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.
I wanted to respond to a few of the common claims in this thread that I think aren't correct.
#1, there have been empires all over the world, white peoples is only a few. My claim: there have been a disproportionate amount of empires of Indo-European-Iranian origin. I think it's better if we expand it from Anglo-Saxon (a small group really) to the Indo-European group as a whole (not necessarily all "white" looking people though). Indian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Sassanid, Russian, British, Spanish, Portuguese, US (not entirely obviously)... It's the most spoken language group in the world for a reason.
#2, it's the cold climate. My claim: look outside of Europe. Not much has come from Siberia or Canada, while there have been great advances in the more tropical regions of Asia and the Americas.
#3, it's the brutality. The most sociopathic and brutal people on the planet, Papua New Guineans, are also dead last when it comes to any sort of civilization. Likewise the Mongols, or any of the steppe nomads for that reason, could go conquer like none other in an unprecedented brutal fashion, but none of them could keep any of it. It all fell apart soon after the great leader died. Indo Europeans were more brutal then some groups, but in the grand scheme, they weren't excessively so. Who was more brutal, the Aztecs or the conquistadors?
#4 It's the religion or political system. In the short run maybe so, but in the long run, religions and political systems tend to match the culture they are put upon. Look how Christianity changes from original Jesus to Eastern Orthodox to Mexican Catholicism to Philippine Pentecostals. Hardly the same religion but all from the same source.
History shows us that certain people just had abilities that others didn't (and those others had abilities in areas that may not have been empire building, say the Inca's with architecture). I don't know that that ability is a 1:1 correlation with IQ though. It was not just happen chance and all the stars aligning like some posts are claiming.
It's important to note though, as others have said, that GDP maximizing/empire building isn't the sole measure of success/usefulness. I think we all have a lot we can learn from other people and all the different ethnic groups have a various sorts of talents that can be very valuable if shared and put to use.
I agree and while it isn't disproving it, you're still not giving me anything that proves your side with the exception of a small consensus.
So wait a minute. Eurasia having the rich top soil of the fertile crescent and having the 5 most important animals for farming on site along with a consistent climate that was favorable for farming (which the Americas and Sub Saharan Africa didn't not have in full) is an attribute of that race's success?
Impressive.
Now you are going to have to give me some directions as to where I can find some research on this because this just seem very farfetched but at the same interesting.
Fair enough.
I'm not entirely bias, but I am a person who is very hard to persuade especially in a controversial topic like this in which opinions are all over the place. Psychologists can't agree on it. Sociologist believe they downplay the role of environment in determining IQ and Neuroanthropologist vehemently disagrees with the idea of IQ and Race being linked, so I apologize if I come off as being stubborn on such a dissensus topic.
Do I believe genetics play a role in IQ? Yes.
Do I believe the environment play a role in IQ? Yes
Do I believe race and IQ are biologically linked to one another? Hell No
Do I believe it appropriate to form a concise conclusion about IQ and Race based on a simple consensus and no study? No
Do I believe it's fair to start throwing around terms like "inherently intelligent" and "genetically determined" when comparing the IQ of a group that has been historically disadvantage and as a result are more likely to be poor and live in an environment that's far from being intellectually stimulating along with a broken nuclear family with that of another group that have been historically privileged and doesn't face all the previous problem in mass? No
Also I'm not using google search to argue with you. As a student whose aspiring for a masters degree in both Psychology and Sociology and have taken classes in Anthropology and have talked extensively with professors and have done research papers on the topic of "Race" and "Intelligence" separately, I know a few things including many of the discrepancies involved in IQ and why the concept of Race is as bogus as the Flying Spaghetti monster.
See this what I don't understand. I provided the statement that the "Races" only differ by 3-5% genetically. Keep in mind that that number may vary based on the study you look at, but most studies don't put the difference past 5%. But my issue with you is that you are trying to make this 3-5% work for your Race/IQ difference, when there is nothing that supports your claim.
Cherry picking single studies can be very helpful as it brings forth unanswered questions. For example NO ONE has a counter argument for the Flynn Effect.
No one has explained as to why IQ levels around the world are increasing by 0.3 points every year.
No one has explained why the mixed children of Black American GIs and White German women during WWII had an IQ equal to that of white American kids.
