StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So I got into a surprisingly civil and intelligent conversation on Youtube with this guy who insists that the evidence indicates that, on average, black people are less intelligent than people of other races, even when accounting for socioeconomic status. His first exchange with me had to do with black SAT scores in the US, and how white peope's average scores were consistentely higher, even when comparing low-income whites to middle-class blacks. Ironically, one of his own links offered an explanation that didn't involve genetics. Rather, it blames African American culture for stigmatizing academically inclined black students as "oreos" and "Uncle Tom's". Now, I'm not entirely satisfied with this explanation, but it is something that is discussed seriously in the black community, polarizing as it may be (maybe some of you know how unpopular Bill Cosby has become for espousing some of these ideas). Anyways, I pointed this out, and he naturally resorted to an Appeal to Motive, saying that Professor Graglia only said that because the liberal PC elite would've shut him down if he had even mentioned genetics.

As the discussion moved on, he referenced The Bell Curve. I, in turn, referenced its numerous criticisms by Stephen Jay Gould, C. Loring Brace, and others. Now I noticed in Wikipedia that an updated version of the book has been published by Charles Murray, which is supposed to establish a conclusive link between IQ and socioeconomic success. I didn't see any specific rebuttals to it, but as an amateur, it didn't seem to address any of the criticisms leveled at the previous book. For one thing, the validity of the IQ test has never truly been established, though it's reliability is beyond doubt. Still, the fact that no one has addressed it bothers me, is it sound science?

My opponent also referenced the lack of technological process "black" or African civilizations have experienced. Luckily, I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel more than once, and am more prepared to deal with this.

He says that I'm starting from the default assumption that all races are of equal intelligence, and that I'm finding data to support this conclusion, rather than drawing the obvious conclusion from the available data. Essentially he's shifting the burden of proof to me. My response is going to be that the default assumption IS that we're all equally intelligent because we're all the same species, we're all relatively homogeneous, and time we've had to diverge from our common African ancestor probably isn't enough to result in a significant difference in our heritable intellect.

The only other thread I could find with a quick search on this subject seemed to end (abruptly) with the conclusion that there MAY in fact be a difference in the average intelligence of races, all external factors accounted for. I feel that the data don't support that, but I'm an amateur, so I ask: should I amend my position, and are my responses logically and scientifically sound?

Firstly, the SAT does not measure 'intelligence'. Intelligence is a fuzzy composite of numerous cognitive skills. The SAT measures aptitude in specific academic skills; basic maths, English language use etc, and clearly this is dependent on teaching and attitude as much as raw intelligence. Secondly, even if measurable differences exist, why would a tiny differential in the mean test score (an order of magnitude below the standard deviation) be relevant for any practical purpose? The average difference in cognitive ability between human genders is almost certainly higher than the average difference in cognitive ability between any two racial groups, yet this difference is still has no bearing on the question of equal rights and opportunities for males and females. Thirdly if he is going to insist on the critical importance of slight differences in SAT scores, that just means that all caucasians should give up now and submit to their Chinese overlords, since asians consistently outperform whites (in America).

Starglider wrote:Secondly, even if measurable differences exist, why would a tiny differential in the mean test score (an order of magnitude below the standard deviation) be relevant for any practical purpose? The average difference in cognitive ability between human genders is almost certainly higher than the average difference in cognitive ability between any two racial groups, yet this difference is still has no bearing on the question of equal rights and opportunities for males and females. Thirdly if he is going to insist on the critical importance of slight differences in SAT scores, that just means that all caucasians should give up now and submit to their Chinese overlords, since asians consistently outperform whites (in America).

But aren't the differences in SAT scores more noticeable than that? That link I have shows whites from families earning less than 10k a year outperforming black students from families that earn more than 70k a year. The gap remains consistent year after year, only slightly narrowing in the last few years. I agree with you for the most part, I just think that there is enough of a difference that it demands some sort of explanation.

wolveraptor wrote:

Starglider wrote:Secondly, even if measurable differences exist, why would a tiny differential in the mean test score (an order of magnitude below the standard deviation) be relevant for any practical purpose? The average difference in cognitive ability between human genders is almost certainly higher than the average difference in cognitive ability between any two racial groups, yet this difference is still has no bearing on the question of equal rights and opportunities for males and females. Thirdly if he is going to insist on the critical importance of slight differences in SAT scores, that just means that all caucasians should give up now and submit to their Chinese overlords, since asians consistently outperform whites (in America).

