Ethenic IQ variations
32 responses | 1 like
Started by wglassfo - Jan. 13, 2019, 11:25 a.m.

It has been proven, that,, different ethenic groups of people pssess different IQ levels, on average. I have known this fact for several yrs.

If you state, publicly, proven scientific fact,  the IQ level of certain ethenic groups, on average, vary, highest to lowest, one to the other, does that mean you are racist You are not making assumptions, you know the science behind the studies

A person[who happens to be a highly educated professional] who with a small number of other scientists, discovered DNA,  was interviewed on a documentary film and broadcast. During the interview he stated scientific fact that different ethenic groups possessed, on average, different levels of IQ..

He stated that Africa would never reach the same economic level of the rest of the world due to lower IQ

He was immediately labeled a racist

Was this person a racist???

Comments
By joj - Jan. 13, 2019, 11:33 a.m.
Like Reply

There is no way to know if he is/was a racist.  But, he drew the wrong conclusions.  You should read "Guns, Germs and Steel".   Also, you might not be aware of it, but we are ALL from Africa.

By the way, it is a "fact" (as you put it) that liberals are more highly educated and also possess higher IQs than conservatives.  Blue states have higher IQs than red states.  Am I a racist?

By TimNew - Jan. 13, 2019, 12:49 p.m.
Like Reply

I guess it depends on how you quantify education.  A Phd in sociology is a wonderful thing, but if it allows you to believe that socialism and/or income redistribution will make life better,  you aren't very smart and have a massive gap in your education.

By mikempt - Jan. 13, 2019, 1:01 p.m.
Like Reply

I find most Americans fat,lazy & diabetic when they should know better. To make things worse,they elect people dumber than them into office and believe their rhetoric.

Execpt for me and a few others,I find almost all people of all races with low I.Q's


By wglassfo - Jan. 13, 2019, 2:42 p.m.
Like Reply

Hi joj

I don't have access to that book, as of now so maybe, if you could hit the high points and educate me

We all know we came from Africa, but over the ages differences began to appear. Why I do not know other than climate had an effect on skin colour, which makes sense Other wise we evolved with different IQ's which makes sense also. Why this happened I do not know, but it would make sense we would not all remain the same. Evolution over the yrs had to affect IQ. To all stay the same, even as a group, is impossible.

The study I read ranked Asians as the highest IQ I don't remember all the other ethenic groups or how they ranked except the lowest

I was convinced this was a verifiable study and repeated by others.

The study went on to say that some could be higher or lower as an individual, but not when grouped together by ethenic groups and an average of all was taken.

Do you disagree

By wglassfo - Jan. 13, 2019, 3:06 p.m.
Like Reply

I doubt a degree in sociology was the back ground required to discover DNA.

 As for electing dumb people to high office

You and I know that IQ is not the ticket required to elected office. Mike probably has the IQ but would you win at elected office. So far you have not tried for a congressional seat that I know of, so there must be some reason we had the worst of two options to choose from. You would be higher in the IQ department, so you say, but you were not on the ticket, so people could not have the advantage of your IQ You know it takes more than IQ and until we go back to the original intent of the constitution, of a few short yrs in office and then go back home we are stuck with the present system

True, Romney got a senate seat, also governor, and he probably has a higher IQ than Trump

But Trump won and Romney failed miserably

It takes the whole pkg  to win elected office.

The finance laws and big money backers, lobbyist etc plus a person that has the ability to know what the electorate want will win

Hillary was tone deaf to what the electorate wanted,  according to the system of electoral college although she had most of everything else.

By the way, I think the electoral college is still working according to the thoughts of the people who wrote the constitution


By wglassfo - Jan. 13, 2019, 3:23 p.m.
Like Reply

joj


Do you know the author of that book

I can't find it on e-book with out an author or at least I don't know how

By joj - Jan. 13, 2019, 3:25 p.m.
Like Reply

Jared Diamond...

Europe was more conducive to agricultural development.   East / West orientation of earth's axis, domesticable animals were more prevalent.  Much more...

https://www.litcharts.com/lit/guns-germs-and-steel/summary

By wglassfo - Jan. 13, 2019, 3:31 p.m.
Like Reply

Please dis-regard my request for an author

I just learned how to find a book with the title name only

Unfortunately there are 29 people ahead of me waiting to down load that book

I will likely get my turn in maybe 6 months

By joj - Jan. 13, 2019, 5 p.m.
Like Reply

wg,

Did you read the summary I sent you?

