Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

...a few pages back: you missed an important detail in that study. In these good homes, whites and orientals did significantly better than their average as well, so the IQ gap was still there to virtually the same degree.
I didn't miss it; I did comment that that study was interesting. (If not for the degree of control, including all homes being white, the study wouldn't be interesting.) I don't think I've actually questioned that study, nor have I read any of the other studies in detail. I've tried to limit my comments narrowly, about this whole approach to studying psychology. It just isn't the route to knowledge. The approach of these researchers is to start with an extremely weak hypothesis (i.e. weak because there is no known mechanism to suggest a particular thing is causing an outcome), and then to do some type of survey looking for a correlation to confirm or deny it. That's the wrong way to approach the subject. One has to start with individuals and study them, their environment and their processes in depth, and use these other cursory surveys as cross-checks/sanity-checks. The field of psychology seems to be filled with this flawed approach.

Now, on the twins study, as I said, it is interesting, but as presented here it is not proof. One would have to know much more about those families than simply the fact that they were white. Since our day to day experience shows the important role that family, teachers, and values play in what kids do, these are the key factors one would have to "control for". Maybe the study did, and the questions would be answered if one looked at the details. However, it's quite reasonable to assume that people who adopt like-colored kids are different in some way -- in terms of values etc. -- than people who adopt kids of another color. It is also reasonable to assume that a parent of such a kid might make faulty assumptions about the kids potential, based on the kids color. [The "mixed-race" study, where the parents did not know their kids race tried to address this; and that's a good thing. The point is, the case has to be made like that: step by step, and making sure variables are not being ignored.]

In the twin study, the fact that the kids had similar IQs when they were young and only reflected their racial averages as they grew older is prima facie evidence that nurture was playing more of a role than race. [To fill this gap, one needs another study to explain the different growths at different ages, across a whole set of other population.]

I won't comment on the world-wide studies because I haven't read them. When the studies with very few variables are so questionable, going to worldwide figures would probably be fraught with problems. Blackness itself is not the issue (as you said yourself in the note about dark people from India). So, it boils down to African origin. The problem is that African origin ties in so strongly to geography and culture that one would need to use very controlled studies to really understand the facts.

And, at the end of the day... what's the payoff? If Marva Collins can take a set of Chicago ghetto kids and have them reciting Shakespeare, and going on to surpass the average white public-school kid, does that then demolish all the studies? after all a single exception is all one needs. If not, then how does one integrate this with the studies?

Anyhow, I'm going to bow out of this topic for a little while. I see you have your fair share of separate sub-threads going.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

RE: Athletic Blacks:

I'm addressing this athletic thing in a general manner--not quoting anyone in particular: Forget race for a second and define athletic! Are we talking absolute strength, endurance, agility or what? Blacks dominate whites in agility/speed sports, but whites (usually Slavs and Icelandic types) dominate absolute strength competitions such as Olympic Powerlifiting, and Strongman events.

Back to racism, I think the definition is the belief that Character is genetically/racially determined, not intelligence. Rand argued that even if it were proven that a particular race had a higher intelligence, it would mean nothing because what applies to the race as a statistical whole does not apply to the individual. Achievement is ultimately the only real test of intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to you statement that I quoted right above:

I wanted to know what you were referring to with this fragment:

In the case of the % chance of going to prison correlation...

But I am (stating that an essential characteristic of being black is having a high level of testosterone). According to the book, Blacks have 3%-19% more testosterone than whites. The correlation between testosterone levels and crime/violence is also shown in the book.

The parenthetical comment was added by me to establish the context of your assertion.

Even if the statement of the average levels of testosterone is true, it still does not mean that it is an essential characteristic of being black. If we somehow lowered the level of testosterone in a black male to that of a non-black male, we would not say that we diminished his "blackness". Likewise, increasing the testosterone production in a non-black male would not make him "more black".

But anyway, failing to focus on the word "essential" is not nearly as important as to what your position actually is. Do you only believe that blacks are more violent because you perceive that a black male, on average, has a higher level of testosterone than a non-black male? If not, what other reasons do you have?

