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

[Barnabas]

I think presidents or prime ministers dont need to be super intelligent

The ruler is usually a charismatic guy, not dumb but not super smart, who is surrounded by very smart people , generally the minister of economy is smarter than the president for example

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by BeBro
Like Secretary of State?

Or David Beckham?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Kidicious
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.

And my point is that scientists will never discover that one race is more intelligent than another. At best, they will discover that intelligence is at least somewhat determined by genetic factors, and that such genetic factors may appear more in certain groups of people, and those groups of people may be physically distinct to the point that they are categorized as one particular race.

No matter what, race cannot be tied to intelligence so long as race is defined by physical characteristics. Skin pigments do not affect intelligence.

What may end up happening is that if every human on Earth is of an equal socio-economic level, the ones that are more genetically predisposed towards intelligence will get the better jobs. This may happen to mean that more, say, asians get better jobs, but if the determination is made on the basis of intelligence (which may happen to correlate with race sometimes) and not race (which absolutely cannot define intelligence) who cares?

[Cort Haus]

I don't even go with the intelligence=better jobs anyway. There is a correlation up to a point, but it's not a universal principle.

In some organisations, at least in this country, it can be hard to sack people for incompetence, so such people often get promoted into management, where they aren't actually doing any work and are out of harm's way. Add to this the way that some people play the system in terms of politics, arse-licking and backstabbing, and some successful people are neither the brightest or the most hard-working.

Also, some people may be very intelligent, but are not single-minded enough in their ambition to get the best jobs, or the most dishonest in their job applications. They may be too interested in too many things to have the narrow focus that a less-intelligent but more single-minded competitor has.

[BeBMan]

I agree mostly with high intelligence = better chance to get a position in high profile science/research.

In politics, economy etc. it's always debatable if success is mainly a result of high intelligence. One could define intelligence more broadly to include certain things, but still there are lots of other factors determine success for example in politics. Even more in sports or pop culture. That's not to say that successful people in those fields are necessarily teh stupid, of course.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I don't even go with the intelligence=better jobs anyway. There is a correlation up to a point, but it's not a universal principle.

In some organisations, at least in this country, it can be hard to sack people for incompetence, so such people often get promoted into management, where they aren't actually doing any work and are out of harm's way. Add to this the way that some people play the system in terms of politics, arse-licking and backstabbing, and some successful people are neither the brightest or the most hard-working.

Also, some people may be very intelligent, but are not single-minded enough in their ambition to get the best jobs, or the most dishonest in their job applications. They may be too interested in too many things to have the narrow focus that a less-intelligent but more single-minded competitor has.

You're absolutely right.

If a true meritocratic society could actually be established, however, then those that do the best work would get the best jobs. Would those be the most intelligent?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


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

Ah, yes...I see your point.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael
What may end up happening is that if every human on Earth is of an equal socio-economic level, the ones that are more genetically predisposed towards intelligence will get the better jobs. This may happen to mean that more, say, asians get better jobs, but if the determination is made on the basis of intelligence (which may happen to correlate with race sometimes) and not race (which absolutely cannot define intelligence) who cares?

Let's say there are 100 jobs that require super intelligence. The population is composed 50/50 blacks and whites (just an assumption). There are 100 whites qualified for the jobs and 50 blacks that are qualified. I'm saying that 50 whites should get the jobs and 50 blacks should get the jobs. I don't think that just the smartest 100 of them should get the jobs.

[Ecthy]

Pekka, I wasn't criticizing your point, rather aiming at another angle and feeling that you were confusing things. This impression is hardly evitable when you always write so much with so little structure of thought

[Lorizael]

I think the smartest 100 should get them without regards to race. The only way to get rid of racism is to get rid of the concept of race.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael
I think the smartest 100 should get them without regards to race. The only way to get rid of racism is to get rid of the concept of race.

How does giving the smartest 100 the jobs get rid of the concept of race?

[Lorizael]

It, in and of itself, does not. First you need to ensure that all races start at the same place on the socio-economic ladder. Once that's done, you need to let things play out naturally. This means no decisions based on race.

Getting everyone to the same place socio-economically is the difficult part, of course, and I understand that some believe affirmative action is the way to do that. I happen to disagree, but I don't have a perfect alternative, so *shrug*.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael
It, in and of itself, does not. First you need to ensure that all races start at the same place on the socio-economic ladder. Once that's done, you need to let things play out naturally. This means no decisions based on race.

Getting everyone to the same place socio-economically is the difficult part, of course, and I understand that some believe affirmative action is the way to do that. I happen to disagree, but I don't have a perfect alternative, so *shrug*.

Yea, I don't think you can ever have a society where decisions about individuals are not based on race. I think you can have a society where no races and sexes are dominant, where you have no minorities. To me the goal is not just to get people to the same place socio-economically. I think that jobs should also be equal. That is, no certain groups should get the better jobs. I realize though, that some people will not be capable or qualified for certain jobs.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Lorizael
I think the smartest 100 should get them without regards to race. The only way to get rid of racism is to get rid of the concept of race.

I absolutely agree tat the jobs should only be given on the grounds of quaification.

Giving the jobs partly based on race (so that you have an equal distribution in the race of the workers) is definitely something that can also be called racism, as you treat people unequaly based on their race (in the example mengtioned above because you give all of the blacks the jobs, just because they´re black and don´t pay any attention to the question if they´re more qualified than the 50 whites who did´t get these jobs)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Giving the jobs partly based on race (so that you have an equal distribution in the race of the workers) is definitely something that can also be called racism, as you treat people unequaly based on their race (in the example mengtioned above because you give all of the blacks the jobs, just because they´re black and don´t pay any attention to the question if they´re more qualified than the 50 whites who did´t get these jobs)

Equality of the races is not racism. Racism is hatred and domination.