in one decade. After the program was in full progress, Japan beat out the USA by 11 points - an amount that is IMPOSSIBLE by any other reason except training.

AND, it turns out the training was exactly the opposite of what the USA and the UK and some other countries which are getting dumber (or nowhere) are doing. Among the top action credited was the treatment of children.

How Japan Builds Brains - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

"Japanese mothers have an unusually close, indulgent relationship with their young children, who are allowed to explore and learn freely with little adult restraint. This freedom and abundant opportunities to learn language, which mothers provide, are key factors in producing competent, bright youngsters."

In the USA, mothers have to work....sometimes two or three jobs...leaving little time or resources for proper nurturing. We have an entire political party dedicated to destorying our educational system...even wants to do away with the Dept. of Education!

Only Americans can be that stupid and ignorant....that is, to not understand that you have to INVEST and actually create programs to make your country smarter. Instead, we love the uneducated.....

In any case, the Japanese experience proves without a doubt that IQ can be VASTLY raised and it can be done do within a single generation. But, as with solving health care and other big problems. Americans simply don't want to do this. We don't desire intellect....just more guns and drugs.
I read the article you linked to. It advances some ideas as to why IQs went up in Japan, but in the end they don't really know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2018, 04:51 PM
 
Location: DC metropolitan area
632 posts, read 280,990 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan View Post
I saw that about Jews. But remember; Israel's population is 30% or so non-Jewish. Prime Minister Netanyahu is one of the 10 smartest men in the world (in one list). If you look at any list of the 20 or 30 smartest people in the world, you will find 5 or more Jews on it, more than any other ethnic group usually. This is remarkable since they make up less than 1% of the world's population.

And of Israeli Jews, less than half are Ashkenazi. The average IQ of Sephardi Jews is 98. For Mizrahi Jews it's 91. It's 68 for Ethiopian Jews.

Last edited by 2ner; 09-12-2018 at 05:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top