Do you know how the study that claimed that there is a (positive) correlation between levels of testosterone and violent crime conducted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were, of course counter-atrocities on the part of White Christians at the time (e.g. the Crusades) but it doesn't change the fact that White Christians were the last, not the first to engage in the barbarity of Chattel Slavery, and the FIRST to really try to suppress the Global Slave trade!!
This is in fact quite untrue. Slavery is still widespread in the Sahel, practiced by Black Muslims. The most egregious example in the modern world is the enslavement of around 100,000 Dinkas (who are Christians or pagans) in southern Sudan by Black Muslim slavers of the north. In fact, White Christians are far from the last people to engage in slavery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalBiker, in your last post you have misrepresented my statements so much, and even put words in my mouth, I don't even know where to begin. In fact, I don't think I will; I'll not argue with you anymore on this topic.

I didn't miss it; I did comment that that study was interesting.
Ok, I think you just missed it for the third time. If not, can you please acknowledge that in that study, black students did not get to the level of white children in the white, middle class homes? I'm asking for this because one of your latest counterarguments was based on not understanding/misreading/missing that part of the study.

The approach of these researchers is to start with an extremely weak hypothesis (i.e. weak because there is no known mechanism to suggest a particular thing is causing an outcome), and then to do some type of survey looking for a correlation to confirm or deny it. That's the wrong way to approach the subject. One has to start with individuals and study them, their environment and their processes in depth, and use these other cursory surveys as cross-checks/sanity-checks. The field of psychology seems to be filled with this flawed approach.
First of all, keep in mind that in that study, the intent was to prove that IQ was all based on culture, then the researcher found out that that hypothesis was false. Also, when trying to come up with things that tend to be true about an entire race, why would studying individuals be the best approach? It would seem that is better to study as many people from that race as possible.

In the twin study, the fact that the kids had similar IQs when they were young and only reflected their racial averages as they grew older is prima facie evidence that nurture was playing more of a role than race. [To fill this gap, one needs another study to explain the different growths at different ages, across a whole set of other population.
I'm fine with "less important." By this statement then, I take it you agree that race does in fact play a role? (And when I say role, I don't mean a completely insignificant role.)

And, at the end of the day... what's the payoff? If Marva Collins can take a set of Chicago ghetto kids and have them reciting Shakespeare, and going on to surpass the average white public-school kid, does that then demolish all the studies? after all a single exception is all one needs. If not, then how does one integrate this with the studies?
No, because if she did the same thing to a group of white or asian children, I would put my money on the white/asian children. Wouldn't you? We have to keep things constant. Giving one group heavy training, and not training the other group, then measuring performance won't tell you anything, except maybe the effect of the study. (Of course it wouldn't even tell you that in this case, since the groups are of different races.)

(It is late, I will respond to the other posts tomorrow)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalBiker, in your last post you have misrepresented my statements so much, and even put words in my mouth, I don't even know where to begin. In fact, I don't think I will; I'll not argue with you anymore on this topic.

The only words I "put into your mouth" are in quotes from your previous posts for anyone to review. The conclusions I have drawn are also based on the contents of posts between the two of us which are also available for all to see and judge.

At any rate, I had intended to end my participation in your part of the thread two posts earlier so I agree that it is probably best that we part ways on discussing this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I think you just missed it for the third time. If not, can you please acknowledge that in that study, black students did not get to the level of white children in the white, middle class homes? I'm asking for this because one of your latest counterarguments was based on not understanding/misreading/missing that part of the study.
:) Yes, I acknowledge that according to the study after a certain age the black kids in white homes tended to have IQs testing closer and closer to their racial stereotype. This is what makes me wonder what was different about those two types of homes. If, you're referring to the measurements when they were younger, then those seemed relatively insignificant.

Either way, I really cannto continue this right now; perhaps another time... unless you want to explain Marva Collins's success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) Yes, I acknowledge that according to the study after a certain age the black kids in white homes tended to have IQs testing closer and closer to their racial stereotype. This is what makes me wonder what was different about those two types of homes.
That's jumping the gun a bit. Before conjecturing about homes or kids, I would start by conjecturing about the statement itself. That is, saying something doesn't make it a fact, so first we should wonder if it's a fact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are many things to dislike about that study; I was just trying to make clear to Viking which part of the study-summary I had read. The study did say that the black kids in white homes, as an average, performed worse on certain IQ tests than the white kids in white homes. It said that the black group performed nearly the same at a younger age, but scored lower at an older age.

