Race, Intelligence, & Genetics or How James Watson pissed off a lot of people.

[Berzerker]

Oh I see, so you think the astronomical odds of equal intelligence among races is no barrier to your argument? I think its obvious the races are not equally intelligent just because of the odds against it. The fact individual intelligence varies as well should be a clue and does "imply" the same for races because the same mechanism is at work - evolution.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh I see, so you think the astronomical odds of equal intelligence among races is no barrier to your argument?

There aren't [inherently] astronomical odds against it. What assumptions are you making to come to that conclusion?

[Kuciwalker]

The fact individual intelligence varies as well should be a clue and does "imply" the same for races because the same mechanism is at work - evolution.

This argument is flawed. It simply does not follow. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the variation in intelligence between individuals.

[Jaguar]

Kuci is always right.

[Berzerker]

Okay, what are the odds for or against equally intelligent races?
What in nature is equally intelligent?

Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the variation in intelligence between individuals.

Wow, it has everything to do with variations in intelligence among and within species. Environmental pressure combined with beneficial mutations drives intelligence. Smart people produce smarter kids and smarter people can adapt easier to tougher conditions than dumb people who are more likely to be killed off. But not everyone will face the same pressure, those groups who have it easier will have more dumb people and a lower overall intelligence.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Okay, what are the odds for or against equally intelligent races?
What in nature is equally intelligent?

You need a prior distribution for that, and for that we have no data. Induction from what we know of genetics and evolution and the time in which different selective pressures have had an opportunity influence the different races implies that, absent strong evidence to the contrary, we should assume that under identical social conditions race has no influence on intelligence.

[Dinner]

I don't know about people but I do know that certain breeds of dog really are smarter then other breeds. They're all the same species but each breed has its own subset of genes due to artificial selection.

That just shows that intelligence can be selected for at least in an artificial process. I'm not really sure it would work that way in the wild though since there are so many competing selective pressures at work that the theoretical higher intelligence gene might lose out to any number of things.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Okay, what are the odds for or against equally intelligent races?

Assuming that intelligence is limited to a significant degree by genes, which may not be as significant as you think, then the differing selective pressures would have to greatly stress higher intelligence in one group but not stress it as much in another. The stress for higher intelligence would have to trump a whole host of other stresses like disease resistance, athleticism, ability to survive on little food, and out do the dumb jock's ability to woo females.

I'm not saying it is impossible, as I noted before some breeds of dog have been breed for intelligence but I'm doubtful that selective pressures have been so different on different populations of humanity to the extent that we could generalize about a entire race. Occam's Razor tells us that the less complex explanation is normally right so more likely humans all fall into a bell curve and race isn't a significant factor.

More likely the answer lies with the levels of human development which depends on culture, economic conditions, political conditions, and a whole host of other things. The big divide likely isn't race but wealth.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't know about people but I do know that certain breeds of dog really are smarter then other breeds. They're all the same species but each breed has its own subset of genes due to artificial selection.

As you note, dogs have been subjected to far stronger selective pressures (natural or artificial) than humans and also have shorter generational spans.

[Dinner]

Yep, that is absolutely true.

[Berzerker]

As you note, dogs have been subjected to far stronger selective pressures (natural or artificial) than humans and also have shorter generational spans.

So a speeded up process produces variations in intelligence? It works on us too... As groups spread out across the world everyone was subjected to different environmental pressures with the globetrotting groups selected even more for intelligence - the dumb are more likely to perish during the trip or when times get tough in a new land.

You need a prior distribution for that, and for that we have no data. Induction from what we know of genetics and evolution and the time in which different selective pressures have had an opportunity influence the different races implies that, absent strong evidence to the contrary, we should assume that under identical social conditions race has no influence on intelligence.

Not race so much, but geography and history. Where you live and where your ancestors lived all along the way influences your intelligence. Race is just another symptom of evolution...

The big divide likely isn't race but wealth.

Or the intelligence to obtain wealth...

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Jaguar

First of all, it's not my claim, but I can still explain that.

I suggest reading the article you linked to, figure 1. You've pwn3d yourself by posting an article that counters your claim in the very first figure in it. Man, arguing some things on Apolyton feels like special olympics.

The figure shows that the average correlation between BSID and future IQ scores starts very high and decreases as children age, stabilizing with an average correlation around 0.3 at approximately five years of age. For purposes of comparison, when older children are given achievement scores three years apart, the correlation between scores is on the order of 0.6 (Cruse et al., 1996).
A correlation of .3 between the BSID and future masures of IQ means that the BSID score explains only nine percent of the variation in future test scores for a particular individual.

In other words, those tests they gave kids have very low correlation with their score even when they are a few years older. Quite the opposite of your claim:

They studied IQ tests given to children at the age of ~12 months (which is actually highly correlated with their intelligence as adults, in general.)

Here is the graph:



As you perhaps know, correlation of .3 is considered low in this area.

Case closeth.

[Kidlicious]

...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I was actually just getting a dig in at Kid... but in a working communist economy (oxymoron alert) jobs would be assigned based on skill, just like (ideally) within any organization. Rewards wouldn't necessarily be meritocratic.

People should also be given training as needed. Businesses and individuals can't always afford training that is needed.

[Agathon]

Has anyone actually noticed the elephant in the room?

If intelligence and race are to be scientifically correlated to each other, then both ought to be scientifically respectable concepts. However, race, as it is used in contemporary discussions is not a scientifically respectable concept, so attempts to correlate intelligence with it are doomed to failure from the start.

Of course we could attempt to correlate intelligence with our socially constructed concepts of race, but that would be pointless.

Plato defined a scientifically respectable concept over 2400 years ago as "a word that divides reality at its natural joints". That's still true, and race words do not count among those. Worrying about race and intelligence is about as smart as worrying whether the French are smarter than the Germans.