But aren't the differences in SAT scores more noticeable than that? That link I have shows whites from families earning less than 10k a year outperforming black students from families that earn more than 70k a year. The gap remains consistent year after year, only slightly narrowing in the last few years. I agree with you for the most part, I just think that there is enough of a difference that it demands some sort of explanation.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... q=&f=false

Stigma adversely affects academic performance. Sure you can cherry pick your perspectives, and attribute academic performance to a purely biological factor, but typically combining perspectives, biological psychological and socialogical gives you a more complete picture. I have found that racists tend to fixate on the biological model without considering that their very interpretation is filtered through a non objective lense. Your opponent makes the point that you proceed from the assumption that all races are of equal intelligence, without clarifying what he considers intelligence. The area of discussion you describe seems to indicate success or failure at test-taking, rather than problem solving. Since the SATs, and the education system at large is the product of social imperatives and priorities, and essentially composed of things we think as a group we "should" know, you really need to get him to include the social and psychological components.

His latest response.

I'm going to address all your points later today, but first I would like to state where you stand on the issue, because I have a feeling you are trying avoid being cornered by your own logic. I'm not arguing yet. I just want you to state your beliefs as clearly as I stated mine.

Do you believe that there differences in intelligence between the races at all?
Do you believe this to be entirely due to the environment?

Do you believe an IQ test to be a test of intelligence?
I understand that intelligence can be defined in different ways, but do you believe it measures any sort of intellectual ability?

Do you believe that regardless of definitions that there is a connection between IQ scores and success in life regardless of the race of the person being tested?

As I've stated before there is no black community or civilization in history in any country that has ever been intellectually successful. Do you claim that this is entirely due to the environment?

Of course, I'll respond by asking him to define race and intelligence, but some of the other questions are harder. I know the validity of the IQ test is disputed, though it's reliability isn't.

The last question is pretty bullshit - previously he's said that the Egyptians "don't count" as a black civilization. I can accept that their skin tone may not have been what we call "black" today, but that just seems to lend support to the idea that "black" is just a social construct. As far as I know, Egyptians were the descendents of hunter-gatherer tribes that lived near the Nile Delta. They were just as African as Nubians or Malians.

wolveraptor wrote:Of course, I'll respond by asking him to define race and intelligence, but some of the other questions are harder. I know the validity of the IQ test is disputed, though it's reliability isn't.

I think your racist buddy is either deliberately or, out of ignorance, confusing IQ and intelligence. IQ is a somewhat esoteric measurement and becomes important because there is data indicating that it plays a very major role in socioeconomic success; however, even scholars that argue for the importance of IQ do not allege that it is the sole indicator of intelligence (although it's generally the only one that can be objectively measured) but DO suggest that it is somewhat genetic. Amusingly, they noted that the genetic defects that cause nearsightedness correlate to whatever causes IQ, that an impressive ability to speak other languages (which we generally associate with great intelligence) has little to do with IQ, and that spouses tend to have more similar IQ than siblings (evidently, the genetic component must not be too important), and that IQ is influenced by your home environment and even by your diet; whatever the criticisms of The Bell Curve all of the above (the limited nature of a genetic component, for instance) is contained within it and actual constitutes a better argument for YOUR side than HIS. Yes, it notes that the average IQ of blacks is 15 points below that of the average for whites but seriously... if IQ varies among siblings and such things as diet and your home environment influence it, a 15-point difference tells us nothing about genetic differences but, much more likely, about socioeconomic differences which are emphatically NOT race-based. For being so "intelligent", this gentleman you're talking to seems to be pretty ignorant of his social science.

wolveraptor wrote: The last question is pretty bullshit - previously he's said that the Egyptians "don't count" as a black civilization. I can accept that their skin tone may not have been what we call "black" today, but that just seems to lend support to the idea that "black" is just a social construct. As far as I know, Egyptians were the descendents of hunter-gatherer tribes that lived near the Nile Delta. They were just as African as Nubians or Malians.