One would need to know more, before being convinced that that summary is accurate. However, even if it was, all we know about the two groups is that the parents were all white. We don't know (at least I don't know) if one group was significantly different in other ways. Also, I don't know if the babies were different in ways other than their color. For instance, were the black babies taking longer to be adopted? were there other significant differences in their pre-adoption lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are many things to dislike about that study; I was just trying to make clear to Viking which part of the study-summary I had read. The study did say that the black kids in white homes, as an average, performed worse on certain IQ tests than the white kids in white homes. It said that the black group performed nearly the same at a younger age, but scored lower at an older age.
I realized that you don't have time to argue anymore, but I have to clarify this. That is not what it said.

Here is a direct quote from that section of the study:

In their initial report, the authors thought that their study proved that a good home could raise the

IQs of Black children. At age 7, their IQ was 97, well above the Black average of 85 and almost equal to

the White average of 100. However, when the children were retested at age 17, the results told another

story (reported in the 1992 issue of Intelligence).

At age seven, Black, Mixed-Race, and White adopted children all had higher IQ scores than

average for their group. Growing up in a good home helped all the children. Even so, the racial pattern

was exactly as predicted by genetic theory, not by culture theory. Black children reared in these good

homes had an average IQ of 97, but the Mixed-Race children averaged an IQ of 109, and the White

children an IQ of 112.

You got the first bold statement, but you missed the second. When they say "white average" the first time, he meant the white aggregate average (as in nationwide, or worldwide), not the average of the whites in that study. The white aggregate average is about 101-102, but in this study, the average for whites raised in these homes was 112, as you can see. I'll admit it was somewhat poorly phrased by Rushton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to know what you were referring to...

I was referring to this:

For example, given this information, from the Bureau of Justice.

"Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males."

Even if the statement of the average levels of testosterone is true, it still does not mean that it is an essential characteristic of being black. If we somehow lowered the level of testosterone in a black male to that of a non-black male, we would not say that we diminished his "blackness". Likewise, increasing the testosterone production in a non-black male would not make him "more black".
I think it would diminish his blackness, because that if that claim is true, it is one of the things that is characteristically black. Just like how making his skin whiter, shrinking his penis, uncurling his hair, and changing his skeletal structure to one more like a white persons would diminish his blackness.

But anyway, failing to focus on the word "essential" is not nearly as important as to what your position actually is. Do you only believe that blacks are more violent because you perceive that a black male, on average, has a higher level of testosterone than a non-black male? If not, what other reasons do you have?
I think that is the essential reason. There are cultural factors also, but I think many of them started because of the genetic factor. For example, if I start out with a low IQ, people will start expecting less of me eventually, and treat me differently. And if anything, these factors will have a negative impact on my IQ. Of course, none of those factors would have any effect if I didn't start with a low IQ. (To be clear, I'm not claiming there are no cultural influences on black behavior that did not start because of the testosterone.)

Do you know how the study that claimed that there is a (positive) correlation between levels of testosterone and violent crime conducted?
It didn't explicitly state it, but I'm sure it was pretty simple. First, get a random of humans, measure testosterone levels, then determine what kind of behavior they have engaged in. This study found a positive correlation with crime, alcohol and drug abuse, military misconduct, and # of sexual partners.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your problem is that you have a nearly exclusive focus on what others said, and no detectable interest in what actually is.

No, I'm responding to people about what actually is. You still haven't responded to the points I made in my last post to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm responding to people about what actually is. You still haven't responded to the points I made in my last post to you.
You made no points at all, for which reason it is metaphysically impossible to respond. Your response was not based on what is, but on what that wanking article said. I'm saying, you are totally wrong. Now it is incumbent on you to defend the science of Rushton's vomit-pile.

You plainly and overtly declared your rejection of reason as a method of acquiring knowledge, in the course of this thread. I will, of course, admit that I am personally disappointed in your repudiation of reason as man's only means of gaining knowledge, because for some, it turns out, unfounded reason, I thought you might actually be up to the challenge, but you did help guide me back to reality on that point. You have yet to provide the slightest shred of evidence that you are capable of grasping basic science, and since your rationalistic philosophical declarations are the antithesis of and dimetrically opposed to Objectivism, I really don't see any benefit to me in responding to you further. I invite you, with profoundest sincerity, to show me wrong. Menn eg kan være sikker på att det er til dykk umolig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello. There are a number of things I would like to raise for discussion here. I would like begin by putting forward some thoughts on the general principles of biological evolution and natural selection...