By lar - Jan. 13, 2019, 5:36 p.m.
Like Reply

IQ variations d/t ethnicity has long been promoted as common knowledge in the USA. Self evident, they would say. Just look for yourself - it's obvious, they would say. American IQ test scores going back a long time have always supported this statement. Calvin Candie himself presented compelling oratory to the truth of intelligence variations d/t ethnicity. Here's the problem... If you don't know who Calvin Candie is, you will never be able to understand the true nature of the statement I just made. IQ tests in the USA historically would be inclusive for caucasian people but exclusive for people of color. Then, those results were "normalized" on a 100 point scale. It magnifies the effect of that IQ testing flaw.

IQ tests tests are supposed to test a person's raw intellectual ability to infer or deduce conclusions based on comparisons, contrasts, spatial orientation et cetera. The more of them you could complete, the more clever you are.  While the IQ tests nowaday have much less cultural bias, the ones when I was a kid were based a lot on things common in the majority's experiences but not necessarily for people of color.

Often, for example, you need context for comparisons to be meaningful. You need a frame of reference for the question to make sense. Ask someone with no exposure to math to solve an equation gives you no idea of their creative problem solving abilities. Ask someone to read for critical elements of the text does not work if you barely know the alphabet.

Can someone with a very high IQ not have learned to read?  Absolutely. How are they going to score on a written IQ test? You don't have to be very clever at all to know that answer.

2.5 generations ago most people of color were not even allowed to graduate high school. It was not uncommon for people of color to be beaten or worse for trying to learn to read. Reading comprehension is critical to be able to interpret the questions on most IQ tests. Exposure to common equations (like the pythagorean theorem) is important to being able to use them. Asking someone to solve for C when they have had little exposure to manipulating equations gives you no insight into their intellect. As more opportunity occurs, these lines blur more and more. The differences become less.

One extrapolation of this problem is exposed when some people say happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas. Others get offended when the faith of the majority stops being the standard greeting during their own "holy" days. It's the context. "We're in America, its American to say Merry Christmas" and not some watered down "Happy Holiday" to validate other faiths or beliefs. They pride themselves on not being PC and insisting on the traditional holiday greeting. "We're in America and we speak english here" is another variation of the same skew. Much of the rest of the world speaks more than one language. 

"I refuse to be PC" is code for "I don't have to respect others values, but they have to respect mine, dammit". It has nothing to to do with politics or of being correct. It is about the evolution of the very nature of this country.

This skew has been evident in IQ tests, Job Applications, Mortgage Applications, holiday greetings, language dominance, college applications, the american ideation of beauty and ugliness... all these skews and more permeate the american psyche. It is privilege, or lack of it, which has determined all strata of the American psyche.

The past has a profound impact on the present. I, for one, am glad those days are going even if they are not yet gone. 

Some people still think there is a genetic superiority of one race versus another. America still has this flawed thinking in about 20-30% of its dna. That is down from 70-90% flawed thinking 2.5 generations ago.  America is behind on getting this but thankfully we are capable of learning. This movement is "Making America Great, Eventually".


The human race is homogenous around raw intellect.



By metmike - Jan. 13, 2019, 7:53 p.m.
Like Reply

lar,

You make some outstanding points on standard IQ tests. Humans that are in an environment that teaches them how to read and do math early will do better on IQ tests where those skills are needed to do well. 

We must however not shy away from understanding differences. I have taught and coached chess to 3,500 children the past 25 years  and noted sometimes massive differences in their brains and ability to understand the concepts. 

Chess is universal. It's the same pieces, board and rules for every country in the world.  A 5 year old American boy can play an 80 year old Russian woman on the internet. You don't need to know how to read or even how to talk. 

I have taught several 5 year olds(the exceptions) that only needed to learn/see the rules one time and were beating 10 year old kids that had been playing a few years....the next day. That can ONLY happen when those younger ones were born with gifted brains.