Your "buddy" is right about Egyptians not counting (Egyptians are a sort of unusual case, more resembling people from the Arabian peninsula than North Africa) but he's obviously an idiot. His point about lack of intellectual success is irrelevant. Obsession with deep intellectual philosophical musings has become so important to the lighter-skinned sorts that they act as is a civilization that doesn't have a Plato is inferior. West Africa built many an empire, sometimes replaced by a larger one and sometimes a smaller one. At some point, the Nubians invaded Egypt and ruled there for some time without any obvious troubles dealing with the "superiority" of the conquered. Without the benefit of the mechanical means by which Europeans smelted iron and steel, Africans figured out how to get such extremely high-temperature furnaces on their own by building "stack furnaces." These are not the traits of an intellectually deficient race. Besides, by demanding the answer, he is completely ignoring the obvious: Western nations came in and subjugated Africa wholesale such that after such a subjugation, it became impossible to determine which attainments were "black" and which were "white." He seems to manifest all the characteristics of an educated racist: intellectual-sounding arguments to support his bias that are ultimately weak and invalid.

I think your racist buddy is either deliberately or, out of ignorance, confusing IQ and intelligence. IQ is a somewhat esoteric measurement and becomes important because there is data indicating that it plays a very major role in socioeconomic success;

Yeah, I was actually reading a study suggesting that the relationship between IQ and financial success is somewhat artificial, since many higher-paying occupations use IQ-like tests to screen applicants. The researchers suggested that high IQ scores might be more indicative of the ability to succeed in such (socioeconomically stratifying) tests than an actually valuable skillset.

Do you believe that there differences in intelligence between the races at all?
Do you believe this to be entirely due to the environment?

These questions are meaningless and irrelevant. Intelligence is very hard to reduce down to numbers that you can meaningfully assign any sort of significance to 'differences.'

Do you believe an IQ test to be a test of intelligence?
I understand that intelligence can be defined in different ways, but do you believe it measures any sort of intellectual ability?

The test we call the 'IQ test' manifestly is not, as it penalizes people able to think around the questions and give correct, if unorthodox answers — in other words, people who are intelligent enough to see that the answers are not as clear cut as they pretend to be. Therefore is more a metric in how close your thinking conforms to a particular intellectual dogma.

Do you believe that regardless of definitions that there is a connection between IQ scores and success in life regardless of the race of the person being tested?

Family wealth is a stronger predictor of success than IQ, and has a clear connection with success, in terms of being more able to secure a good education and resources for paving the way to success.

More well-off families tend to be more well-fed, which also impacts intelligence. Hmmm...

As I've stated before there is no black community or civilization in history in any country that has ever been intellectually successful. Do you claim that this is entirely due to the environment?

It takes more than intelligence to build a world-stomping civilization. It takes the right crops for agriculture, the right draft animals, and the right political structures. The difference in the races is that eurasians were fortunate enough to find themselves on a continent that is arranged East-West, unlike Africa and the Americas, which are arranged North-South. This means that useful crops may easily be transplanted between regions in Eurasia — thus the ability to feed large empires. Also, they were fortunate enough to find themselves on a continent where all but one of the animals man has ever domesticated call their native land — thus augmenting human labor and speeding transport. Finally, in particular the europeans found themselves in a subcontinent that had a large number of natural barriers, and therefore the ability to foster a variety of antigonistic nation-states, thus encouraging technological and political innovation.

With the right crops (especially crops that need only to be sown, rather than planted individually), you get dense populations that are ravaged by hideous diseases that you develop resistance to. With the right draft animals, you get multiplication of your labor, allowing you to do more with the same number of people — taking its final form with the industrial revolution. With competition of nearby nation-states, you get a spiraling technological and millitary innovation, and you get potent millitary power.

In other words, the europeans were able to build mighty civilizations not because of native intellect, but because of geographic happenstance.

His response. He starts off with a healthy appetizer of misrepresentation and simplification.

For our purposes I think race can mean the common western definition of black and white people.
From what you wrote we seem to agree on a lot. We both think that blacks are less intelligent than whites.
Our difference opinions seems to boil down to me thinking that genetics is the best explanation for this.
And you think that blacks are less intelligent because they originally occupied a region that didn't allow them to develop. This border of this region ends at exactly the same point where the black population ends. And the effects this environment has had on the population follows the black diaspora to ends of the earth, centuries after they have left the continent.