It is now fully accepted by any rational person that humans evoloved from a primate-like ancester. That being the case we must assume that there was genetic variability expressed as phenotypic variablility in the poulations of our ancesters all the way from there to here, historically speaking. There must have been for natural selection to have been able to act upon those populations in such a way as to select for certain characteristics that eventually led to us.

If we assume that all that we are is that which is material, then the brain, being just another physical part of us, must have had the same variability in it all the way from our primate ancesters to us, in just the same way as there was variability in arm and leg length, hairiness etc. We, of course, can still see that variability in our bodies right now when we look at the various human forms in the world. Just take a look at the physical difference between a Masi Mara Warrier in Africa compared to an Inuit from the northern American continent. We obviously have no difficulty in acknowledging those differences. Indeed. we would look rather foolish if we did since they are visually self-evident. Why then, is it so diffcult for some people to assume that such variation does not still exist in another part of our physiology, namely that of the brain. Why would, the brain, uniquely amongst all of our physiology, be somehow immune to the principles of natural selection. Of course it is not. Indeed, given that the one of the main things that differentiates us from our primate cousins is our brain capacity, we must assume that variability in brain functioning was one of the things that was acted upon by natural selection in our ancesters.

This then leads on to the subsidiary question of whether variability in brain functioning in humans is significant in everyday terms. Secondly, if such variability is significant, is it spread more or less evenly accross racial groups, or does it exist between racial groups.

To answer the first of these questions (whether variability in brain functioning in humans is significant in everyday terms) I need to define what I mean by "everyday". Perhaps a thought experiment might be in order. Imagine a visitor from another planet came and viewed humans from a distance. They might note that all humans are born, live about 60 to 90 years. They all learn how to eat. They are all capable of making babies. They are all capable of passing on their learned knowledge to their offspring. From this perspective, any variablility there might be in brain functioning between humans would be seen as inconsequential in much the same way as there would be little consequence to differences in their other physical attributes such as height, weight, etc. However, if that alien took a closer look, they would find that subtle differences that had at first appeard inconsequential become much more significant on closer inspection. For example, whilst two individuals might both possess legs enabling them to walk and run, one of them was a world class athlete whilst the other was not. Similarly, whilst both might possess a brain that allowed them to perform all of the normal cognitive functions that all humans need to survive in the world, one of them was a brain surgeon whilst the other was a janitor.

In the paragraph above, I am trying to suggest that, of course, natural selection will have selected for certain cognitive attributes to be present in all humans because they are so essential to survivial. However, in the last two to three hundred years the world has experienced an industrial revolution where quite specific and tightly defined cognitive capacities make for large differentials in people's earning capacities and life experiences. One might expect from this that otherwise small variability in brain functioning between people will have quite amplified effects on the life experiences mentioned above.

So, in answer to the first question....Yes, I do beieve that differences in brain functioning in humans is significant in everyday terms.

Regarding the second question (if such variability is significant, is the variability spread more or less evenly accross racial groups, or does it exist between racial groups). I would refer you to my earlier paragraph where I made mention of bodily differences between racial groups (Massi Mara vs. Inuits). We must assume that there is something in the differeing environments of both of these racial groups such that natural selection favoured a different body type for each. Given that the brain is just another peice of physiology, I see np reason why the natural selection would not have favoured certain cognitive characteristics in one racial group whilst favouring different characteristics in the other group. It is simply illogical to assume (as I have said earlier) that the brain is somehow uniquely immune from the process of natural selection. This is not to say that cognitive variability will not exist within a given racial group, merely that such variability will not be so great as that which exists between racial groups given their different evolutionary histories.

So, in answer to my second question.....Yes I do believe that differences in cognitive capacities exist between racial groups.

