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 are looking at it the wrong way. You are assuming that "race" or "ancestry" based studies can only be useful for telling certain groups that they are incapable of accomplishing certain things. I disagree. Race-based studies do not say that blacks cannot be engineers. They don't say that blacks cannot be doctors.
They don't say that just because you are black, you aren't smart. Or because you are Asian, that you are smart. Race-based studies only look at averages. And regardless of what the averages might say, we can then go out into the world and see that there are plenty of dumb white people. Trust me, I know plenty of really really really stupid white people.
So why do I like race-based studies?
As I said, looking at averages is mostly meaningless. Because there is so much diversity between people. I mean, all of these "racists" who everyone seems to hate so much. Are usually quick to use people like Thomas Sowell and Walter Walliams when talking about social and economic policies. And I personally love Thomas Sowell.
So if I say race-based studies ignore individuals, and that there is so much overlap between human populations. Then you might wonder, "then what good are race-based studies."
In my view, there is one very important goal that is achieved by creating race-based studies. And that is to absolutely destroy the equality myth.
Basically, there are socialists who talk every day about a pay gap between men and women. There are socialists who talk about pay gaps between blacks and whites. They aren't happy if a company hires a disproportionate amount of black people or white people or Asians. And they want to use the government to effectively enforce a "fairness" policy. Many many colleges and other institutions still keep in place affirmative-action programs, and other race-based admissions and hiring.
The reason is that, just like the guy before me, they want there to be "equality of opportunity". But the reality is that, they aren't just happy with equality of opportunity. They want to see results. And the only results they can be happy with, is hiring and pay equity between groups.
Now, if races were really equal. Then it would be rational to expect at least "near equality" of outcomes. But if races aren't equal, and not even close. Then you cannot expect any level of equality. And any system you put in place to create more equality, would always benefit one group and penalize another.
In my view of the world, I want studies on intelligence in regards to individuals, groups, cultures, religions, everything. Plastered on every single wall. Until anyone who believes that everyone should be paid equally. Or that the government could in any way enforce a "fair wage". Is branded complete morons and ignored for the stupidity that they are.
If we know that people are different, hugely different, and there is nothing that can be done to change that. Then the best policy is just to leave people alone.
On the other hand, if you think that intelligence is solely impacted by environment. Then many will support government action to change the environment of individuals, to achieve a goal. Usually that change of environment means spending a lot of money, and the regulation of people and businesses.
I admit that race-based studies could also stir up racism. But I don't think racism is a problem as long as there is a free market.
One of my favorite quotes by Thomas Sowell, "Racists might prefer one race to another. But they prefer themselves to everyone else."
And then, "The income gap between Eastern and Western Europeans, is greater than the income gap between whites and blacks in America. Income differences are the rule not the exception."
Free markets, free trade, and free immigration. Anything else is dangerous protectionism.
Since I posted a video of Thomas Sowell. I figured I would post one of Walter Williams as well.
You ever watch any of these videos and feel ashamed?
As you say, looking at averages is essentially meaningless. But studying those averages to prove inequality and to justify treating people unequally is important? Huh?? You do realize that there is a disconnect in logic between your two positions?
You are looking at it the wrong way. You are assuming that "race" or "ancestry" based studies can only be useful for telling certain groups that they are incapable of accomplishing certain things. I disagree. Race-based studies do not say that blacks cannot be engineers. They don't say that blacks cannot be doctors.
They don't say that just because you are black, you aren't smart. Or because you are Asian, that you are smart. Race-based studies only look at averages. And regardless of what the averages might say, we can then go out into the world and see that there are plenty of dumb white people. Trust me, I know plenty of really really really stupid white people.
So why do I like race-based studies?
As I said, looking at averages is mostly meaningless. Because there is so much diversity between people. I mean, all of these "racists" who everyone seems to hate so much. Are usually quick to use people like Thomas Sowell and Walter Walliams when talking about social and economic policies. And I personally love Thomas Sowell.
So if I say race-based studies ignore individuals, and that there is so much overlap between human populations. Then you might wonder, "then what good are race-based studies."
In my view, there is one very important goal that is achieved by creating race-based studies. And that is to absolutely destroy the equality myth.
