Why was the white race(anglo saxon) so successful? (Iran, Mexican, Canada)
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.
You fail to realize that most European countries are socialist and have much larger government "handout" programs than the United States, LOL. Let's just sweep the millions of non-white immigrants who also built lives for themselves under the rug. They don't count, because America is a white nation!
I distrust quoted statistics. Statistics are difficult to quote because most do not come with pertinent important information such as standard deviation, method of determining sample space, number of queries in the sample space....
If I go to a Trump rally for statistics on the need for better education I probably will get skewed data.
The more important point is the concept of race is not science based. If you think there are "Races" of human then you are drinking the koolaide.
Geographic origin is not a myth, and in practical terms, race is a good proxy for geographic origin. Most American blacks have a large amount of west African ancestry, whereas most American whites have a large amount of European ancestry. The fact that we can't draw a line between these two groups is unimportant for our purposes here.
I believe greed and a mindset that emphasize the utilitarian approach on things
it seems other cultures are more lazy and just content with what they have
they are low-energy, to quote someone on the news these days...
1) you used the same tired IQ arguments that white supremacist have been using for the past decades to justify their stupid view of being superior.
The theory of evolution has been used for various racist policies throughout history, but that isn't reason to discount the theory of evolution. A scientific claim's validity is not dependent upon the attractiveness of the social rhetoric it generates. You can keep calling the IQ-race connection "tired," but that doesn't disprove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
2) You failed to provide any of the other plethora of environment, economic and geographical advantages that whites had, but you made sure to bring in IQ differences, which again is a page out of white supremacists book. You know the page of the book where they nitpick inherent advantages, but intentionally leave out the other environmental and economical advantages that greatly contributed to their success.
There are some methodological problems in pointing to environmental and economic advantages when discussing the origins of a race's success because many of those "advantages" are themselves the product of that race's success. As an example, there is no doubt that the environment in which most Americans are raised is conducive to maximizing IQ far better than the environment in which most sub-Saharan Africans are raised. However, the reason that is the case is due to success in America, which then leaves us with the same questions of explanation. "Environment" has strong explanatory power when discussing an individual, but I'm not sure that it does when discussing an entire race. Perhaps things like access to natural resources might be useful, but not environment as typically described in IQ literature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
3) You brought the concept of IQ into a topic in which IQ had no business being in. IQ is a very recent 20th century concept, meanwhile everyone within the thread has come to the consensus that the white race didn't begin to make serious gains until around 600-500 years ago. Now if you happen to have the IQ of all the races from 600 years ago for comparison then I could see your point in bringing in IQ, but you're trying to use late 20th century IQ scores for a particular race to justify a number of events that took place in the 14th-15th century.
If the average expert believes 47% of inter-racial IQ variation is attributable to genetics, and IQ is undoubtedly valuable in making social progress, how does IQ have no business in this discussion?
The fact that we didn't discover the concept of IQ until the 20th century doesn't mean that IQ wasn't a driving force 500 years ago. Geographic origin does indeed affect IQ, and there is still enough correlation between race and geographic origin to deduce IQ differences between European ancestry and African ancestry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
You may not have specially said that IQ was the entire explanation for whites success, but based on your prior post you sure didn't make room for any other interpretation.
I don't see anything in my posts that didn't leave room for other explanations. IQ is certainly only part of the equation, although it is likely a large part.
This is very interesting. I wish the article had given some idea of the degree to which IQ in the US can be muted by poverty.
I think that, at this point, you are simply Google searching for evidence that is contrary to anything I say. While that isn't entirely invaluable, it is certainly cherry-picking evidence. That is fine, but you shouldn't imply that I am biased (which your racial accusations were tantamount to) if you are the one who is intentionally seeking out evidence that only supports one side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
3-5% is a very miniscule difference in the grand scheme of things, but if you still have an issue with my choice of words then how about drops in a pool or ten bathtubs of water in a lake. Does that work better for you? because my initial point still stands. 3-5% differences isn't nothing when talking about differences genetics overall.
Do you know how large a pool is? Or even a bathtub? 3-5% is more like a quart in a 5 gallon bucket. 3-5% is 3-5 IQ points for the average person. That is not minuscule, particularly when the standard deviation is only 15 points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
Maybe this is me nitpicking, but that poll seriously grind my gears, because of how the percentages are presented. The fact that the overall percentages equate to 121% and not 100% tells me that double-counting surely occurred in calculating those percentage. Also 47% of 228 "experts" isn't all that impressive especially when you realize that 1,237 were invited to voice their opinion on the topic and only 18% of that lot decided to participate. So yeah, I don't see this consensus as being the universal opinion of all the experts, but if it is, then no harm done. It still wouldn't change the fact that there still is simply no direct evidence that links Race to IQ, but we do have conjectures on the subject.
Also if you wanted to use expert consensus as evidence to your claim, then you should have just stuck with the Snyderman & Rothman poll from 1987 since the numbers of "experts" were a lot larger then this one.
1. If one is not himself an expert in a field, I think there is tremendous value in looking to what the consensus among experts is. It is far more useful than cherry-picking single studies.