I would like, as I close this post, to make clear the following. All that I have written above doies not, in any way imply a superioroty of one type of cognitive functioning above another. To do so would be the same as staing that red haired people were somehow "superior" to brown haired people. The fact is, though, that red hair is different to brown hair. To suggest otherwise is silly. Similarly for differences in cognitive characteristics, to suggest such differences do not exist is illogical. Futher, to suggest such differences are not likely to map on other, more visually obvious, racial differences is to fly in the face of the everything we have learned about Darwinian evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that I have written above doies not, in any way imply a superioroty of one type of cognitive functioning above another. To do so would be the same as staing that red haired people were somehow "superior" to brown haired people.
I'm not sure how to interpret this disclaimer. Are you saying to that you've failed to explicitly point out the superiority of man's cognitive mechanism over that of, say, earthworms, or are you actually denying that man is cognitively vastly superior to the lower animals? If the former, apology accepted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am actually denying Man's cognitive superiority over other life forms. Although this might seem to be an odd position to take given that an earth worm is very unlikely to engage in a conversation such as this, the importance or "superiority" of the cognitive capacities that make such a conversation possible is relative to what it take to survive and make copies of oneself. For humans, having a preposterously big brain seems to be the order of the day. For an earth worm it does not. Both organisms seem to get along fine with the pheotypes that natural selection has conferred upon them. I am guessing that the earthworm thinks (assuming earth worms can think) that it is a terrible shame for all of the other unfortunate life forms that they don't have the capacity to burrow through the soil like they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You made no points at all, for which reason it is metaphysically impossible to respond. Your response was not based on what is, but on what that wanking article said. I'm saying, you are totally wrong. Now it is incumbent on you to defend the science of Rushton's vomit-pile.

You plainly and overtly declared your rejection of reason as a method of acquiring knowledge, in the course of this thread. I will, of course, admit that I am personally disappointed in your repudiation of reason as man's only means of gaining knowledge, because for some, it turns out, unfounded reason, I thought you might actually be up to the challenge, but you did help guide me back to reality on that point. You have yet to provide the slightest shred of evidence that you are capable of grasping basic science, and since your rationalistic philosophical declarations are the antithesis of and dimetrically opposed to Objectivism, I really don't see any benefit to me in responding to you further. I invite you, with profoundest sincerity, to show me wrong. Menn eg kan være sikker på att det er til dykk umolig.

I'm hearing a lot of accusations of irrationality, and what I can only interpret as passionate oratory to obscure that you have nothing to back it up. You're saying "it is all bullshit, prove me wrong." If you expect me to respond, you are going to have to do better. Show me exactly what it is about it that is flawed. I've invited you to try this before, but you've provided nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would, the brain, uniquely amongst all of our physiology, be somehow immune to the principles of natural selection. Of course it is not. Indeed, given that the one of the main things that differentiates us from our primate cousins is our brain capacity, we must assume that variability in brain functioning was one of the things that was acted upon by natural selection in our ancesters.
Exactly. And Rushton does indeed provide an evolutionary explanation.

I would like, as I close this post, to make clear the following. All that I have written above doies not, in any way imply a superioroty of one type of cognitive functioning above another. To do so would be the same as staing that red haired people were somehow "superior" to brown haired people. The fact is, though, that red hair is different to brown hair. To suggest otherwise is silly. Similarly for differences in cognitive characteristics, to suggest such differences do not exist is illogical. Futher, to suggest such differences are not likely to map on other, more visually obvious, racial differences is to fly in the face of the everything we have learned about Darwinian evolution.

I don't agree with you here, it seems as if you're extremely afraid of stepping on toes. Tell me this, is a higher IQ not superior to a low IQ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an evolutionary perspective a higher IQ as compared to a lower IQ is completely irrelevant. From a 21st century industrial civilization's perspective it is very relevant. In other words, a higher IQ can be seen as "superior" only in the relative sense that it makes the difference between a janitor and a brain surgeon. Don't misunderstand me, I live in a 21st century civilization and so I must take into account such differences as measured by an IQ test when choosing what subjects I will study and what job I am capable of getting. however, these concerns are a mere drop in the oceon of the evolutionary history of my species. It may be that the capacities that are held as being "superior" right here and right now turn out to be a copmplete liability in another place and time.

I would reiterate a point I made in my last post. We only see brain functioning as being so terribly important because we are humans and brain size is what has been largely selected for in our recent evolutionary history as a means by which we most effectively survive and procreate. For other organisms, entirely different biological meachisms have assumed greater importance. Its merely a matter of evolutionary persepctive.

But, to concede your point, at least relatively speaking, I would rather the brain surgeon removed my tumor as opposed to the hospital janitor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an evolutionary perspective a higher IQ as compared to a lower IQ is completely irrelevant.

We only see brain functioning as being so terribly important because we are humans and brain size is what has been largely selected for in our recent evolutionary history as a means by which we most effectively survive and procreate. For other organisms, entirely different biological meachisms have assumed greater importance. Its merely a matter of evolutionary persepctive.