Basically, there are socialists who talk every day about a pay gap between men and women. There are socialists who talk about pay gaps between blacks and whites. They aren't happy if a company hires a disproportionate amount of black people or white people or Asians. And they want to use the government to effectively enforce a "fairness" policy. Many many colleges and other institutions still keep in place affirmative-action programs, and other race-based admissions and hiring.
The reason is that, just like the guy before me, they want there to be "equality of opportunity". But the reality is that, they aren't just happy with equality of opportunity. They want to see results. And the only results they can be happy with, is hiring and pay equity between groups.
Now, if races were really equal. Then it would be rational to expect at least "near equality" of outcomes. But if races aren't equal, and not even close. Then you cannot expect any level of equality. And any system you put in place to create more equality, would always benefit one group and penalize another.
In my view of the world, I want studies on intelligence in regards to individuals, groups, cultures, religions, everything. Plastered on every single wall. Until anyone who believes that everyone should be paid equally. Or that the government could in any way enforce a "fair wage". Is branded complete morons and ignored for the stupidity that they are.
If we know that people are different, hugely different, and there is nothing that can be done to change that. Then the best policy is just to leave people alone.
On the other hand, if you think that intelligence is solely impacted by environment. Then many will support government action to change the environment of individuals, to achieve a goal. Usually that change of environment means spending a lot of money, and the regulation of people and businesses.
I admit that race-based studies could also stir up racism. But I don't think racism is a problem as long as there is a free market.
One of my favorite quotes by Thomas Sowell, "Racists might prefer one race to another. But they prefer themselves to everyone else."
And then, "The income gap between Eastern and Western Europeans, is greater than the income gap between whites and blacks in America. Income differences are the rule not the exception."
Free markets, free trade, and free immigration. Anything else is dangerous protectionism.
Since I posted a video of Thomas Sowell. I figured I would post one of Walter Williams as well.
You ever watch any of these videos and feel ashamed?
If those studies come to the conclusion that certain ethnic groups are less intelligent for genetic reasons, then what they say is that far fewer (as a percentage) people of those groups can become ingineers, doctors, etc.
Pay gap? Socialists? You are mixing things here that should not be mixed. First, if there is a pay gap, then it is there, no matter whether a socialist or a capitalist looks at the data.
What is wrong about equal pay for the same job? I don't think that is a stupid goal.
Equal? That does not mean identical. Of course some people look different. The question is, ARE they different beyond such superficial aspects such as color? Affirmative action is based on the assumption that they are not different inside, so to speak.
Since there are no scientific, clear results, assuming the opposite would be racist. Thus for the time being the goal is indeed to bring about equal outcome, not just equal opportunities. To people who believe one race is more stupid than another, equal opportunities is just a lip service anyway as they have to assume that equal opportunity will not lead to equal success, anyway.
It's like saying the whole world can join my elite country club, provided they have a million in their bank account. In the US that would also pretty much exclude minorities.
"If we know that people are different, hugely different, and there is nothing that can be done to change that. Then the best policy is just to leave people alone."
"I admit that race-based studies could also stir up racism. But I don't think racism is a problem as long as there is a free market."
Those are disturbing attitudes in my view. Your Sowell quote (I did not watch the video, limited traffic...) is wrong in my view. Humans are social beings, they do want to belong to a circle of individuums, and in the case of racists that excludes people who are different from them. In a country where there are smaller minorities while all the power is in the hand of the majority, that is a huge problem. Also, various racist countries such as SA have shown that even racists are not all egoists, they do care about others, but only if they look like they do. That is where cronyism etc. comes from.
The income gap between Eastern and Western Europe is the result of politics, nobody would say it is because of genetic reasons as Slavic people are basically the same as Germanic and Celtic people.
As I said, I do not watch such long videos as I have limited Internet access. Feel free to quote key statements from those videos in your posts...
I think culture affects learning but humans across the board have the same intelligence and that's the way God made us. So if a cultural group has bad scores they may share the same racial ethnicity but that is not what affects test scores. It's values and education and family mentors.
If those studies come to the conclusion that certain ethnic groups are less intelligent for genetic reasons, then what they say is that far fewer (as a percentage) people of those groups can become ingineers, doctors, etc.
That is exactly what I'm saying. But it doesn't mean you cannot be an engineer or a doctor. It doesn't mean anything. Because there is so much human diversity.
I mean, all tests show that men are better at math than women. A professor at Harvard made a comment in regards to the fact that there are basically zero women in the most advanced math classes in the best colleges.
