Political Correctness

[HenrySwanson]

Can I propose a new idea.

Instead of saying "intelligence is equal across ethnicities" or "average intelligence differs between ethnicities", that it be more prudent to say we don't know if intelligence varies between ethnicities?

 

[PocketZeven]

Can I propose a new idea.

Instead of saying "intelligence is equal across ethnicities" or "average intelligence differs between ethnicities", that it be more prudent to say we don't know if intelligence varies between ethnicities?

"average intelligence varies in the human species". There is no conclusive peer-reviewed evidence to conclude that one ethnicity is more intelligent. The IQ test as we know are also not a very accurate tool to measure IQ accros different cultures. It is and has been pseudo-science.

I have no idea why you think that there are certain ethnicities could be more intelligent then others. All these so called research are so biased and subjective that they will always conclude that white people from anglo saxion origin are "more intelligent", because the one doing the research are white themselves and use methods they are familiar with.

edit: removed irrelevant comments

 

[HenrySwanson]

I have no idea why you think that there are certain ethnicities could be more intelligent then others. All these so called research are so biased and subjective that they will always conclude that white people from anglo saxion origin are "more intelligent", because the one doing the research are white themselves and use methods they are familiar with.

edit: removed irrelevant comments

Not really - I think East Asians consistently outperform Anglo Saxons in IQ tests

EDIT:
I have no idea why you think that there are certain ethnicities could be more intelligent then others

Thinking about it logically, you assume everyone has average intelligence despite...

- Single point mutations having considerable impact on individuals and these varying according to ethnicity
- Height variance between ethnicities and this being due to multiple genes
- The history of how civilizations have developed and how they are now developing now between ethnicities
- How different ethnicities have achieved success in comparison to each other in Western countries
- How crude measurements of IQ have shown disparity, and these have aligned with universities in selecting students based on ethnicity.

Despite all this, and more, I think why intelligence - a product of the most complex organ known in the world and subject to many, many genes may vary between the different ethnicities.

I have to ask, why do people think it's universally the same?

 

[PocketZeven]

Not really - I think East Asians consistently outperform Anglo Saxons in IQ tests

That is because of multiple factors, for example the culture, school system and in the case of the chinese the lack of a phonetic language system. In China they litterally use their brain differently to read and write. If that gives you an advantage in an IQ test? I have no idea, but I do know an average Chinese needs to remember at least 2500-3000 characters to read and write. With each character having a different pronounciation and tone.

 

[HenrySwanson]

That is because of multiple factors, for example the culture, school system and in the case of the chinese the lack of a phonetic language system. In China they litterally use their brain differently to read and write. If that gives you an advantage in an IQ test? I have no idea, but I do know an average Chinese needs to remember at least 2500-3000 characters to read and write. With each character having a different pronounciation and tone.

I edited my post above but isn't it still for East Asians born in Western countries too?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not really - I think East Asians consistently outperform Anglo Saxons in IQ tests

What do you mean by "Anglo-Saxon", and what's the source? Given your terminology I expect it to be Ecclesiastica Brittanica.

 

[PocketZeven]

I edited my post above but isn't it still for East Asians born in Western countries too?

A lot of physical traits depend on their cultural diet, resources and surroundings. For example less advanced culture has not been exposed with certain basic math. How do you objectively measure their intelligence? Also in different era's certain cultures have proven to be far more advanced then others, while declining after time progresses. Egyptians where incredibly advanced for their time, but was that a spike in intelligence? Have they become less intelligent over time?

It depends if these east asian born in western countries fully assimilate or still retain their own culture, diet and language. Also is there research out there that show that a person height has any connection to their intelligence? With east asians being 5-10cm shorter on average then white ethnicities.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What do you mean by "Anglo-Saxon", and what's the source? Given your terminology I expect it to be Ecclesiastica Brittanica.

Sorry, meant to copy PocketZeven's "white from Anglo Saxon background"

Also is there research out there that show that a person height has any connection to their intelligence? With east asians being 5-10cm shorter on average then white ethnicities.

No that point was to show that single point mutations vary in ethnicities, as do things that rely on multiple genes (height as an example).

Intelligence we can only surmise must be subject to a wide amount of genes, so it follows that it varies between ethnicities as my other two examples do.