No one can explain as to why Black kids by age 4 has an average IQ score of 95.4 (only 4 points lower than whites of the same age) but as the kids get older the IQ declined before settling at an average of 83.4 by age 24
I agree that this is a very controversial topic, that many experts wouldn't want to touch with a 10ft pole. Not only will it cause them to be scrutinized for it like Jensen and James Watson, but it will surely lead to inadvertent issues in our own world. Hypothetically speaking if a study proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt that Blacks were statistically prone to be intellectually inferior to whites due to a genetic trait then yes your typical Psychologist will be able to understand that this doesn't mean that ALL blacks are intellectually inferior or that intelligence is the "be all end all" of one's future success.
But in a world where most people do not know anything about multivariate analysis and instead demand a single explanation to events someone such as your typical warehouse manager would probably see this study and come to the conclusion that there would be no need to hire any more black people or even worst school teachers will begin to treat black students with less assiduity since they would EXPECT them to not be as "bright" as their white counterpart.
The last time someone with influence was able to convince the masses that one ethnic group was genetically inferior, it lead to the Holocaust and the justified mistreatment of that group so excuse me for coming off as bias, but I simply refuse to accept the mere consensus of 228 people as stone cold fact to such an emotional and highly controversial topic.
Not only this but it also discounts any within-group variability. Blacks are not a homogenous group; Nigerian Igbos, for example, consistently outperform whites even within white societies. They're pureblooded Africans with less admixture than Afro-Americans.
Not only this but it also discounts any within-group variability. Blacks are not a homogenous group; Nigerian Igbos, for example, consistently outperform whites even within white societies. They're pureblooded Africans with less admixture than Afro-Americans.
My thesis doesn't discount within-group variability. I took the topic of this thread to be asking why white Europeans and white Americans have been particularly successful compared to blacks and other minorities in America, Europe and Africa. Saying that IQ is a large part of the cause doesn't imply that there are no sub-groups of blacks who have higher IQs or that there are no intelligent blacks. In fact, I've stated exactly otherwise in this thread. When trying to explain an effect at the population level, group averages are far more important, assuming that the standard deviations of the groups are similar.
I agree and while it isn't disproving it, you're still not giving me anything that proves your side with the exception of a small consensus.
1. I wouldn't call it a small consensus. I think you're discounting the importance of the views of experts in a given field.
2. I have also cited MISTRA, which is a strong indicator that IQ is largely genetic. I agree that IQ being partially genetic and the existence of a racial IQ disparity do not equate to the disparity being a product of genetics. I do not think there are any studies that, at least on their own, are conclusive on this topic. In such cases, I think an expert consensus is very important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
So wait a minute. Eurasia having the rich top soil of the fertile crescent and having the 5 most important animals for farming on site along with a consistent climate that was favorable for farming (which the Americas and Sub Saharan Africa didn't not have in full) is an attribute of that race's success?
Impressive.
Did you even read the post you quoted? I said the following: Perhaps things like access to natural resources might be useful, but not environment as typically described in IQ literature.
I am not exactly sure your claim is true, however, as much of Europe was quite cold prior to about 700 years ago. It is possible that this would play a role, but I think we would need some actual analysis of facts to come to that conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
Now you are going to have to give me some directions as to where I can find some research on this because this just seem very farfetched but at the same interesting.
Another theory that has been taken quite seriously by many researchers is that distance from sub-Saharan Africa is positively correlated with IQ. The reasoning is that evolution designed human to operate in a certain type of environment, and an ability to adapt outside of that environment and solve problems not directly adapted for by evolution is a product of intelligence. All sorts of theories have been proposed regarding geographic differences in IQ, but there is no doubt that such differences exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
I'm not entirely bias, but I am a person who is very hard to persuade especially in a controversial topic like this in which opinions are all over the place. Psychologists can't agree on it. Sociologist believe they downplay the role of environment in determining IQ and Neuroanthropologist vehemently disagrees with the idea of IQ and Race being linked, so I apologize if I come off as being stubborn on such a dissensus topic.
Do I believe genetics play a role in IQ? Yes.