In every testing system in every country in the entire world. Women score better on reading and writing, and men score better on math and science. There are countries where women score more similarly to men in math and science, but even more outpace men in reading and writing.
Does any sane person believe that women and men naturally have exactly the same innate abilities in certain fields of study? For instance, women tend to be much better than men at multi-tasking. If that is true, the idea that women and men are equal is utterly ridiculous.
And the idea that all races are exactly equal in all aspects of behavior and intelligence is also completely illogical. It is to pretend that genes play no role whatsoever in human intelligence. And such an idea must pretend that human intelligence in humans can never be changed by "dumb" people having far more kids than intelligent people.
It just doesn't make any scientific sense. And any presumption of equality between any groups, is completely illogical. And you should go in the bathroom mirror and repeat that to yourself until you get it.
But just because you can finally grow up and recognize that unquestionable fact. Doesn't mean you know for sure which group is more intelligent. Or by how much. It doesn't necessitate action. It doesn't mean you want people forcefully sterilized. It doesn't mean you want people killed off. It doesn't mean anything.
All it really means is that, you recognize the fundamental problem with socialism. In that, if there is no equality, you cannot expect equality, you cannot create equality, and so you cannot have equality. And any attempt to create equality is futile, wasteful, and unfair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Pay gap? Socialists? You are mixing things here that should not be mixed. First, if there is a pay gap, then it is there, no matter whether a socialist or a capitalist looks at the data.
What is wrong about equal pay for the same job? I don't think that is a stupid goal.
There are more factors at play than you want to realize. Hiring someone is a lot of risk. And there are hundreds of factors involved in hiring someone. I've never had a job where your pay is exactly the same as everyone else's doing the same job. The wage you receive when you are first hired on is always low. Then you get raises over time, based on tenure and performance. In fact, because of tenure and performance, the total pay between two individuals doing the same exact job can vary by more than 50%, depending on the field.
But if we want to just look at the starting wage. That is going to be based on things like previous experience. Or other factors like your age(young people are assumed to be less mature than older people).
If we were being fair for a minute. You would realize that certain "groups", tend to be more "risky" than others. For instance, who wants to hire a felon? Now, while I realize that most minorities aren't criminals. The odds of hiring someone at random, and them stealing. Is simply going to be much higher if hiring a sort of "random" black high-school dropout. Than a young Asian kid.
I've worked in retail or food service for quite a bit of my working life. And the amount of theft in those kinds of businesses is hard to believe. Most of the jobs I was hired onto, was because friends or family basically gave me the jobs, because they "needed someone honest" to work for them. Because the stealing was so rampant.
Like I said. Your concept of equality is completely predicated on this idea that people are all equal to begin with. That every single person carries exactly the same risks, and everyone has exactly the same ability or potential. None of these things are actually true. And trust me, I've never had a job where everyone worked equally hard, even if doing the same job.
There are always some people who work harder than others. And many times the people who work the hardest, are the ones who never ask for anything. While the crappy workers are always the ones demanding raises and promotions. Its the "squeaking wheel gets the grease" problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Equal? That does not mean identical. Of course some people look different. The question is, ARE they different beyond such superficial aspects such as color? Affirmative action is based on the assumption that they are not different inside, so to speak.
Since there are no scientific, clear results, assuming the opposite would be racist. Thus for the time being the goal is indeed to bring about equal outcome, not just equal opportunities. To people who believe one race is more stupid than another, equal opportunities is just a lip service anyway as they have to assume that equal opportunity will not lead to equal success, anyway.
It's like saying the whole world can join my elite country club, provided they have a million in their bank account. In the US that would also pretty much exclude minorities.
The lack of "clear scientific results". Isn't really a matter of "some studies say blacks are smarter, some say whites are smarter". The lack of "clear results", is completely dependent on the culture/environment/nurture argument. Which basically says "since culture and environment affects intelligence, unless all people are raised in exactly equal environments. Its impossible to know whether the gaps are genetic or environmental."
Which sounds nice right? The problem is that, since its impossible for even two people of any group to have exactly the same environments. Then according to that logic, its impossible to ever prove anything about intelligence. So its pointless to even study it. In fact, it even refuses to allow the comparison of people from different groups even if they are from the same neighborhood with the same income. Because there might possibly be "other environmental factors" such as "racism". Which could skew the numbers.