 

[PocketZeven]

Sorry, meant to copy PocketZeven's "white from Anglo Saxon background"


No that point was to show that single point mutations vary in ethnicities, as do things that rely on multiple genes (height as an example).

Intelligence we can only surmise must be subject to a wide amount of genes, so it follows that it varies between ethnicities as my other two examples do.

The connection of physical properties can be linked to diet and health. These properties evolve over multiple generations. Like the average height of east asians has been rising over the past decades. Lets say we assume IQ is also determined by ones diet and health, wouldnt that mean that the most healthy person can evolve in the most intelligent? Why are supposedly east asians more intelligent? Because they eat more fish? Are shorter people more intelligent? Are taller ethnicities less intelligent etc.

edit:

What do you mean by "Anglo-Saxon", and what's the source? Given your terminology I expect it to be Ecclesiastica Brittanica.

Sorry. My bad. I am not a scientist so used a definition I was familiar with. Thanks for correcting, but I assume you understand the intention of the use.

edit2:
How come an afro- american outperforms any native african in the 100 meters? Why are jamaicans so fast?

 

[Danoff]

I think why intelligence - a product of the most complex organ known in the world and subject to many, many genes may vary between the different ethnicities.

Intelligence itself is a very complex and diverse topic, the different manifestations of which will not be subject to the same sets of genes. Is it smart to be a fantastic chef? Inventing new dishes and flavor combinations? Is it smart to be a nuclear physicist? Is it smart to be a neurosurgeon? Is it smart to be a virtuoso musician? Is it smart to be a painter? What if the painter paints abstracts? Is it smart to be a writer? What if the writer touches and moves the minds and emotions of billions?

In my view, all of these are intelligence, and all of them are likely the result of very different gene combinations mixed with unique personal experiences. So the notion that there is an "intelligence" is not really true, there are a large number of aptitudes that fall within the space of "intelligence". So there is no hard and fast measure of how it "varies" between ethnicities, because it's a hypersurface across an n-dimensional space. You can't describe it as up or down, higher or lower. At best, for your purposes, you could describe it, on average, as morphing.

It's also, in my view, very much folly to try to capture this and quantify it with a 5 minute series of questions entirely focused on one subject.

Edit:

I just have to capture this thought while I'm thinking about it. Intelligence is also something that I think is not entirely genetic. We know that the human brain changes physically due to experience and stimulus. Intelligence (and the brain in general) should be thought of partly as a muscle, which can be grown and developed, and which can atrophy.

So if you're trying to measure the intelligence of an ethnicity (not that ethnicity really exists in a clean way), you're in part trying to measure the quantities and types of experiences of those ethnicities. And that's something that's going to change over time.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Is it smart to be a fantastic chef?

Actually... that one often is genetic

EDIT: While more chefs are supertasters than not it's not enough to assume a genetic advantage. I retract that statement

 

[Danoff]

Actually... that one often is genetic

Taste sensitivity being genetic doesn't necessarily confer that being a great chef is genetic. In fact, too much sensitivity could be bad for a chef.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Taste sensitivity being genetic doesn't necessarily confer that being a great chef is genetic. In fact, too much sensitivity could be bad for a chef.

You're right, post edited.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Intelligence itself is a very complex and diverse topic, the different manifestations of which will not be subject to the same sets of genes. Is it smart to be a fantastic chef? Inventing new dishes and flavor combinations? Is it smart to be a nuclear physicist? Is it smart to be a neurosurgeon? Is it smart to be a virtuoso musician? Is it smart to be a painter? What if the painter paints abstracts? Is it smart to be a writer? What if the writer touches and moves the minds and emotions of billions?

In my view, all of these are intelligence, and all of them are likely the result of very different gene combinations mixed with unique personal experiences. So the notion that there is an "intelligence" is not really true, there are a large number of aptitudes that fall within the space of "intelligence". So there is no hard and fast measure of how it "varies" between ethnicities, because it's a hypersurface across an n-dimensional space. You can't describe it as up or down, higher or lower. At best, for your purposes, you could describe it, on average, as morphing.

It's also, in my view, very much folly to try to capture this and quantify it with a 5 minute series of questions entirely focused on one subject.