Definition of Race: I feel like you're missing my point. Common western definitions would place Australian Aboriginals in the same category as people from the Ivory Coast. That's not a real genetic group you can make conclusions about. As I said before, race is considered a social construct by geneticists. Thus, when studies find differences in scores between "blacks" and "whites", it makes more sense to analyze them from a sociological standpoint than a genetic one.
On intelligence: Perhaps I was being unclear. I only agree that they score lower on IQ tests than whites. I agree with you that IQ tests are reliable, but I never really speculated on what they measure. I agree that scores DO seem to correlate with socioeconomic success, but as I pointed out earlier, this may be a tautological relationship - high IQ scores leading to high-paying jobs because high-paying jobs are only available to people with high IQ scores.
On environment: Again, you're using terms like "black population" without defining them. Were Nubians black? They occupied northeastern Africa along side the Egyptians, whom, arbitrarily, are not black (I'll note here that the dark-skinned Nubians conquered the light-skinned Egyptians and ruled them for various periods during the 7th century BC). Were they not dark enough? How dark is dark enough? Were Khoi-San hunter gatherers dark enough to be black? They are significantly lighter-skinned than the Bantu tribesmen we usually associate with the word "black", possibly as a result of the Meditterranean climate of southern Africa. What about Australian Aboriginals? What about inhabitants of New Guinea and the Polynesian islands? New Guineans, in particular, look totally "black" to your average westerner, and almost indistinguishable from native Australians from Queensland.
The data support a more gradual model than what you're implying. It only makes sense, given that dark-skin is simply a response to the intensity of sunlight at a given latitude.

I am curious of what you make of the study in the link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_ ... tion_Study
What's interesting is that it was conducted be people who shared your view point. They even interpret the data to support the environmental explanation. But the IQ scores seem to match up with black and white averages. The environmental factors seem to add possibly 5 IQ points, but even then the privileged black kids would hit the ceiling that would prevent them in being competent at any professional work.

Would these kids in the rich white neighborhoods also be affected by the anti-intellectual black culture that you claim also lowers the SAT scores of the children of black professionals?'

And what about the half black half white kids? There IQ scores somehow end up in between the full white and full black kid? Does this anti-intellectual black culture effect them half way?

Or is there a simpler explanation?

Let me ask you one last question. Is there any study or statistic short of raising black and white kids from babies in lab, that could ever change your mind? Or would there always be another explanation?

I haven't got around to analyzing this fully. The fact that the experts who actually designed the study come to a different conclusion than he does doesn't look promising for him.

wolveraptor wrote:Yeah, I was actually reading a study suggesting that the relationship between IQ and financial success is somewhat artificial, since many higher-paying occupations use IQ-like tests to screen applicants. The researchers suggested that high IQ scores might be more indicative of the ability to succeed in such (socioeconomically stratifying) tests than an actually valuable skillset.

I didn't actually say "financial success"... I said "socioeconomic success." A person may succeed dramatically in society without being extremely wealthy; many scientists, for example, are not living large with more money than they know what to do with but they have unquestionably found immense social success in that they are considered indispensable by the larger society. This holds true for teachers, police officers, and many other professions that are considered critical to the functioning of a society but may not qualify for economic success. At the same time, the capacity for socioeconomic success may well result in economic success as well, especially in an upwardly-mobile society with relatively few barriers to entering a higher plane of financial comfort. It is actually quite rare for someone to become fabulously wealthy while employed by someone else so the fact that IQ tests are used in judging applicants does not have any particular meaning; in fact, there are indications that an outlook of optimism, which is simply an attitude that any person may cultivate, has immense importance in the ability to attain financial success while employed. I freely admit that this is mere speculation but it seems to me that when the authors of The Bell Curve argue that IQ has immense bearing on socioeconomic success, they're asserting that high IQ correlates with a person going out into the world with the mental and emotional tools to excel which would explain why diet and a beneficial home environment has an influence on it: both factors contribute to capacity for success, sometimes overwhelming success. To bring it back to your "friend" and his inane conclusions about genetic differences in intelligence, the most common bar to non-Asian1 non-white socioeconomic success seems to be more societal than anything else. Needless to say, societal factors have nothing to do with someone's genetic makeup.

1The reason I added the condition "non-Asian" is that Asians are unusual among minority groups in that their proportion of socioeconomic success in comparison to their numbers resembles that of whites. Obviously, another blow to the absurd theory that genetics somehow predetermine intelligence and capacity for success.

wolveraptor wrote: Definition of Race: I feel like you're missing my point. Common western definitions would place Australian Aboriginals in the same category as people from the Ivory Coast. That's not a real genetic group you can make conclusions about. As I said before, race is considered a social construct by geneticists. Thus, when studies find differences in scores between "blacks" and "whites", it makes more sense to analyze them from a sociological standpoint than a genetic one.