More often than not, their parents were engineers or doctors. Nothing they got in the environment caused them to be brilliant chess players. Mommy and Daddy gave them their eye, hair and skin color. Determined the range of height, how athletic they could become.............and caused their brains to be a certain way.

I celebrate all children playing chess, regardless of whether they are gifted or those struggling. In fact, I spend more time with those struggling. 

However, they clearly are not all the same. 

If you look at the NBA or NFL, you can embrace what race was blessed with the best DNA for power sports.  These lead to physical advantages............based on race.

It would be absurd to not also acknowledge differences in things that are not physical but based on the brains that we also got from Mommy and Daddy. 

Acknowledging those differences is actually beneficial to both the weak and strong. They both need to be challenged in a way that is appropriate for them.

The "more gifted"kids...........that are capable of it, need to be pushed farther and faster and not held back. The "less gifted" kids, need additional assistance from adults/teachers to accomplish the same things. 

Putting them all in the same boat can hinder progress for the ones at the top and bottom. The ones at the top need more opportunities to accelerate.

The ones at the bottom need help, encouragement and support.


We should not only celebrate the differences but treat everybody as an individual. Every child/adult has things that they like to do. Not every body can be a brain surgeon, no matter what their environment was like. Not everybody is even cut out for college.

Trying to treat everybody the same, when they aren't can be counterproductive to their personal growth. They all have the same basic rights and deserve the same respect and love/support but they are all individuals and sometimes, their race plays a role in who they are genetically.......physically and mentally.

I have not mentioned IQ differences specifically. Generally speaking, we might look at an entire population and come up with averages for that population and race on metrics like IQ. This is perfectly fine if you want to generalize about a large group but is completely counter productive when the objective is to treat each person as an individual. 

We can't know what an individuals potential is, whether they are black or white or brown until that person is in the education system. At that point, it doesn't matter if their race has a lower or higher IQ. What matters is providing them with the best support for them to be successful at whatever they are best at.............and not JUDGE them because they can't achieve the same things as others.

Some people are best off as laborers or gardeners or factory workers or whatever. We really need more of those people than we do the ones that graduate from law school.  No reason that they can't lead productive, honest lives filled with love and fulfillment. 

The cool thing is that somebody with a low IQ can do alot of those things in our society. People with high IQ's, rather than judge those of lesser intelligence should be doing just the opposite. Much more is expected of you high IQ/geniuses. 

For those with the greatest gifts, should have much more to share with those that have the least.  

You would expect somebody with an IQ of 130 to earn 200 K/year not somebody with an IQ of 80..............and they were born with this earning power based on their DNA at birth. 






By wglassfo - Jan. 13, 2019, 8:17 p.m.
Like Reply

Hi Lar

You make a convincing argument and for the most part I agree with you,

Is it possible a  test  is a function of environment and intelligience.

I keep asking myself why Asian people test the highest of all.

Does their environment place a higher value on education starting at an early age???

Would Bill Gates have been as successful if he was born in Africa??

Which then begs the question

Did the person make a valid statement when he said Africa would never be the economic equal of the rest of the world.


By Richard - Jan. 14, 2019, 6:53 a.m.
Like Reply

I totally agree with the statement that  . . different ethnic groups of people possess different IQ levels. . . 

There are 4 Asian countries at the top (China, Korea, Vietnam and Japan) and at the very bottom holding the title as the dumbest group of people are the Australian Aborigines.  (Note: I have never actual met an Australian Aborigines, so I could not have any personal opinion on them).

By lar - Jan. 14, 2019, 7:23 a.m.
Like Reply

Hi Wayne,

Valid IQ tests should eliminate the other variables and focus only on problem solving.  Standard IQ tests don’t really do that. 

I’d surmise, in current times, Africa will definitely have a rough time measuring up economically to the USA because it tends to not worship capitalism the same way the US does. There are unhealthy excesses in unbridled capitalism - like hubris, selfishness or greed. These excesses are as self destructive as absolute power and the corruption which comes from it.

(I’m only half joking when I say the US should probably lose some IQ points for not managing our capitalistic excesses better. The bell curve std distribution of financial resources is where capitalism really shines - both tails is where the real rub is found.)

