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

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Caligastia


We are talking averages, so no.

So in this hypothetical world, on average, a black person is genetically less intelligent than a white person. You don't think this may cause an issue which leads to quotas (or simply the non-elimation of them if they're already in place)?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kontiki


So in this hypothetical world, on average, a black person is genetically less intelligent than a white person. You don't think this may cause an issue which leads to quotas (or simply the non-elimation of them if they're already in place)?

People are still individuals, and should be treated as such. The existence of average group differences shouldn't change that. It's hard to imagine a world in which average differences are accepted, and the concept of the individual is celebrated...no doubt there are some who would use this new information to justify racial preferences and quotas, but I'm hopeful that this would be the exception not the rule.

In any case, we should know the truth about ourselves, even if it isn't pretty.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Caligastia
In any case, we should know the truth about ourselves, even if it isn't pretty.

I'm sorry, no scientific study about populations is going to mean you are smart

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Yes, I forgot for a second that he's a commie.

Oh, that has nothing to do with it. You can have communist meritocracies. Kid wouldn't wan to live in one, though.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by BeBro
What exactly would a difference in "power of reason" mean in practical terms? Are people somehow unable of doing certain things, like having a debate or ordering a pizza?

More like getting a high-paying job that requires a lot of intelligence.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kontiki
If that were true, there would be no AA or equivalent now. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What? How can you justify AA and such by the fact that they already exist? That's as circular as it gets.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You can have communist meritocracies.

Not if you have dominant races, sexes etc..

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Not if you have dominant races, sexes etc..

But there won't be dominant races or sexes. Scientists aren't going to discover that the gene that makes you black also makes you dumb as well.

They're just going to discover (or might or won't discover - I'm not arguing one way or the other) that people that happen to have the black gene are also more likely to have the dumb gene, but people with the white gene can have the dumb gene, too.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael
But there won't be dominant races or sexes.

I don't mean dominant like more intelligent. I mean it like able to control the other group.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


What? How can you justify AA and such by the fact that they already exist? That's as circular as it gets.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm just pointing out that it exists despite the fact that you see no reason for it to exist. Given that, why would genetic evidence of intelligence discrepancies kill it off?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't mean dominant like more intelligent. I mean it like able to control the other group.

Well, that situation already exists. Some scientists making some discvoery isn't going to change that.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Well, that situation already exists. Some scientists making some discvoery isn't going to change that.

My point is that if one race is more intelligent than others that a meritocracy would make that race dominant, and that would not be compatable with principles that I believe inherent to communism. I think that a communist society should have a sharing of power among groups, but then I'm a feminist too.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
One wonders if those people that are enraged by Watsons comments (and/or the book "The bell curve") would be as enraged if the result would be the other way round, i.e. blacks are more intelligent than whites.

I would certainly continue to disagree. In fact many of the people who like the idea that whites are more intelligent than blacks also peddle the idea that blacks are better at music and dancing - ie: have a better sense of rhythm. I belief that both ideas are prejudicial (pre-judging) nonsense.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That is incorrect. Many tests do measure mostly test-taking ability, but IQ tests are a fairly good measure of intelligence at least within cultures.

So also might chess, crossword puzzles or abillity to play Civilisation measure certain dimensions of intelligence. They don't measure the whole multi-faceted, multi-dimensional kaboodle though. We don't even know what intelligence is, in my opinion, beyond attempts to understand and crudely measure certain aspects of it.

Last time I looked, IQ tests included numerical, verbal and visio-spacial puzzles - all of which can be improved on with practice in those areas - like all other puzzles and games.

Notwithstanding all this, the point about cultures is important though. Insofar as these puzzles may indicate competencies at certain aspects of thinking, they are culturally dependent, so of limited use when making cross-cultural comparisons.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
More like getting a high-paying job that requires a lot of intelligence.

Like Secretary of State?