Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes

Rate this topic


The Wrath
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think the heart of the case to be made is this: A ) Is intelligence in humans predictably correlated with brain size?

Yes, it is. The correlation between 'g' and total brain size is 0.4 and the result is highly statistically significant. The correlation is even greater between specific parts of the brain and 'g' (frontal lobe). There is also a correlation of -0.58 between glucose metabolic rate in the brain and IQ, indicating that smarter brains are more energy efficient.

B ) If so, does one race typically have a larger brain than another and,

Yes, they do. Orientals have on average larger brains than whites which have larger brains than blacks.

C ) does that race also have a greater average intelligence than another?

Yes, they do. Orientals have a higher average 'g' than whites which in turn have a higher average 'g' than blacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Rushton study he seemed to link racial intelligence with cultural achievement. How does that explain the fact that the world is dominated by European based culture when in fact Orientals are significantly more intelligent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Rushton study he seemed to link racial intelligence with cultural achievement. How does that explain the fact that the world is dominated by European based culture when in fact Orientals are significantly more intelligent?

Intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for achievement. Thus, we can say with great degree of certainty that people of low intelligence will not excel in achievements, but we cannot say that people of high intelligence are bound to excel. In other words, intelligence is a limiting factor for achievement but in addition rationality is required. Differences in rationality easily explain the fact that European cultural achievements are higher than that of Oriental cultural achievements. Some very obvious examples of the importance of rationality is East- vs West-Berlin or North- vs South-Korea, or Hong Kong versus communist China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is. The correlation between 'g' and total brain size is 0.4 and the result is highly statistically significant. The correlation is even greater between specific parts of the brain and 'g' (frontal lobe). There is also a correlation of -0.58 between glucose metabolic rate in the brain and IQ, indicating that smarter brains are more energy efficient.

Now does any of this measure intelligence? I'm not convinced.

I need to see an argument precisely defining what intelligence is and that 'g' or IQ satisfies the criteria for measuring it.

You might be able to argue that one race has natural abilities to perform better on standardized tests, but I'm not convinced that intelligence can be measured on any current standardized test. But even at that, I need to see evidence that 'g' is not culturally influenced. I think it is entirely possible that diet might influence one's score on this test--or that one might be able to strengthen his mental reflexes by listening to certain types of music, playing certain games, etc. So all of this could still be cultural, unless further evidence is provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, intelligence is a limiting factor for achievement but in addition rationality is required. Differences in rationality easily explain the fact that European cultural achievements are higher than that of Oriental cultural achievements. Some very obvious examples of the importance of rationality is East- vs West-Berlin or North- vs South-Korea, or Hong Kong versus communist China.

I'm not sure any of the examples you listed really support your rationality vs irrationality argument. That is, I don't equate "rationality" with capitalism or democracy. Besides, when European culture began dominating the globe, almost all of them had a monarchy and practiced slavery and imperialism, as well as the state-religion that is Christianity.

Historically China had been consistently ahead of the west in almost every single aspect, from science to engineering (things like literature and art is harder to compare across cultures) until about 500 years ago. What explains the huge leap that Europe made during that relatively short amount of time? Could the reason be cultural? And if so, it isn't obvious to me at all that Rushton had controlled for cultural factors in his study.

Another question I have is regarding the samples Rushton used. Nearly all his data came from the United States. That leads to two problems: 1) The large majority of African Americans are genetically mixed with caucasians, and had perhaps gone through a selective breeding process during slavery, and 2) The fact that only a small percentage of the United States (3.5 - 4%) are Asian makes the Rushton's samples questionable. Particularly the data regarding Asians, who has by far the greatest genetic diversity among all other ethnic groups, but are all lumped under the same category in a sample that's dominated almost mostly by people of Chinese-descent (and from very specific regions of China to boot).

ps - I remember reading that there are greater genetic difference amongst Asians than the difference between whites and blacks. Can someone more knowledgeable about genetics or anthropology confirm or deny this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be able to argue that one race has natural abilities to perform better on standardized tests, but I'm not convinced that intelligence can be measured on any current standardized test. But even at that, I need to see evidence that 'g' is not culturally influenced. I think it is entirely possible that diet might influence one's score on this test--or that one might be able to strengthen his mental reflexes by listening to certain types of music, playing certain games, etc. So all of this could still be cultural, unless further evidence is provided.

I agree with this, from personal experience. I went through my first through seventh grade in Asia, and the education in Asia is far more rigorous and demanding compared to the American education system, starting from an early age. Furthermore the area of focus is almost entirely centered on things that are logically based, such as math and sciences, as well as memorization. For instance, an average high school student in Asia is about 2-3 years ahead of his American counterpart in mathematics. To me it seems highly probable that trainings like these, especially at an early age, could have profound influences on the IQ of a child (given the way IQ is currently tested).