I have a question about this, if I may. How is race considered a "social construct"? Society does not arbitrarily decide that someone is dark enough to be black, light enough to be white, olive-toned enough to be Sicilian or Hispanic, yellow-toned enough to be Asian, etc. Moreover, that someone is black or white or what not is a judgement that doesn't noticeably change from society to society; British, Russian, Japanese, Brazilian, Australian, Indian, and even Ghanan societies would agree on whether to categorize a person as black or white or what have you. Granted, however, they would heavily debate the geographical origins of the person (the race referred to as black, for instance, exists all over the planet in various forms). How does this pattern suggest a sociological construct?

Serafine666 wrote:

wolveraptor wrote: Definition of Race: I feel like you're missing my point. Common western definitions would place Australian Aboriginals in the same category as people from the Ivory Coast. That's not a real genetic group you can make conclusions about. As I said before, race is considered a social construct by geneticists. Thus, when studies find differences in scores between "blacks" and "whites", it makes more sense to analyze them from a sociological standpoint than a genetic one.

I have a question about this, if I may. How is race considered a "social construct"? Society does not arbitrarily decide that someone is dark enough to be black, light enough to be white, olive-toned enough to be Sicilian or Hispanic, yellow-toned enough to be Asian, etc. Moreover, that someone is black or white or what not is a judgement that doesn't noticeably change from society to society; British, Russian, Japanese, Brazilian, Australian, Indian, and even Ghanan societies would agree on whether to categorize a person as black or white or what have you. Granted, however, they would heavily debate the geographical origins of the person (the race referred to as black, for instance, exists all over the planet in various forms). How does this pattern suggest a sociological construct?

You're wrong by saying that everybody would agree on what makes somebody a certain race. Some people, for example, go by the one drop rule, whereby any African ancestry makes one black. Some people might prefer to define blackness as "they look black" or "only black people in their family" (by the latter definition, Obama would be non-black). In order to receive government benefits for being aboriginal in Australia, you need to have a certain amount of aboriginal ancestors and identify as aboriginal. Hitler defined Jewishness not by appearance or self-identity as a Jew, but rather by the number of Jewish ancestors one had.

China has 56 ethnic groups, which are perceived as distinct ethnicities within China, but outside of China people are just as likely to to view them all as "Chinese" or "Asian" as they are to view them as Hui or Manchu. South East Asia is full of regions where people who are visually similar identify and are treated as different races or ethnic groups within their own countries, while outside of their country, they are often viewed as the same people: see, Malay Malaysians and Malaysian Chinese. Are you aware of the difference?

How are these definitions not social constructs?

I didn't actually say "financial success"... I said "socioeconomic success."

So did the study I was referencing. I shouldn't have used "financial" as a synonymous term, it was a brain-fart on my part.

I have a question about this, if I may. How is race considered a "social construct"? Society does not arbitrarily decide that someone is dark enough to be black, light enough to be white, olive-toned enough to be Sicilian or Hispanic, yellow-toned enough to be Asian, etc

I certainly think they do. Consider people like Clifford Harris, Halle Berry, Barack Obama, and Vin Diesel. They're all of mixed ethnicities, but the former three are almost always identified as black, whereas Vin Diesel isn't. There doesn't seem to be a strong correlation to skin tone here. Their identities are either self-assigned or foisted onto them based on how their behavior compares with society's view of stereotypical white or black behavior.

Moreover, that someone is black or white or what not is a judgement that doesn't noticeably change from society to society; British, Russian, Japanese, Brazilian, Australian, Indian, and even Ghanan societies would agree on whether to categorize a person as black or white or what have you. Granted, however, they would heavily debate the geographical origins of the person (the race referred to as black, for instance, exists all over the planet in various forms). How does this pattern suggest a sociological construct?

Well comparing their attitudes on the matter now is a bit misleading given that Western views on race have been, to some degree, imposed on every other culture on the planet. Still, you do see definite differences in race relations from society to society. In Brazil, nearly everyone has ancestors who belong to multiple ethnic groups. Race isn't as concrete as it is in the US or Europe. The same is true of India. Both countries' populations display widely varying skin tones, but people aren't usually grouped based on them (at least not overtly - in both countries, the richest 10% is conspicuously lighter-skinned than the rest). But you see my point - Halle Berry or Clifford Harris might not be called "black" in Brazil. Shakira, who in the US is considered latina, might be considered "white" (though she's actually Spanish, Italian, and Lebanese).

wolveraptor wrote:

I didn't actually say "financial success"... I said "socioeconomic success."