Do I believe the environment play a role in IQ? Yes
That is all fine and dandy, but I should point out that you aren't taking an "it's possible" view. In fact, you are taking a very strong stance that IQ has played no role in the variation of outcomes for various races, and you have stated that IQ shouldn't even be brought up in this conversation. That position is not a reflection of mere disagreement among experts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
Do I believe race and IQ are biologically linked to one another? Hell No
I think you are conflating sociological notions of race with biological ties to geographic origin. In one sense, "race" refers to an entire panoply of traits that are certainly not biological. If an employer doesn't want to hire a person because she has an afro, that is racism, but it is racism in the sense that we view "race" as including cultural factors as well. That is very different than saying a majority of American blacks share more DNA with their west African ancestors than American whites do. That sort of claim seems undeniably true, and it isn't made less true by the fact that we can't draw perfect lines around race when looking at genetic profiles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
Do I believe it appropriate to form a concise conclusion about IQ and Race based on a simple consensus and no study? No
I wouldn't say "no study." Quite a number of studies have demonstrated that an IQ disparity exists between races. Quite a number of studies have indicated that IQ has a strong genetic component. Proving that the racial disparity is due to genetics is a much tougher thing, but given what we know about geographic IQ disparities and the link between geographic origin and race, we probably have good reason to think that a fair portion of racial IQ disparities is due to genetics. That is what I think is reflected in the expert consensus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
Do I believe it's fair to start throwing around terms like "inherently intelligent" and "genetically determined" when comparing the IQ of a group that has been historically disadvantage and as a result are more likely to be poor and live in an environment that's far from being intellectually stimulating along with a broken nuclear family with that of another group that have been historically privileged and doesn't face all the previous problem in mass? No
I didn't suggest doing any of the above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
Also I'm not using google search to argue with you. As a student whose aspiring for a masters degree in both Psychology and Sociology and have taken classes in Anthropology and have talked extensively with professors and have done research papers on the topic of "Race" and "Intelligence" separately, I know a few things including many of the discrepancies involved in IQ and why the concept of Race is as bogus as the Flying Spaghetti monster.
So you think that most of the actual experts in the field are holding beliefs as bogus as the flying spaghetti monster? Again, I'm not saying that you need to hold a strong opinion that genetics is the cause of the racial IQ disparity, but you are holding a very strong opposing view that is in contrast to the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
See this what I don't understand. I provided the statement that the "Races" only differ by 3-5% genetically. Keep in mind that that number may vary based on the study you look at, but most studies don't put the difference past 5%. But my issue with you is that you are trying to make this 3-5% work for your Race/IQ difference, when there is nothing that supports your claim.
No, I'm simply pointing out that 3-5% is not "drops in an ocean." It is, mathematically, much more like a quart in a five gallon bucket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
Cherry picking single studies can be very helpful as it brings forth unanswered questions. For example NO ONE has a counter argument for the Flynn Effect.
No one has explained as to why IQ levels around the world are increasing by 0.3 points every year.
Yes, it can be helpful, but it is not a defeater to a broader set of data and a consensus of experts. That's my point.
There have been multiple opinions offered on the Flynn Effect. One is that increasing health standards have caused the increase. Another is that society's increasingly technical job requirements have created a scenario in which higher intelligence is required to obtain a job, which could in turn make more intelligent people likely to attract mates. I have no opinion on the solution to the Flynn Effect, but I don't think the Flynn Effect is a strong argument against our topic here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
The last time someone with influence was able to convince the masses that one ethnic group was genetically inferior, it lead to the Holocaust and the justified mistreatment of that group so excuse me for coming off as bias, but I simply refuse to accept the mere consensus of 228 people as stone cold fact to such an emotional and highly controversial topic.
1. I'm not asking you to accept it as a stone-cold fact. I'm asking you to stop accepting the opposite view as a stone-cold fact.
2. Most people believe there are genetic differences between groups of people that experienced some degree of isolated evolution. It is not a coincidence that the average height in China is shorter than the average height in Holland. It is not a coincidence that Africans have darker skin than Canadians. These are all physical differences that were born out of difference evolutionary environments. It would be very strange if IQ, a trait that is highly dependent on physical brain structure, did not vary between groups. It would be absolutely bizarre.
