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.
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?
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?
I am of the opinion that environmental effects such as good health, exposure to a good education and mental stimulation tend to have a much greater effect on IQ levels then anything purely genetic. Look at how adaptable the body is to conditioning. If you workout everyday and eat right your physical body will morph to accommodate the new challenges it is undergoing. You will look much different and you will be able to run faster or longer, lift much heavier weights. There is no reason to believe the brain is not as if not more adaptable then the body.
Its to be noted that IQ can variy quite dramatically in an individual within his or her lifetime.
Sue Ramsden at University College London and her colleagues took a batch of 33 healthy adolescents (aged 12-16), with a wide mix of abilities. She tested their IQ in 2004 and then again 3-4 years later. During each test session, each child had their brains scanned using fMRI. Neither the participants nor their parents had a clue that they would be tested again. Consistent with earlier research, scores changed quite a bit from one testing session to the next. Thirty-three percent of the participants showed a clear change in their total IQ score. To highlight the range: One participant showed an increase in IQ score by 21 points, whereas another showed a decrease of 18 points.
There are way to many factors that effect an individuals IQ level for it to be solely determined by racial and genetic factors alone.
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?
It's a taboo to consider racial differences as rooted in evolution, biology, DNA because with live in multi-ethnic, multi-racial societies and in Anglo-Saxon countries (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), there is a strong individualist component to one's relationship to the state and to other people. No one wants to (appear to) put up barriers to individual achievement.
I am of the opinion that environmental effects such as good health, exposure to a good education and mental stimulation tend to have a much greater effect on IQ levels then anything purely genetic. Look at how adaptable the body is to conditioning. If you workout everyday and eat right your physical body will morph to accommodate the new challenges it is undergoing. You will look much different and you will be able to run faster or longer, lift much heavier weights. There is no reason to believe the brain is not as if not more adaptable then the body.
Its to be noted that IQ can variy quite dramatically in an individual within his or her lifetime.
Sue Ramsden at University College London and her colleagues took a batch of 33 healthy adolescents (aged 12-16), with a wide mix of abilities. She tested their IQ in 2004 and then again 3-4 years later. During each test session, each child had their brains scanned using fMRI. Neither the participants nor their parents had a clue that they would be tested again. Consistent with earlier research, scores changed quite a bit from one testing session to the next. Thirty-three percent of the participants showed a clear change in their total IQ score. To highlight the range: One participant showed an increase in IQ score by 21 points, whereas another showed a decrease of 18 points.
There are way to many factors that effect an individuals IQ level for it to be solely determined by racial and genetic factors alone.
The U.S. National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health puts the genetic component of IQ at 50%: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence. That leaves 50% left for environmental factors. Between 3rd grade and 21 years later, my own IQ score rose by 18 percentage points.
Black babies are more physically developed at birth and early infancy than white or Asian babies. Black babies can hold up their heads at birth and can also do walking movement with the legs when held up by someone. White babies and Asian babies take longer to reach these points of development.
Black children reach adolescence approximately 1.5 years earlier than white children.
I've read Afro-centrist viewpoints that the physical "superiority" of blacks is the reason non-blacks put up discriminatory barriers against blacks to keep them from taking over. I've also read non-Afro-centrist viewpoints that neoteny gives members of races that mature more slowly a natural advantage over members of earlier maturing races in modern societies.
The U.S. National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health puts the genetic component of IQ at 50%: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence. That leaves 50% left for environmental factors. Between 3rd grade and 21 years later, my own IQ score rose by 18 percentage points.
50% spans the gap from the highest average IQ nation (108) to the lowest (59). Something that not mentioned often when discussing IQ, is that IQ test takers which take the test seriously tend to do much better then those that don't. And the results can be quite dramatic. Its to be noted that the nations who perform very well on IQ tests tend to be countries that have a very "test oriented" education system. Like Singapore, Hong Kong and Korea.
So we can attest to genetics and environment but its hard to gauge the seriousness unto which the test is performed.
I've always assumed that there are differences that are based on race.
The first time I personally noticed it was when I moved from teaching all-White classes in western New York State to teaching majority Black classes inside the Beltway in Prince George's County, Maryland. The African-American young gentlemen in the class were mostly taller than me.
I see no reason not to believe that other differences exist, as well. Some differences are easily traced back to factors related to nutrition. Others to educational opportunities. I think it goes back to nature versus nurture, and that's not an either/or situation. It's a little of both.
But my policy is -- so what. The range of differences in intelligence or any other trait can be found within a race, as well as between races. I've had white students with all levels of IQ...same true for Black, Asian, or Latino students. My belief was that I taught all the students who walked through my classroom (or school) door. They were treated with respect. Same with the adults that I meet away from my work-world. I'm glad people are different. Sameness is boring.
I'm a little suspicious about the purpose of this thread.
IQ tests show how well people test for information that the test designers consider to be important. They do not test for emotional intelligence or how an individual uses information in a useful way or how inventive a person is. In other words the test only shows a narrow slice of someone's total intelligence.
I've know many very successful people who would not test well, they are smart but not book smart.
So I don't agree that IQ tests are a measure of someone's complete intelligence, let alone judging an entire race that way.
And yes I think it is racist to use IQ tests as that measure.
High IQ test scores tell us who is good at taking IQ tests and remembering information taught to them.
I think they are used to preserve the status quo of the way we teach and what information those in charge think is important.
BTW I love taking tests and always did very well on them but do not think they measure me as a person.
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.