So did the study I was referencing. I shouldn't have used "financial" as a synonymous term, it was a brain-fart on my part.

Granted but whether the study used the term "financial" or "socioeconomic" doesn't overly alter my point about the myriad ways in which socioeconomic success comes that have nothing whatsoever to do with hiring. Now, if this study went further to explain how IQ has little bearing on whether someone succeeds socioeconomically in professions (such as a police officer (social) or an independent business owner (economic)), it might better address what I was attempting to convey.

Lusankya wrote: You're wrong by saying that everybody would agree on what makes somebody a certain race. Some people, for example, go by the one drop rule, whereby any African ancestry makes one black. Some people might prefer to define blackness as "they look black" or "only black people in their family" (by the latter definition, Obama would be non-black). In order to receive government benefits for being aboriginal in Australia, you need to have a certain amount of aboriginal ancestors and identify as aboriginal. Hitler defined Jewishness not by appearance or self-identity as a Jew, but rather by the number of Jewish ancestors one had.

China has 56 ethnic groups, which are perceived as distinct ethnicities within China, but outside of China people are just as likely to to view them all as "Chinese" or "Asian" as they are to view them as Hui or Manchu. South East Asia is full of regions where people who are visually similar identify and are treated as different races or ethnic groups within their own countries, while outside of their country, they are often viewed as the same people: see, Malay Malaysians and Malaysian Chinese. Are you aware of the difference?

How are these definitions not social constructs?

Ah, you see? I apparently was not well-informed on the topic, thus the motivation for asking the question. Thanks for clearing that up (you too, wolveraptor).

Serafine666 wrote:Granted but whether the study used the term "financial" or "socioeconomic" doesn't overly alter my point about the myriad ways in which socioeconomic success comes that have nothing whatsoever to do with hiring. Now, if this study went further to explain how IQ has little bearing on whether someone succeeds socioeconomically in professions (such as a police officer (social) or an independent business owner (economic)), it might better address what I was attempting to convey.

The research didn't really address self-employment. I guess what they were trying to show was that the relationship between high IQ and high-paying jobs is somewhat artificial. They didnt' imply that that was the only route to higher socioeconomic status.

wolveraptor wrote:The research didn't really address self-employment. I guess what they were trying to show was that the relationship between high IQ and high-paying jobs is somewhat artificial. They didnt' imply that that was the only route to higher socioeconomic status.

Sorta a shame... it would have been really interesting to find out if the authors could debunk the association of IQ with other measures of social or economic success. But regardless, the overarching point is that there's no rational gene-based relationship between race and success/IQ/intelligence.

Update. Let me say here that I'm not expecting the board to provide me with piece-by-piece answers here. I feel I can handle the situation on my own (though any advice/corrections are appreciated). No, the reason I'm still posting his replies is that he's one of the more civil, clear-headed racists I've seen, and I think he really believes that his positions are based on hard evidence. As such, he might be one of those rare people who can actually be convinced via online debate. I figured that maybe a few of the posters who had seen this thread might be interested in how this ends up. If I'm abusing the purpose of this sub-Forum feel free to lock or whatever.

I understand perfectly how nebulous race and intelligence.

When I say black are genetically less intelligent. It is the same as someone saying that blacks are predisposed to sickle cell anemia. I am not claiming they are genetically pure, but I am referring to the blacks in america the majority of which share some degree ancestry in one region of Africa.

If you don't want to call it a race than that is fine with me. But those are the people I am referring to.

Here I pointed out that a geneticist would never say that "blacks" are morely likely to have the sickle-cell trait. In reality, the trait occurs in multiple, separate populations within and even outside Africa. It only really correlates to the rate of occurence of malaria in a region. There are many "black" populations who have no predisposition towards it at all (ignoring population upheavals and redistributions in the 20th century).

As for intelligence.

To say that intelligence is impossible to define is the same as saying that happiness is impossible to define. It is impossible and yet we know it exists and we attempt to measure it all the time when we make decisions. Brain scans can show a depressed or happy brain and at the same time the chemicals themselves are not happiness. Like with SAT and IQ scores they are just the only thing that can be measured..

Which is why we rarely make sweeping statements about it the way you are with race and intelligence.

In order to make things as clear as possible we can say my argument this:

**People commonly referred to as "blacks" in america score lower on IQ tests than the majority of the country.**

No race or intelligence involved. Just IQ scores and blacks.