Are you saying that IQ level had no influence on human evolution? Also, you are contradicting yourself with these two statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have worked as a police officer and supervisor for 22 years in an urban environment that is 48% "white", 44% "black", with the rest of the racial make-up varied. On a daily basis I have come into contact with folks of each of these various races. Many of them have backgrounds that include incarceration and many do not. One thing I have gleaned from my contacts with people in general is that victims, suspects and witnesses, regardless of "color", all lie at times and all tell the truth at times. The extent to which they will lie certainly varies, but all of them do. Upon having contact with any given person, it is of NO VALUE to me to assume that any of them are more or less trustworthy based on the color of their skin. Whether I'm trying to get a statement, a confession, or simply trying to practice sound officer safety techniques so I can live through the night (or at least go home without serious injury), it is of absolutely NO VALUE to me to assume that I'm going to be safer with this person or that one, that one or the other is going to be more truthful, simply based on the color of their skin. I suspect it's more likely to be a hazard to operate on such "coorelations".

Hi Biker,

I have not followed this thread very closely, so I apologize if you have answered my question already.

I found it interesting and somewhat surprising that you find no value in racial profiling. I realize you don't work in an airport, but that makes for a good clear example of what I gather that Viking is getting at. Deciding whether to search a 24 year old, muslim man or a 83 year old, baptist, white lady seems like it should be a no brainer when you only only have time to search some of the passengers and have no other obvious behavioral clues to go on.

To my knowledge there are no genetic causal relationships between being semetic and blowing up airplanes. The data is all correlational, but it seems like a good basis for that sort of decision, no?

To do so would be the same as staing that red haired people were somehow "superior" to brown haired people.

But we are somehow superior! :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I am saying that the way our brains function in absolute terms has been very important in our evolutionary history. What I am questioning the historically local tendancy to view a particular sub-set type of brain functioning as being superior to another as measured by an IQ test. If an IQ test is designed such that it measures certain cognitive functions whilst ignoring others, it will get the results it is looking for. That is not to say that the things it is trying to measure are not objectively there to measure. Merely, that the choice to see them as being the most important cognitive characteristics is dependant on what is considered to be valuable in a given time and place. In this time and place, the cognitive skills that best map onto the requirements of an industrial civilsation are considered valuable. And why wouldn't they be. Of course they would. It is just that we should remember that such cognitive attributes have posess no intrinsic superiority in and of themselve. Relatively speaking, they most certainly do have a value in modern industrial society though since they represent the difference between a brain surgeon and a janitor (sorry to keep using that example - I'll think of a new one if the need should arise again...).

I can well understand that the distinctions I am making could be seen as being somehwat pedantic because, of course, we do live in a modern industrial society that does reward certain cognitive capacities as measured by an IQ test. I suppose I just take a broader view and see such differences from an evolutionary perspective. Yes, cognitive differences do exist. Yes, such variability is likely to be greater between racial groups than withing them. Yes, this variability is important in every day terms (see earlier post for a definition of "everyday"). But again, I come back to my point about biological difference. From an evolutionary perspective, "superiority" can be defined as that which allows a genotype to lever itself more effectively into the next generation than might have been otherwise had a given characteristic not been present. Nothing more, nothing less. Thus, racial differences in cognitive functioning do exist. Whether such differences are defined as superior or not is entirely dependant on the needs of the time and place.

What this means, is that some racial groups by virtue of the cognitive characteristics that are statistically more prevelant in their group, will be disadvantaged in certsin environements. Thus, IQ tests will tend to place people of Afro-carribean descent on average 15 IQ points below their caucasian counterparts. What has been measured here though, in absolute evolutionary terms is "difference". Not superiority. Obviously, though, within the relative context of the requirments of a modern industrial economy, such differences can make for a substantial difference in life chances.

I am intellectually suspicious of arguments that promote such differences in terms of superiority or inferiority. Such arguments per-suppose a meaning of such terms that do not in any way relate to the reasons why these characteristics evolved in the first place. The cognitive capacities of an Afro-Carribean are perfectly evolved to suit the environment in which they evolved. If they weren't, then they would have evolved different capacities. Such capacities also largely map onto the requirements of modern Western industrial society. But not quite so well as their Caucasian counterparts. Which leads me onto a reply I wish to make to "Viking" regarding his argument concerning higher agression levels in certain racial groups....This must wait for the next post though....cos I need a coffeee....:dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...