Not only this but it also discounts any within-group variability. Blacks are not a homogenous group; Nigerian Igbos, for example, consistently outperform whites even within white societies. They're pureblooded Africans with less admixture than Afro-Americans.
As far as I know that is only true of the ones that leave Nigeria and make it into white societies, which is a tiny fraction of the total, comprised of the most intelligent individuals.
As far as I know that is only true of the ones that leave Nigeria and make it into white societies, which is a tiny fraction of the total, comprised of the most intelligent individuals.
No, they are also disproportionately represented in power and high-skilled positions in Africa. That is why they have been called "the Jews of Africa" for the past 100 years. Your theory also falls apart when you consider that other African subgroups (like Somalians) do not have the same academic performance when they migrate. It is only the Igbo tribe, and a lesser number of Ghanians.
Again, not all blacks are the same.
Last edited by torontocheeka; 03-19-2016 at 07:15 PM..
My thesis doesn't discount within-group variability. I took the topic of this thread to be asking why white Europeans and white Americans have been particularly successful compared to blacks and other minorities in America, Europe and Africa. Saying that IQ is a large part of the cause doesn't imply that there are no sub-groups of blacks who have higher IQs or that there are no intelligent blacks. In fact, I've stated exactly otherwise in this thread. When trying to explain an effect at the population level, group averages are far more important, assuming that the standard deviations of the groups are similar.
No, they are also disproportionately represented in power and high-skilled positions in Africa. That is why they have been called "the Jews of Africa" for the past 100 years. Your theory also falls apart when you consider that other African subgroups (like Somalians) do not have the same academic performance when they migrate. It is only the Igbo tribe, and a lesser number of Ghanians.
Again, not all blacks are the same.
That's my point, they have higher IQs than the average African but not higher than the average white person. They only excel compared to white when you compare the best of them to the average white person.
My question is how come rich black people tend to have higher IQ's than non rich black people? Also since blacks have a variety of genes how do you define the black race? Are Melanesians included, are Andamese included. Also the average Canadian is from a foreign country while the average African ranges in color of skin depending on what region. Also how come Igbo's and other Nigerian groups when moved to America outperform African Americans when they are mostly 100% Niger-Congolese and AA's are on average 19% European.
As a Nigerian like me the vast majority of Igbos who move here are very wealthy, or middle class compared to the ones in Nigeria. They are also the most college educated people. Are you saying not having the environment of wealthy or middle class parents pushing you towards a good education has little effect on IQ or takes the backseat to "race" which has huge grey zones such as Ethiopia, Yemen, Nepal, Western China and other countries.
Europeans if placed in Africa couldn't have done the IR as no place like England's natural resources exist and the IR was the last step after several periods such as the Reformation, Enlightenment and Renaissance that led to European dominance. So although you bring up a good point since the IR had to almost solely deal with the location of England you can't justify IQ leading to their dominance. Also all of these periods besides the Renaissance was led/started by no more than a couple dozen men Reforming the church and thinking up Enlightenment ideas. Can you say just because all these men were European that they reflect the Caucasian race and not themselves as individuals. It wasn't like even 1% of the population led these great time periods so can you credit the victories of these men to the Caucasian race? Since the IR modernized all of Europe how about the rest of the Caucasian Race? They got left behind as they were geographically further from England at the time of the IR.
To the OP, the Anglo-Saxons are nearing the end of their day. As others have put it, for most of history Europe was a backwater for the rest of the world to ignore, until European explorers showed up with their diseases to weaken other areas and exploit resources to an unprecedented level that's been guarded for generations. Basically, they were thugs.
As for this immigrant experience, get real. The country was founded on huddled masses that came over in groups, they moved west in groups, often of the same religion, they settled into towns in groups and they got free land from the government, displacing Native Americans. Then they were connected by railroads by getting...again, free land taken from Native Americans.
That's immediate capital. Today's immigrants have trouble renting a place to live after an arduous, years in the making immersion process and walking into an environment that requires strong English and advanced training to succeed.
There's absolutely nothing better about Anglo-Saxons than any other identity. Just the right place at the right time, and if nothing else, an unprecedented effective system of coercion that allowed for an empire where the sun never set. The largest empire to rise and fall. Now it's just an island, more indebted than any other in the world and not even commander of its own named language.
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.