You say "Personally, I doubt that people of different ethnic backgrounds are very genetically differentiated. " I think we would both agree that people of different ethnic backgrounds look different. They come in different sizes. Some are more flexible and have different athletic ability. Some are predisposed to certain physical and neurological disorders. Why do you find it impossible to believe that genes might also effect their IQ scores? After all we don't know everything about the brain, and we don't know what the most subtle differences can cause.

Lets do a thought experiment:

An underclass group of white skinned people from mixed backgrounds who live in one region of the country score an average of 90 on IQ tests. Now they are adopted by upper class whites with above average IQ's like in the adoption study and the same results occur.

Would that prove that those kids IQ scores were a result of genetics?

This whole chunk rests on the strawman that I don't believe IQ is related to heredity. I do. I simply believe that if black Americans are shown to consistently achieve lower IQ scores than whites, then the explanation is more likely sociological than biological because "black" people aren't a distinct genetic group about which conclusions can be drawn. It's worth noting that none of the studies that purport to shwo a relationship between race and intelligence ever control for genetics. "Black" subjects are never forced to undergo analysis to determine their exact ancestry - they're simply lumped in with other "black-looking" subjects.

wolveraptor wrote:Here I pointed out that a geneticist would never say that "blacks" are morely likely to have the sickle-cell trait. In reality, the trait occurs in multiple, separate populations within and even outside Africa. It only really correlates to the rate of occurence of malaria in a region. There are many "black" populations
who have no predisposition towards it at all (ignoring population upheavals and redistributions in the 20th century).

Indeed. The prevalence of malaria in Africa (although it has been found all over the world including arctic areas like northern Russia) may, in some sense, point to the evolutionary trait of "survival of the fittest" related to sickle-cell anemia. I say this because it is found that a single instance of the recessive gene that causes sickle-cell reduces the ability of the malarial parasite to survive in the body. This seems a logical reason for the commonality of sickle-cell in black African populations (and those that have a strong genetic connection to African predecessors): those Africans with the single recessive gene are less susceptible to one of the most virulent and deadly diseases found on the continent. I know this is probably irrelevant but it's sort of an interesting piece of trivia since the fellow brought up the commonality of the gene in blacks.

wolveraptor wrote:This whole chunk rests on the strawman that I don't believe IQ is related to heredity. I do. I simply believe that if black Americans are shown to consistently achieve lower IQ scores than whites, then the explanation is more likely sociological than biological because "black" people aren't a distinct genetic group about which conclusions can be drawn. It's worth noting that none of the studies that purport to shwo a relationship between race and intelligence ever control for genetics. "Black" subjects are never forced to undergo analysis to determine their exact ancestry - they're simply lumped in with other "black-looking" subjects.

A good and rather interesting point. Without an absurdly detailed family tree, there is no way to even take into account the genetic variable. Some blacks have Native American ancestry; others have been mixing with whites for a very long time (although this is difficult to prove because of the serious social stigma in the United States). Since blacks are (of course) just as human as every other skin color of person, there is no bar to them having Asian or Russian or... well, whatever kind of genetic influences latched on to their chromosomes. This is a serious problem that studies do not make a serious attempt to overcome.

As for intelligence.

To say that intelligence is impossible to define is the same as saying that happiness is impossible to define. It is impossible and yet we know it exists and we attempt to measure it all the time when we make decisions. Brain scans can show a depressed or happy brain and at the same time the chemicals themselves are not happiness. Like with SAT and IQ scores they are just the only thing that can be measured..

Which is why we rarely make sweeping statements about it the way you are with race and intelligence.

There's a further, more subtle problem. We know what it means for the statement "Joe has the sickel-cell trait" to be true. Not so much for "Joe is more intelligent than Bob".

Not even the IQ test unambiguously answers the question. There is real controversy whether what the IQ test measures is actually intelligence or something else vaguely related to intelligence. For one thing, the APA Board of Scientific Affairs task force of 1995 concluded that IQ scores do not predict performance in school well, yet this is exactly the thing the IQ test was supposed to be able to measure. While a person with some form of mental retardation would not be able to score well, it does not mean that not scoring well on the IQ test means you're not intelligent.

To put bluntly, we do have the ability to assay that one person has higher intelligence than someone else through a standardized test. Intelligence as we know it is a cluster of related abilities, such that there is no meaningful way to order everyone from least to most intelligent. The statement "whites are smarter than blacks" is not only bigoted, it's meaningless. We have no way to assess the truth of the statement.