Given enough time, our own hubris will take us down like the Chinese and Roman empires fell before us. Then the economic pieces of the world will reshuffle... as it has throughout history. Who knows how Africa and the USA will compare then  

This is why I tend to be more of a globalist than isolationist. Real sustainable world power is based on people working together better. Bombing each other’s children is not sustainable for any of us.

The presence of more money does not necessarily reflect a more intelligent individual. 

Large economic assets is not a measure of higher IQ. This is a misinformed cultural construct. Few economic assets are not a measure of low IQ. At least in my own opinion. 

Who was it who pointed out we shouldn’t define a fish by its ability to climb a tree?


By TimNew - Jan. 14, 2019, 7:34 a.m.
Like Reply

Africa suffers because it's leadership, by and large, is the most corrupt in the world.

https://www.hiiraan.com/news2/2010/Aug/corrupt_and_greedy_leaders_keep_africa_poor.aspx


"

While it is obviously extremely difficult to generalise about a region comprising 48 countries that vary considerably in their economic and political circumstances, Dr Greg Mills does discern a common thread. 

The main reason Africa's people are poor is because their leaders have made this choice. "


"The usual, convenient answers are dismissed with cogent argument. No, Africa's poverty is not the result of lack of access to international markets; in fact Africa enjoys preferential access to international markets. Africa is not poor because its people do not work hard - low productivity is a function of many things, including poor health, inefficient land use and chauvinism. It is not because of a lack of technical expertise; expertise is for sale on the international market, (and probably accessible free, via donors!) Africa is not poor because it lacks natural resources - compared with Asia, it has an abundance."

By lar - Jan. 14, 2019, 7:47 a.m.
Like Reply

Causality is difficult to accurately define even though correlations abound. 

There are performance affecting variables to rule out before causation can be determined. Trauma, desire, diet... hell, even subconscious teacher expectation affect performance.

Asians are often steered towards mathematics early. That kind of thinking tests well in standard IQ tests. That is a cultural advantage in these tests. Does it mean Asians are more clever or are better at problem solving? I guess that depends on the problem - not is one group more clever than another.

Does anyone remember that “brown eyes/blue eyes” classroom experiment?

By lar - Jan. 14, 2019, 9:04 a.m.
Like Reply

Tim New,

We all suffer from corrupt leadership.

This is also a main problem in the USA. 

The rat race here is problematic in that, even if a person wins the race, they are still a rat. The only way to generally win at life is to not play at the same intensity the rat race "winners" play at. In many ways this reflects on the general intelligence of the players differently than our culture historically depicts.


By lar - Jan. 14, 2019, 9:14 a.m.
Like Reply


Wayne,

Please note the difference between educated, and intelligent. Please note that IQ tests are supposed to reveal intelligence but the test itself does not get to intelligence when other factors are truly considered. 

Educated people generally do very well on IQ tests. I know people with a Phd who fail miserably for general intelligence or creativity or problem solving. Sure, this is not the norm but the link between intelligence and how it is measured varies badly with IQ tests. There are skews which make IQ tests poor indicators of raw intelligence. They are great for identifying level of education. They, as written, are poor instruments to compare all people and their level of intelligence.

By mcfarm - Jan. 14, 2019, 11:26 a.m.
Like Reply

so lar claims America's "hubris" will be our ruin...and the debate between globalist and isolationism is huge....gee kind of thought we just sent 10.5 billion south of the boarder that is casing us heartache and the big debate is globalism v nationalism

By TimNew - Jan. 14, 2019, 12:13 p.m.
Like Reply

Lar,  your statement was that African countries don't worship capitalism  as we do here. or something to that effect.  That is not the cause of their poverty,  it is their leadership.

By metmike - Jan. 14, 2019, 1:09 p.m.
Like Reply

"Asians are often steered towards mathematics early. That kind of thinking tests well in standard IQ tests. That is a cultural advantage in these tests. Does it mean Asians are more clever or are better at problem solving? I guess that depends on the problem - not is one group more clever than another."

Lar,

You are presenting some excellent thoughts here, including the fact that leaned knowledge gives the individual an substantive advantage on IQ tests.

However, I used the example of chess, especially because it doesn't matter how much you(the chess player) know or have learned. How many languages you speak or advanced math classes you've taken.........on the chess board, everybody is equal.