In fact, as long as racism exists in any shape or form. Then that position says that it is impossible to measure intelligence with any certainty on any level. And since racism is unlikely to completely disappear, unless race itself disappears. Then according to that logic. It is ridiculous to study IQ on any level for anyone, ever. Because it can never produce meaningful results.
And while I'm going to disagree with that position. It isn't actually illogical at all. It makes perfect sense. But the real intention of such an argument, is to try to reinforce this idea that humans are actually equal. And that the only thing which changes human potential, is only environment.
But I think you recognize that that is ridiculous. I mean, do you really believe that all people are conceived with effectively the same intellectual capacity? And that the only thing that makes one person a genius, and another person "slow", is their environment? Are you really arguing that regardless of who your parents are, that all pairings have exactly equal chances of produces children with high IQ's? That "genius sperm-banks" are completely useless?
The truth is, it is impossible for any rational person to believe that all groups, regardless of how many ways you carve up the populations of the world, would have exactly the same number/percentage of geniuses. I mean, human population groups don't have the same percentage of people who are left-handed for instance. And being left-handed greatly affects the way your brain is wired.
I mean, did you know that of the last seven US presidents. Five of seven presidents have either been left-handed or ambidextrous? That means, if left-handed people were considered an "ethnic group". Over the last four decades, they are about 250 times more represented in the presidency, than their population size would expect. Why are lefties so overrepresented in politics? The argument is that, using your left hand causes some parts of your brain to grow larger. And the parts of your brain which control some of the motor functions in lefties, also affect communication centers in your brain. Basically making left-handed people better speakers, and better at multi-tasking(in fact, left-handers in general tend to have much higher incomes as well).
The point is, if people aren't equal, you cannot expect equality. The problem with affirmative-action, is that it expects equality of outcomes, because it expects human groups to be inherently equal. But that, as I've repeated over and over, is not possible. Thus, affirmative-action is completely illogical. And its application is always completely arbitrary, and as a result, incredibly unfair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Those are disturbing attitudes in my view. Your Sowell quote (I did not watch the video, limited traffic...) is wrong in my view. Humans are social beings, they do want to belong to a circle of individuums, and in the case of racists that excludes people who are different from them. In a country where there are smaller minorities while all the power is in the hand of the majority, that is a huge problem. Also, various racist countries such as SA have shown that even racists are not all egoists, they do care about others, but only if they look like they do. That is where cronyism etc. comes from.
Look, the argument that I'm trying to make, as well as Sowell, and Walter Williams, and Milton Friedman, and many others. Is that the real source of power in places like America and South Africa, in regards to racism. Was in government control. It wasn't as a result of free-market economics.
Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman argued that apartheid started because unions didn't like cheap black labor, or didn't like blacks demanding equal wages. In America, most of the unions in their early days were incredibly anti-blacks. Most of the blacks in those days were willing to work for less. And the argument was that "the black man was depressing the white mans wage". And those laws which required government to pay the union wage on government contracts. Was used to block blacks out of the labor market.
What I never understand about blacks, which is what always bothers me. Is why they are so opposed to the free market.
The free market never wronged blacks. Race barriers were being erased in the free market long before they were being erased by government. Sports, the media, entertainment, and most non-union businesses, had integrated long before the Civil Rights act was ever passed.
In fact, if you want a more interesting fact. The Supreme Court case that most people hold up as a travesty. The "one-drop rule", Plessy V. Ferguson.
That court case was actually fought, because the railroads were pissed off that they had to use separate railroad cars by race. The railroads would have to pay extra money for two railroad cars when traveling through certain states, because of laws in those states.
The court case was actually a setup. They hired "Plessy" who was 7/8ths white. To board the "white" railroad car. And then they hired basically a private detective to arrest him. So that his case could be brought before the courts.
I mean, it was the free market fighting against the government to overturn segregated railroad cars. And yet, blacks somehow believe that the government is always on their side.
I don't believe that the government has done absolutely anything beneficial for black people, ever. Of course, I don't think the government does anything good for anyone(so many that isn't a fair statement).
And while black people on one hand will bad-mouth the government. And complain about the police, the courts, etc. They are always pushing for more and more of the same. Its just, disappointing.