Lets do a thought experiment:

An underclass group of white skinned people from mixed backgrounds who live in one region of the country score an average of 90 on IQ tests. Now they are adopted by upper class whites with above average IQ's like in the adoption study and the same results occur.

Would that prove that those kids IQ scores were a result of genetics?

This whole chunk rests on the strawman that I don't believe IQ is related to heredity. I do. I simply believe that if black Americans are shown to consistently achieve lower IQ scores than whites, then the explanation is more likely sociological than biological because "black" people aren't a distinct genetic group about which conclusions can be drawn. It's worth noting that none of the studies that purport to shwo a relationship between race and intelligence ever control for genetics. "Black" subjects are never forced to undergo analysis to determine their exact ancestry - they're simply lumped in with other "black-looking" subjects.

True. If "blacks" have lower IQ scores (putting aside for the moment the argument whether IQ really measures intelligence or the ability to adhere to a particular conceptual dogma) due to their genetics, then we should be able to identify specific constellations of genes that determine it. We would not only identify a particular genetically stupid human subgroup, but we'd also narrow down which genes are responsible for that condition.

But apparently, we only have the so-claimed "genetically stupid subgroup" and not the genes. Hmmm...

It's also a black-white fallacy (if you'll forgive the term) to say that IQ scores are either genetic or environmental. It's obviously a combination of both. You could give a rat an identical environment as a typical human child and it will never develop the ability to do calculus. If your brought up by idealogues who hammer into you that a certain set of beliefs are right and there is no way they could be wrong, then your ability to learn anything outside those beliefs (one measure of intelligence) is seriously hampered.

We already know that children have windows to acquire certain skills (such as one's first language) easily, so it's not simply a matter of transfering children from one region to another. This experiment is ill-conceived to say the least, the ethicalness of yanking children away from their parents aside.

It is misguided to start from the assumption that there must be no difference in average intelligence between races. As long as you insist upon that assumption, you will tend to make excuses for any data which seems to contradict it, and this does look irrational. In fact, it is irrational, and a smart debater will rightfully nail you for it.

Let's be honest: how do you know that black people are not less intelligent on average than white people? Answer: you don't. The evidence for or against this proposition is pretty weak, but the two of you are basically doing the same thing: you are looking for reasoning to support your pre-ordained conclusions. In his case, his conclusion is probably pre-ordained due to various cultural biases and personal experiences. In your case, your conclusion is pre-ordained because of a moral imperative. In other words, you conclude that blacks and whites collectively have precisely identical intelligence because you believe it is immoral to do otherwise. However, reality does not particularly give a damn about morality. If reality were moral, there would be no birth defects because they're so unfair. Morality is a guide for human social conduct, not an arbiter of reality.

Indeed, I would point out that no one gets upset when someone says that a particular ethnic group has an advantage. It's politically correct to say that a certain group has an advantage, but it's never acceptable to say that a certain group has a disadvantage. For example, it is commonly reported that Asians have slightly superior spatial intelligence, which helps in certain endeavours such as visualizing 3D models. That sounds positive, so it's considered acceptable. But if you describe the exact same finding in negative language, by saying that black people have inferior spatial intelligence, then someone would jump all over you.

There are various ways to attack his argument, as others have pointed out. But one should be very careful to avoid the assumption that there must be no difference between races, because that is an example of reasoning following conclusion, and not the other way around.

AdmiralKanos wrote:*snip*

I'm not going to deny an emotional stake in this debate, that'd be a flat out lie. However, I will point out that throughout the discussion, all I've done is point out why the statement "X race is more intelligent than Y race" is based on an abuse of terminology and is too vague mean anything. I've also criticized the research he's used to support his argument as insufficiently controlled and thus inconclusive. I've never provided any evidence showing that people of different ethnic backgrounds are indistinguishable in terms of intellectual ability - indeed, I certainly don't believe that. I guess I never made a point to concede that, which is misleading, I'll admit.

My opponent's statements have been ridiculously broad. It's one thing to say that Asians (I'm assuming this means Chinese, Japanese, and Korean people, who IIRC are more homogeneous than other populations?) have slightly higher ability in spatial perception - that's a specific statement about an actual genetic group with real (albeit fuzzy) boundaries. I wouldn't have a problem conceding similar, specific things about people of sub-saharn ancestry. But the sweeping generalizations my opponent is making are unfounded.