Some people and some races are actually more clever at playing/competing at chess. This is indisputable.

It's a unique, analytical type thinking using the relationships of 32 pieces on the board to each other.

Once you know how the pieces move and the rules...........it's your brain vs the other person's brain.

Of course experience playing chess and lessons learning chess will make you better, as with all endeavors but I can quickly ascertain the analytical thinking aptitude of a child, playing them in 1 game of chess.

My 93 year old Dad still plays skillful chess and I've taught him numerous things.

As with anybody his age, his cerebral functions have deteriorated a great deal and will vary from day to day. I can get him on the chess board(where we play 3 games) and tell early in the first game where the clarity of his thinking is at just by observing his moves and/or mistakes.

He may be functioning just fine talking and doing basic stuff but the chess games are almost like an IQ test for him that day.

Also, there are some very bright children that don't connect to chess very well. Some brains are gifted at math/analytical thinking(mine) some are gifted in language/art(my wife). Just like some bodies were built for power sports, some for endurance sports and some were not born to be athletes but can still exercise their entire lives to be healthy.

I call chess, the "Sport for the Brain".

Playing it, exercises your brain............regardless of whether you are good or not. If you're not good at something, you usually decide to do something else, however.........which is good.

Pick something challenging and entertaining  to stimulate your brain. The key to this being especially rewarding is for that endeaver to be productive vs non productive. 



By lar - Jan. 14, 2019, 3:53 p.m.
Like Reply

Hi MetMike,

What I’m saying, at it’s heart, is IQ tests have done a poor job of eliminating cultural or educational factors in the quest to quantify raw intelligence.

1) our standardized  IQ tests do a poor job of measuring raw intelligence across a broad spectrum of people. IQ tests could be formed to be applied more broadly but instead tend to have certain prerequisites which cloud the resulting conclusions. Helen Keller would have tested poorly as a child but she was always quite clever. Similar miscues happen across cultural boundaries in testing for raw intelligence.

And 2) These and similar other constructs have long been used to establish a false superiority of one ethnic group over another. 

Wayne’s initial question of basically “If scientifically proven, is the ideation of intellectual superiority of one ethnic group over another a racist ideation?” is a profound question. I never answered that question because it would require people to redefine their misconception of what racism is. I honestly and honorably tried doing that here once before. I don’t have the stomach for doing it again. It is better to expose the shortcomings of the tools used to measure that “proof”.

For example: There are quite clever people who have no interest in playing chess well. There are too many false negatives to rely on chess prowess as a definative measure of a person’s intelligence. For example: A child who struggles to sit in a chair for extended periods is not going to do well at chess no matter how intelligent they are. The positives tend to be reasonably accurate but the false negatives are far too numerous for this to be a reliable indicator.


By lar - Jan. 14, 2019, 4:03 p.m.
Like Reply

Tim New,

The topic is not poverty, the topic is IQ disparities.

 I get you are making a correlation between poverty and intelligence but apartheid has had a much greater impact on poverty and distribution of wealth than IQ. 

Same as in the USA.  

Let’s save that bunny trail for another discussion, another day. It is important but it blurs this conversation.



By metmike - Jan. 14, 2019, 7:32 p.m.
Like Reply

This is a great discussion and I agree with the part of standardized tests often not being fair to test for certain things. 

I am using chess for several reasons. One is my experience. Another is that it measures a students ability to think in an abstract, problem solving way without any cultural bias or previous experiences/environment.

I strongly recognize too that everyones brain is different. Some very smart people are no good at chess. Some brilliant grand masters are greatly lacking in other cerebral skills. However, they all have the exact same opportunity on a chess board when they start out to apply this particular kind of thinking. 

After playing 100,000 games of chess with thousands of kids from every walk of life, I have made some observations. This includes spending a few years helping the inner city schools develop a chess program. 

The 5 schools that I coach at, feature incredible parental support. At competitive tournaments, we will often get BOTH parents to come with their child. The inner city schools need a bus for most of their kids and we might get 1 parent for every 5 kids to show up at my tournaments. 

So the inner city kids are deprived of alot of things that good parenting and schools provide. But when playing chess, that doesn't matter. It's their brains vs the brains of the other kids brains, using a universal, chess language with no advantage for either. 