Edit:

I just have to capture this thought while I'm thinking about it. Intelligence is also something that I think is not entirely genetic. We know that the human brain changes physically due to experience and stimulus. Intelligence (and the brain in general) should be thought of partly as a muscle, which can be grown and developed, and which can atrophy.

So if you're trying to measure the intelligence of an ethnicity (not that ethnicity really exists in a clean way), you're in part trying to measure the quantities and types of experiences of those ethnicities. And that's something that's going to change over time.

I think the traditional view of intelligence still holds so that while a fantastic chef may be creative he is not necessarily intelligent, whereas all neurosurgeons are intelligent. That's not to diminish the skills of the chef - I would call my dad one of the best mechanics in the world because of his resourcefulness and ingenuity but he would be the first to admit he's not that intelligent. In a lot of ways I would prefer to have my dad's brain rather than an intelligent one because I would be highly valued in my field (he's been flown to different continents to fix rally prepared cars) but I believe there is still a distinction between intelligence and being gifted in a craft.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think the traditional view of intelligence still holds so that while a fantastic chef may be creative he is not necessarily intelligent, whereas all neurosurgeons are intelligent. That's not to diminish the skills of the chef - I would call my dad one of the best mechanics in the world because of his resourcefulness and ingenuity but he would be the first to admit he's not that intelligent.

It seems like you're trying to apply a single measure of intelligence to many different types. My old physics teacher worked on MOD nuclear programmes early in his career but still burnt half his lab down by mis-wiring a kettle.

 

[HenrySwanson]

It seems like you're trying to apply a single measure of intelligence to many different types. My old physics teacher worked on MOD nuclear programmes early in his career but still burnt half his lab down by mis-wiring a kettle.

Even if that is the case, I'm sure he would:

- Have a higher than average IQ
- Be able to hold intelligent conversations
- Have an advanced knowledge of an intellectual subject

EDIT: I'm not saying those in non-intellectual jobs are not intelligent. My smartest uncle used to work in the garbage tip and one of my memories of him was his ability to solve the countdown maths puzzles

 

[TenEightyOne]

- Have a higher than average IQ

Often meaningless.

- Be able to hold intelligent conversations

Often meaningless.

- Have an advanced knowledge of an intellectual subject

Elitist and often meaningless.

 

[Biggles]

Intelligence itself is a very complex and diverse topic, the different manifestations of which will not be subject to the same sets of genes. Is it smart to be a fantastic chef? Inventing new dishes and flavor combinations? Is it smart to be a nuclear physicist? Is it smart to be a neurosurgeon? Is it smart to be a virtuoso musician? Is it smart to be a painter? What if the painter paints abstracts? Is it smart to be a writer? What if the writer touches and moves the minds and emotions of billions?

Is it smart ...to be president of the United States?

 

[HERE4BEER3]

Isn't intelligence kinda subjective? Like TenEightyOne said about the physics teacher who can't wire a kettle. I've worked with some electrical engineers who could design a Hydro Dam but need a 10 minute explanation how to get to a certain webpage and need things repeated to them 3 times before they seem to understand it, even then I'm not sure.

I think intelligence would be more about how quickly someone can adapt to new and retain old information. Sure most people can study a subject for 15 years and know everything there is to know about it, but struggle to check themselves out at the grocery store or be completely lost trying to operate any sort of machinery or equipment.

Just because someone has no prior knowledge or training in a particular subject doesn't make them unintelligent.

 

[Biggles]

Just because someone has no prior knowledge or training in a particular subject doesn't make them unintelligent.

I thought it was pretty well accepted now that intelligence tests are inevitably culturally biased. Consider an isolated tribal group with no knowledge of the outside world. How would you be able to conduct a test that meaningfully judges the intelligence of individuals from that group? Testing individuals from different cultural backgrounds, less extreme than that, must surely run into similar issues?

 

[Dotini]

I think intelligence and character have a deal of overlap. For instance, the qualities of curiosity, alertness, energy, prudent and appropriate risk-taking, making life-long friends, having good relations with family and other people, honesty and paying your debts, setting goals and achieving them, general enjoyment of life, all of these things are both indicative of intelligence and good character.