Stop being so afraid. Stop listening to condescending white people who treat you like children. Telling you that without the government, that you would never be able to accomplish anything. To me, I would be angry and embarrassed. Why you embrace it, is just beyond me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
The income gap between Eastern and Western Europe is the result of politics, nobody would say it is because of genetic reasons as Slavic people are basically the same as Germanic and Celtic people.
Look, in the same way there are going to be IQ differences between whites and blacks. There are IQ differences between European groups as well. Or even between the same groups. For instance, Northern Italians and Southern Italians. Or even the Irish and the British.
And I get tired of talking about blacks and whites anyway. Black people for instance, have incredible diversity among them. West Africans and East Africans, are probably more different from each other. Than white people are different from Asians. I remember reading an article one time about "the size of Africa", that make a pretty surprising statement.
If you get on a map of Africa right now. And you were to draw a line from Senegal, and take it all the way to the tip of South Africa, going by land(going through Nigeria, Congo, etc). That is a distance of about 5,000 miles.
Which is about the same distance as it is from London, England to Beijing, China. And yet, along the route from London to Beijing. We recognize incredible diversity between human groups(Whites, middle-easterners, Asians). While everyone tends to lump Sub-Saharans as some single group. It doesn't really make any sense.
But please, if you listen to even a single thing I say. Just take with you that equality doesn't exist and cannot exist. And thus, any attempt to create equality can never actually produce real equality. It can only create an illusion. An illusion which favors some, and punishes others. Just stop it.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 12-21-2013 at 06:47 AM..
Upon seeing this thread I thought, like many respondents "what the point of studying race when there is no such thing as race amongst humans."
We are all the same - the human race - people, whatever you want to call us - homosapiens, whatever.
There actually cannot be a study on "race" per se in regards to humans because genetically we are all the same race.
I do feel that those who think "race" studies should be done are seeking to somehow change the genetic composition of humans and make us all not of the same race. The reason race was studied initially was to prove the superiority of those from specific parts of Europe. It is interesting as well that the creation of these tests and studies have arisen from this same group so one can conclude that those seeking to continue along the path of creating intelligence quotients and seeking to prove how smart one so-called "race" is from another is all about denigrating people who look different from them.
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned haplagroups (which I find very interesting) and how the Neanderthal blood in Europeans gave them an advantage. I actually have had discussions with a similar geeky disposition as myself and that friend stated that the Neanderthal blood in Europeans may be the reason why they decided to go around and be barbarians and destroy other people around the world and have the audacity to think they were better than other cultures due to their own inherent arrogance and violent tendencies that are probably related to the prehistoric Neanderthal blood in their veins....REALLY crazy huh?
But in regards to culture, poverty, and nutrition, I do think all of these correspond to higher or lesser IQs. I don't think an IQ is a measure of anyone's exact intelligence though and I feel the IQ test is based upon a European definition of intelligence that cannot possibly measure intelligence levels that are valued in other cultures.
And even if there are racial traits -- the race groups are too poorly defined. Where would the cut-off be --- there really are not clear cut races, it's more a huge spectrum -- blending or overlapping.
The one drop rule means that black Americans may have more European and Asian ancestors than they have African so you would not be able to tell anything from them. And then the newly created "races" like hispanics who are also a blend of other races -- how could they be studied? And "race" is really just the box someone checks off on a form or claims to be. You really aren't required to prove it and many people don't know their ancestry, or they don't know who the mailman was.
Even diseases like sickle cell --- most blacks don't have it so there isn't anything you can get from "race" studies that can be applied to individuals. Most whites don't have cystic fibrosis.
That doesn't mean genetic studies and DNA research isn't useful but there isn't really a race gene.
Gee, judging from the length of your post that topic seems to be very important to you, much more so than to me frankly, which is why I will try to keep it short. I still don't get your message.
You seem to have what one might call racist views, but you shy away from saying so, for instance when you say it doesn't mean anything, citing human diversity. So, do or don't you think that as a whole some "races" are more intelligent than others?
Your analogy to the sexes is off because with men and women science KNOWS they are different, one can literally see structural differences in the brain on a scanner. That is not the case with the brains from different races.
Plus, the different brains of men and women both have their advantages, one cannot say one is better than the other. Now, people saying one race is more intelligent than another are doing just that. In view of the importance of intelligence in our society that is a severe assumption with lots of implications.
While there is not absolute equality, equality should be the goal of society. That is all that I am saying. And the remaining inequality should be based on individuals only, not on races or ethnic groups.