Sadly, the inner city kids often don't do as well overall. This is not a racist view and as mentioned before, I celebrate each child and in fact spend more time to assist those struggling. This is also not because their parents are poor or uneducated or because they didn't have all the advantages that some kids had to enrich their education. 

It's mostly because they got their parents brains. Brains that are not as skilled at doing the analytical thinking needed to be successful on a chess board and in many professional fields that feature certain high paying jobs.

This is also why alot of them live in the inner city.

But there are other great jobs/fields that don't require analytical thinking or math problem solving type skills. I am only saying that the % of kids with highly tuned analytic thinking brains in the inner city of our town is less than what it is outside of there. 

 IQ tests are designed to measure analytical thinking.......  And a lot of other things. So, I agree that this is something that is going to lower IQ scores of people that are not very good at analytical thinking.............and made worse when the test requires a learned skill that goes with the analytic thinking. 

Does this mean that we should consider the tests biased and adjust them so that people who don't score well in this area can do better.........using different ways to test intelligence?

Yes, with regards to trying to make it a more unbiased way to test analytical ability.........neutralizing disadvantages to some people inherent in the tests.

No, with regards to using analytical ability as a measure of IQ.

We can adjust tests to measure anything which the experts think are important identifiers of IQ based  on what society considers intelligence. 

It's clear that when using averages of entire groups/different races, even in the most unbiased tests,   scores will be different than other races in different categories. To insist otherwise, would be like ignoring the fact that the worlds most gifted long distance athletes are Kenyans and Ethiopians.........because  their genetics endow them with unique physical attributes/characteristics.

Or that the timbre of an African Americans singing voice is not related to their race and doesn't give them an advantage in that field.........or in power sports, like football and sprinting events.

These are real differences that we can see, hear and measure and should embrace as realities. 

Politically, its become more acceptable to discuss these physical traits that impart advantages to one race. However, it's still unacceptable to acknowledge differences in brains, which are easier to deny when they show a tendency based on race........especially when society uses labeling verbiage like "superior" or "inferior" when comparing IQ scores. 


Society also has determined that the ability to run extraordinarily fast or be tall and jump high is worth millions of dollars a year when you apply it in some sports. This is part of the physical package that defines the outward human being.

Inside each persons head is a brain which determines thinking characteristics just as real to how it functions.

Yes,IQ tests are inherently biased at measuring cerebral aptitude because learned knowledge helps  people to do better on these tests.

As it turns out however, there is a positive feedback going on beyond just the disadvantaged persons background that is related to genetics.

The disadvantaged person is often living in their disadvantaged state because Mommy and Daddy were also disadvantaged...............related partly to being born in poverty for instance but also because they weren't born with the innate cerebral potential to be productive in careers that require classroom prowess. 

My Dad never met his dad and grew up on welfare, in poverty in the inner city of Detroit.

He graduated from the University of Detroit and was an industrial engineer for Ford Motor for 40 years. He also still plays skillful chess at 93 years old.

Coincidence?

Not. 

He has also shared his gifts with those around him for his entire life.... financially, spiritually, emotionally and as an ideal role model. He has always reached out to the poor or disadvantaged, or who's civil rights were being trampled on in the 50's/60's, often to people he didn't know. 

Not everyone can be like this but his alcoholic dad, by not being in the house didn't mess him up and donated some great DNA that programmed him to be a success from the start. 

Lucky me. I got the DNA and the worlds best Dad.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mg5a2DYyXQ

http://www.pressandguide.com/news/checkmate-nonagenarian-chess-whiz-influences-generations-of-players/article_82494772-e57a-5f15-a0ed-b57ed9c33555.html

 

By wglassfo - Jan. 14, 2019, 10:01 p.m.
Like Reply

Hi Mike

I read that article and although I have never seen you blow your own horn, you must be really proud about your father, and I suspect your success teaching chess, to so many young adults or soon to be adults

If that was me I would be really proud, and probably a bit happy the way your life has turned out, for you.

Tks for the article

Also love the way you handle such a diverse group on MF

By lar - Jan. 14, 2019, 10:46 p.m.
Like Reply

MetMike,

Very cool about your dad, your relationship with him and your coaching students to play chess. 