 

[HERE4BEER3]

I though it was pretty well accepted now that intelligence tests are inevitably culturally biased. Consider an isolated tribal group with no knowledge of the outside world. How would you be able to conduct a test that meaningfully judges the intelligence of individuals from that group? Testing individuals from different cultural backgrounds, less extreme than that, must surely run into similar issues?

Which is why actual intelligence is subjective. That isolated tribesman can probably build you a sturdy shack from sticks and branches in less than a day and he was only shown how to do it once, he'll know what plants will and won't kill you etc. Then, assuming you can communicate with him, if you throw some easy math equations at him he'd probably assume you were a sorcerer. Meanwhile, some braniac nuclear scientist might not know how to properly hold and swing a hatchet. Or maybe he can split the atom but struggle to figure out his tax return.

I'm not sure how we can measure it, I'm not that smart

 

[Biggles]

Which is why actual intelligence is subjective. That isolated tribesman can probably build you a sturdy shack from sticks and branches in less than a day and he was only shown how to do it once, he'll know what plants will and won't kill you etc. Then, assuming you can communicate with him, if you throw some easy math equations at him he'd probably assume you were a sorcerer. Meanwhile, some braniac nuclear scientist might not know how to properly hold and swing a hatchet. Or maybe he can split the atom but struggle to figure out his tax return.

I'm not sure how we can measure it, I'm not that smart

Yeah - but you're really talking about different kinds of intelligence. I'm saying how do you even go about devising a way of testing for "intelligence" that is not culturally dependent? The isolated tribesman is an extreme example - he's likely to have no reference for math, reading or other similar skills that are commonly used as the basis for intelligence tests in the developed world ... but individuals actually in the the developed world have such a wide range of exposure to cultural norms that I don't understand how any test can comprehensively measure relative intelligence in any meaningfully absolute way.

 

[Dotini]

I don't understand how any test can comprehensively measure relative intelligence in any meaningfully absolute way.

Intelligent people are very often the successful people. Successful in school tests, yes, but more importantly in the greater test of life, particularly tests of adversity and misfortune. The successful person has the qualities of patience, persistence and resourcefulness.

 

[Biggles]

Intelligent people are very often the successful people. Successful in school tests, yes, but more importantly in the greater test of life, particularly tests of adversity and misfortune. The successful person has the qualities of patience, persistence and resourcefulness.

What is the point of this comment?

As I see it, people are "intelligent" in all sorts of different ways & people are "successful" in all sorts of different ways. Success in "school tests" is not a necessarily a good predictor of success in life ... nor is it necessarily a good indicator of a broader range of abilities that could be considered as "intelligence". Tests are inevitably culturally particular to a significant degree which undermines their usefulness.

 

[Dotini]

What is the point of this comment?

As I see it, people are "intelligent" in all sorts of different ways & people are "successful" in all sorts of different ways. Success in "school tests" is not a necessarily a good predictor of success in life ... nor is it necessarily a good indicator of a broader range of abilities that could be considered as "intelligence". Tests are inevitably culturally particular to a significant degree which undermines their usefulness.

School tests are but a minor indication of successes to come. The real test is the test of life, the test of meeting reality.

 

[Biggles]

School tests are but a minor indication of successes to come. The real test is the test of life, the test of meeting reality.

Well, I would totally agree with that.

 

[PocketZeven]

Even if that is the case, I'm sure he would:

- Have a higher than average IQ
- Be able to hold intelligent conversations
- Have an advanced knowledge of an intellectual subject

EDIT: I'm not saying those in non-intellectual jobs are not intelligent. My smartest uncle used to work in the garbage tip and one of my memories of him was his ability to solve the countdown maths puzzles

I presume you have a a precise defintion of intelligence your are referring to?

 

[HenrySwanson]

I presume you have a a precise defintion of intelligence your are referring to?

I think that's what we're debating, and it seems there is no precise definition we can all agree to. However I believe there are certain factors that are common to what we perceive as intelligence

 

[TexRex]

I think that's what we're debating, and it seems there is no precise definition we can all agree to. However I believe there are certain factors that are common to what we perceive as intelligence

It's apparent that you're playing to some kind of standard that allows you to reject others' notions of what constitutes intelligence:

I think the traditional view of intelligence still holds so that while a fantastic chef may be creative he is not necessarily intelligent, whereas all neurosurgeons are intelligent.