Blacks in the US have indeed a worse reputation than Asians, ultimately for historical and cultural reasons, but not because blacks are less intelligent or otherwise genetically different.
Of course some people are more industrious than others, but that difference exists within every ethnic group as well. I think ambition does have a large genetic or otherwise innate component, but that applies to all races. Even within families, in this respect I am the exact opposite of my brother for instance. There are studies suggesting it has to do with whether or not you are the first or the second child your parents had.
Exactly, it is not possible to prove anything in this respect, which is not due to racism by the way, but due to the complexity of the matter. Anyway, and since that is the case, in my view one has to assume equality. It is like with the law: as long as your guilt is not proven, you are innocent.
As far as I know the percentage of left-handedness is pretty much the same all over the world. In some countries it is still frowned upon and thus they try to force pupils to write with their right hands. But that is unnatural.
Funny you mention it because I am ambidextrous myself, I don't notice any difference to other people, I don't earn more or anything, to the contrary. I have a rather high IQ, but I never made anything out of it, because I lack in other respects, for instance I lack ambition and am full of contempt for a lot of things that seem to mean the world to most people, thus I don't get along with others well.
Affirmative action does not expect equal outcomes, but strives for them. The fact that it has not achieved that and probably never will, can have all kinds of reasons. Your conclusion that it is due to entire human groups being unequal is just your assumption and maybe even hope.
I don't share your view on the origins of racist systems and countries. That attitude was already present long before there were any unions, it became obvious from the very beginning of colonialism on, the people with more power thought they were superior, which is actually an ancient idea. Thousands of years ago in the Middle East all kinds of peoples with different gods were fighting each other, and whoever won a war was considered to have had the support of the respective god, who was considered more powerful. That attitude was even shared by the losers. And later during colonialism that sentiment surfaced again, when whites were racists not least based on their Christian religion. They did not even consider blacks, Indians, etc. humans for quite some time.
The one-drop rule, railroads, unions, etc. came much later, they were just symptoms of the ancient underlying attitude.
There are no intelligence differences among Europeans, either. Southern Italians and Northern Italians have quite a different culture, though, the northern third or so is influenced by Germanic culture, which is different from the typical Mediterranean culture.
Geographical distance does not mean much as population migration and settlement can vary a lot. West Africa for instance is relatively small, but genetically it is very diverse, which suggests it has been inhabited for a very long time. In most of Europe that is not the case, not least due to the ice age.
One indication that there are no inherent intelligence differences is the fact that there can be huge fluctuations in the results of tests like Pisa. Some countries improve a lot over time, others deteriorate a lot without there being a demographic change.
There is a public school in the troubled Lisbon borough of Amadora, which is has been dominated by African immigrant kids for quite some time. It used to be a very underachieving school, but it has made giant improvements recently, they are experimenting with new approaches to teaching etc. According to the most recent rankings it is now academically way better than the average, i.e. mostly white Portuguese school.
I disagree, under equal conditions, there will be equal outcomes for different races, with the same variations withing each group of course. The remaining differences between ethnic groups have to do with things like religion. In a country where for instance Islam keeps half the population from getting an education, of course the result for society as a whole will be much worse.
Children with Downs Syndrome who are brought up in a home with their families usually have far more intellectual potential than those who are institutionalized.
There are far too many variables when it comes to intelligience. Mother's use of drugs and alcohol while pregnant, prenatal nutrition, infant stimulation, early childhood environment. A child left alone as an infant for hours in a quiet room won't do as well one who kept busy and involved with other family members.
Look at fetal alcohol syndrome. Prenatal hypertension of the mother can lead to low birth rate of the baby. And there are lead levels that you'd need to factor in.
And you'd have to actually define race with dna testing, I suppose you could eliminate all mixed ancestry people from the studies but since most people, especially blacks and hispanics are actually mixed ancestry, and socially the one-drop rule is still how people define race, what good would the studies do?
I disagree, under equal conditions, there will be equal outcomes for different races, with the same variations withing each group of course. The remaining differences between ethnic groups have to do with things like religion. In a country where for instance Islam keeps half the population from getting an education, of course the result for society as a whole will be much worse.
That seems a little idealistic/unrealistic don't you think?
Is it inappropriate to study race and intelligence?
It is no more inappropriate than to study race and athletic ability. Google Robert Shockley.
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.
?