Looks like a wonderful set of experiences.

Your metaphors are also interesting but again, causality is not as easy to prove as a correlation. I accept there is some kind of correlation between chess playing and intelligence - its your conclusion about the causation of poor chess playing which misses the boat. The positives correlations are reasonably sound, it's the false negatives that are misleading as to causation.

The same causality has been repeated and refuted generation after generation that certain ethnic group members can't think critically, learn to read, learn mathematics, run a business profitably, play golf, or succeed in government, be an engineer or or or ad nauseum. This is the same beat on a different drum around the intellectual superiority of one ethnic group over another. For generations the same baloney was served up as fact about women and their diminished intellectual capacity.

Neurologically, one baby is the same as the next. Sure there are variations baby by baby but a neurologist can not tell a baby's ethnicity based upon neurological clues which determine that baby's intellect. There are other reasons for any parallel which might be found.

That is DNA in action. For whole segments of our population to not understand this speaks to other dynamics. 



By metmike - Jan. 15, 2019, 12:40 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks lar,

"For generations the same baloney was served up as fact about women and their diminished intellectual capacity."

I need to clarify something. I am not referring to intellectual capacity, just the unique type of analytical thinking that is used to play chess.........and do math problems or do similar thinking.

In many ways, I think that women are superior to men. Certainly, if women led most countries and were the generals of armies, the vast majority of wars would have never happened.

But men like to strategize and are better, in general at the type of analytical thinking used in chess.

Let's introduce some profound evidence. Every year, we have the Individual Scholastic Chess of Indiana Championships in our state.  Students must first qualify at the regional sites across Indiana to play in the championships.  Every year, on average around 90%  of the qualifiers and top ranked students in the older divisions are boys and 10% are girls. 

I've been running chess programs for 25 years........this is the way its always been. We encourage girls/young ladies to play chess too and at the younger ages, when parents sign them up, it's closer to 60-40. But then nature takes over. Girls brains work differently than boys brains. There are several elements to this(boys/men like to strategize for instance). When you are good at something, you are drawn to it. When you aren't good at it, you usually lose interest. 

Here are the results of the SCI tournament state finals last year. Note the 12th and 8th and under are mostly boys.

http://www.scichess.org/2018/2018INDfinalsResults.TXT


The graph below shows chess grandmasters. Of the 1,594 grandmasters, only 35 are females. This is only 2%. Clearly this is related to the difference in the way that the male brain works vs the female brain.

https://woochess.com/en/blog/why-men-rank-higher-than-women-at-chess

Female players number in chess

Does this make males superior to females?

At chess and endeavors that use the same part of the brain with similar thinking, on average, obviously yes.......but  with tons of exceptions.

In many other realms, no. In fact  one can make a strong case for women to be far superior to men:

             Why Women Are the Superior Gender

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201102/why-women-are-the-superior-gender


I'm just passing on my observations based on 25 years as a chess coach.


Here's an article that you might find interesting:

The Challenges of Black Chess Masters

http://www.thechessdrum.net/blog/2010/08/19/the-challenges-of-black-chess-masters/

By TimNew - Jan. 15, 2019, 5:07 a.m.
Like Reply

"I’d surmise, in current times, Africa will definitely have a rough time measuring up economically to the USA because it tends to not worship capitalism the same way the US does.."


Feel like I'm starting to beat a dead horse here,  but this is the exact quote from you, Lar, to which I responded. 


By lar - Jan. 15, 2019, 9:28 a.m.
Like Reply

Sure, the USA is driven by capitalism more than it is on being a democracy. This is why the USA is an economic powerhouse.  This is why we have evolved into more of oligarchy than a democracy. A true democracy is what I stand for more than anything. I align with the left because the left reflects true democratic values better. In my lifetime the right has better promoted the interests of commerce. An honest to goodness democracy where we are all equal under the law (and in practice) is the foundation of my own patriotism. People like me have been excluded, managed, handled through multiple Jim Crow based evolutions of systems of control. The narrative of these controls has always been rooted in some form of false intellectual or moral superiority. 