2. I prefer the newer poll because there has been a lot of work done in the field since 1987.
There is tremendous social pressure against the idea that IQ is largely genetic and the idea that there is a real IQ disparity between races. That is not a popular idea in 2016, which likely influences a lot of pop writing on the subject. You're not going to see Time Magazine run a story about how many experts still believe IQ has a strong genetic basis, but you likely will see such a publication create headlines about any amount of evidence to the contrary. My guess is that many actual experts in the area are reluctant to pursue research that might ostracize them; despite this, it is clear that most experts do believe there is a significant genetic component to the IQ disparity.
I think you, and a couple other posters here, can't separate a scientific claim from a normative claim. It is not racist to say that there is an inter-racial IQ disparity that is at least partially attributable to genetics. That is either true or false, and its truth value depends on contingent biological facts that are blind to our social desires. Normative claims can be racist. It would be racist to say "Blacks have lower IQs, therefore they shouldn't get to vote" or "Whites have higher IQs, therefore we need to use eugenics to get rid of non-whites." Those are both very racist statements, but they aren't implied by the fact that there is a genetic component to the inter-racial IQ disparity.
Geographic origin is not a myth, and in practical terms, race is a good proxy for geographic origin. Most American blacks have a large amount of west African ancestry, whereas most American whites have a large amount of European ancestry. The fact that we can't draw a line between these two groups is unimportant for our purposes here.
Everyone's mothers Mitochondria can be traced back to an Eve.... we are all related.
As for geolocation of genes, it is not as simple as you think.
Phylogeography, is that study and we are uncovering through science, a better understanding of migration.
Read that and you will see that we are just beginning to understand the complexities of migration and population...
So race and Geographic Origin, the way you perceive it, is a myth.
Much of the discussion on human phylogeography in the link you provided is referencing human migration 100,000+ years ago. There have certainly been genetic changes that relate to intelligence since then.
It seems that in order for my hypothesis (that modern "race" in America is a reasonably good proxy for geographic origin when discussing blacks and whites at the population level) to be reasonably plausible, only a couple points need to hold:
1. Whites in the US have, on average, substantially more European ancestry than do American blacks.
2. American blacks have substantially more west African ancestry than do American whites.
Both points seem obvious. To be clear, I am not arguing that all American whites have 100% British/French/German heritage and all American blacks have 100% Ivory Coast/Ghanian/etc. heritage. We are all a mix to some extent. What is important, however, is the relative proportions. It seems completely impossible that American whites do not have more European ancestry than American blacks, nor does it seem possible that American blacks don't have more west African ancestry.
The fact that we are all related is not evidence that there are no genetic differences between groups of humans. A quick glance at average heights by country will reveal that there have been significant genetic changes since "Eve," and various human populations have undergone some degree of isolated evolutionary processes that have produced distinct genetic traits.
Much of the discussion on human phylogeography in the link you provided is referencing human migration 100,000+ years ago. There have certainly been genetic changes that relate to intelligence since then.
It seems that in order for my hypothesis (that modern "race" in America is a reasonably good proxy for geographic origin when discussing blacks and whites at the population level) to be reasonably plausible, only a couple points need to hold:
1. Whites in the US have, on average, substantially more European ancestry than do American blacks.
2. American blacks have substantially more west African ancestry than do American whites.
Both points seem obvious. To be clear, I am not arguing that all American whites have 100% British/French/German heritage and all American blacks have 100% Ivory Coast/Ghanian/etc. heritage. We are all a mix to some extent. What is important, however, is the relative proportions. It seems completely impossible that American whites do not have more European ancestry than American blacks, nor does it seem possible that American blacks don't have more west African ancestry.
The fact that we are all related is not evidence that there are no genetic differences between groups of humans. A quick glance at average heights by country will reveal that there have been significant genetic changes since "Eve," and various human populations have undergone some degree of isolated evolutionary processes that have produced distinct genetic traits.
You still can't correlate IQ to genetics. How would you test for that?
Look at what percentage in the human genome is different from one person to another, it's exquisitely small.
You still can't correlate IQ to genetics. How would you test for that?
Look at what percentage in the human genome is different from one person to another, it's exquisitely small.
Most experts in the field believe over half of variation in IQ is attributable to genetics. Regarding the inter-racial IQ gap, the poll I cited above indicates that the average expert believes 47% of it is attributable to genetics.
There are several ways to test for the genetic effect on IQ, but one is to study identical twins raised apart. Do you believe the same about height? In other words, do you assume that there is no way to determine whether height is affected by genetics because genetic differences between people are small?
It would be incredibly strange if genetics played a pivotal role in things like height, heart health, specific disease susceptibility, and even things like proclivity to being a night owl or morning person yet had no effect on IQ -- a trait that is highly dependent on physical brain structure.
IQ is clearly the answer. There are differences in the IQ bell curve between various groups of different geographical origins. It would be completely illogical for there not to be. Natural selections influence on the development of brain would have had to progress at a completely even rate over the last 100000 years for that to be the case. Which is silliness. It is clear just by looking at people of different origins that natural selection had enough time to act in order for their to be differences in skin color, eye color, hair texture/color, body hair, height, weight, BMI, muscle mass, facial characteristics, athletic performance and so on.
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.
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.
Why was the white race(anglo saxon) so successful?