Capitalism is why we have gerrymandering, voting restrictions and the electoral college. It’s about the retention of power so the masses have less say. It’s capitalism dressed up as democracy  

The world has never seen exploitation of others in the name of commercial pursuit like the USA has past and present. No country in the history of the world has commandeered resources on the scale of what my country has done has done in the name of economic pursuits. Not even close. Economic power via commerce. Pollution, war for oil, resource consumption and waste per capita are considered collateral damage or a CGS on an income statement or in some actuarial table. 

Having large amounts of money is no indication of a person’s IQ. Our society makes this mistake all the time. Wealth as an indicator of intelligence is a fallacy. Lack of wealth is not an indication of intellectual inferiority. 

Sure, corruption is well and alive in Africa. You make this point in a conversation about ethnic IQ skew however. My point to you is that this is a whole ‘nother topic. My response to you about our conversations get circular because you use debate team tactics to obtain a strategic “win”. I am not interested in debating you for the purpose of “winning”. 

If the conversation is about sharing and listening to others ideas I’m in. I’m not interested in convincing you or others to believe like I do. I’m not interested in debating as a form of competition with you or anyone.

It is difficult enough to have a civil conversation with people who believe falsely they have some genetic superior intellect and people of different ethnicity are intellectually inferior. By different measures those same people have greatly diminished mental characteristics and others are enhanced. 

If we are to compare intellect between ethnicities we should take measurements which eliminate the test biases. This is where the human race is found homogeneous around intellect. 

By metmike - Jan. 15, 2019, 1:21 p.m.
Like Reply

lar,

While I disagree about some things you state related to IQ(agree that the tests are biased in favor of those benefiting from the best educations). I am in strong agreement with you that the US is the world's biggest OVER consuming nation on a per capita basis and should be sharing more of our wealth. 

So let's focus on this area that we agree strongly on. As the richest country in the world, it should be our obligation to share some of our blessings and wealth with, not only our own citizens but the rest of the world.

People can assign whatever reason they want for this disparity in wealth....,geographic location, leadership, IQ, etc but the fact is still that it exists profoundly.

1. If its geographic location...............people with the ideal geographic location should be sharing with those that are less fortunate.

2. If it's IQ(or you think that its IQ) those that think its from this, should especially be SMART enough to understand that they are well endowed with the ability to produce enough for them.............and many others. Only a lack of compassion or lack of understanding of how other humans live would cause a rich person to reject this. 

3. If it's governmental leadership.............we have our hands tied. The US has a long history of intervening to impose its belief system on foreign countries and most efforts have been counter productive. Mostly because our corrupt/immoral politicians have agenda that often coincides with factors unrelated to the basic needs of poor people being met. 

4. Regardless of whether it's for reason X, Y or Z, the main reason that we have a tough time embracing the objective of sharing our wealth is that we over appreciate our need for excessive material things and under appreciate the need of others to have basic necessaries. 

The fraudulent climate accord is based entirely on a transfer of wealth from the developed countries to the undeveloped countries. I would be 100% in favor of this idea if it was based on telling the truth. 

Instead of hijacking climate science to accomplish an altruistic objective,  just tell the truth. The problem is that the truth would not sell the transfer of wealth idea in the US and other rich countries. Also, under the transfer of wealth, climate accord plan, there will be massive graft and misuses of the money because it's supposedly for climate "adaptation" for the poor countries and goes to their governments, that decide however they want to use this "adaptation" labelled money..........and thats often not going to be where their poor citizens would best benefit from it.



By lar - Jan. 15, 2019, 6:58 p.m.
Like Reply


Not necessarily the best education MetMike... a different education. With different priorities and attendant insights. If the tests were skewed towards this different education/experience set, the results would be flipped on their head. 

Humankind raw intelligence is reasonably constant  


By metmike - Jan. 15, 2019, 9:04 p.m.
Like Reply

Wayne,

Thanks so much for the highest  compliments. We are all very fortunate to be living where we do on this planet and at the time in human history that we do...........compared to other not so nice places and going back to before circa 1900 or so.

Probably, 99.999% of humans that ever lived or are living didn't or don't have it as good as us. 


Thanks for starting this thread and the thoughtful/sincere contributions from everyone, especially lar. 

This is the quintessential example  of a lengthy NTR discussion between posters that disagree on some elements but can respectfully make good points which others read and think about.