Now even given that most of Rushton's samples on Asians are from the United States (although IQ tests of children born and raised in Asia showed similar results), you have to consider the fact that a majority of Asian Americans are either first generation immigrants, or children of first generation immigrants. Hence it's very likely that they grew up in environments that emphasize similar values as those in their native Asia, and especially given that Asian Americans are a highly self-selected group whose members are generally highly educated intellectuals and professionals from their native country with solid academic and/or economic backgrounds. This might go a long way to show why Asians consistently perform better on IQ and standarized tests (and by implication why blacks perform poorly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now does any of this measure intelligence? I'm not convinced.

I need to see an argument precisely defining what intelligence is and that 'g' or IQ satisfies the criteria for measuring it.

The fact of the matter is that currently there is no theory of general intelligence. It's more or less on a "we know it when we see it"-level, which is bad. Intelligence is typically defined as the ability to do abstract reasoning, and I think that a more succinct definition is simply the ability to abstract. But while this is fine as a loose definition that we all immediately understand intuitively, a more functional definition is required. Let me attempt this: your brain processes information and presents it for you in your consciousness as mental components -- units. Each mental challenge requires the building of conceptual *relations* between such mental components. These relations then themselves become mental components that can be held in consciousness as units. Let me give you a couple of examples to give you the idea. Suppose you see for objects:

1) a dog standing on a table

2) a glass standing on a floor

3) a cat sitting on a roof

4) a car standing on a street

In our mind we may start comparing these four objects, building relations between them and realizing that what they all have in common is the on-ness. All of them are objects that stand in a particular physical relationship to other objects, namely vertically in direct contact above the other -- on. This is an abstract relationship that requires us to know and understand the concept of "on." Being able to understand that this relation is the common denominator requires that we are able to arbitrarily try to combine, compare and differentiate all possible conjunctions of these objects. The key here is the word "arbitrarily." Solving the problem requires exhausting a search space. It involves doing mental work in trying to build hypothetical relations and comparing them in search for coherence. This is essentially a mental brute force job. Those that have efficient and fast brains are able to produce far more such relations and do far more mental computations in some amount of time than those that have less efficient and slower brains.

Due to the nature of combinatorics such problem solving is not linear. In fact, they will tend to have threshold behavior. Let me give an example. Suppose you have N components, and solving a particular problem amounts to "connecting the dots", in this case creating a connected network of all N components. How many connections must you create in order to solve the problem? Well, obviously you need at the very minimum N connections. Anything less than N will not yield a connected network. Now, what is strange is that once you have N random connections in this network you very quickly have a connected network. Essentially for the number of connections < N the network is not fully connected, whereas for the connections > N the probability of a fully connected network very quickly approaches 1. N number of connections is here the *threshold*. Thus, if you have a brain that is able to produce less than N connections you won't be able to solve the problem, but if you have a brain that is able to produce more than N connections you easily and effortlessly solve the problem. This is the basis of all IQ-tests. They create problems with threshold-behavior. Either you "get it" or you don't. And "getting it" requires the ability to do a certain amount of mental work in a certain limited amount of time. Thus, solving an IQ-problem amounts to measuring the amount of mental work per time you are capable of performing.

The notion of mental challenges displaying threshold behavior is not new. Sadly I am as far as I know the only one that has thought more deeply about why there is such threshold-behavior, and therefore no serious work has been done in trying to actually quantify the amount of mental work required to solve a puzzle. I think this work will be done, however, in the coming years, and when this work is thoroughly fleshed out it should be possible to rank any IQ-task in terms of its complexity, meaning the amount of mental work operations per second needed to solve it. Thus, I predict that in the future general intelligence will be measured in mental operations per second.

Interestingly the ability to abstract -- or number of mental operations per second -- is directly related to induction. What is induction if not the ability to compare and differentiate many different units and find their common conceptual denominators? Thus, the ability to reason -- to induce -- is directly proportional to one's general intelligence. 'g' IS the quantification of the ability to reason.

You might be able to argue that one race has natural abilities to perform better on standardized tests, but I'm not convinced that intelligence can be measured on any current standardized test.

Once you understand the nature of intelligence, you realize that ANY mental challenge is an intelligence test. An IQ test simply removes the ability to use existing knowledge to solve the problem by presenting "abstract" problems, meaning problems where all the information needed to solve them are contained within the problems themselves.

But even at that, I need to see evidence that 'g' is not culturally influenced.

There's adoption studies, and there's the striking correlation with physiological factors such as reaction times, brain size, glucose metabolic rate etc.

I think it is entirely possible that diet might influence one's score on this test

Oh absolutely. It's well known that being unrested, tired, sick or exhausted temporarily lowers your intelligence. It's also well known that nutritional supplements greatly affect brain growth. Omega 3 can significantly enhance permanent IQ. The fact that IQ is also correllated with height strongly suggests that caloric restriction during childhood can stunt brain development. It is also known that Omega 3 does wonders for kids with learning disabilities (such as ADHD).

--or that one might be able to strengthen his mental reflexes by listening to certain types of music, playing certain games, etc. So all of this could still be cultural, unless further evidence is provided.

Well, there's much less evidence for this. Obviously exercising your brain and reflexes is good, especially during childhood. But just like with any biological system it appears that this is more a limiting factor. I.e. lack of stimuli can stunt your development, but once you have reached a certain treshold there are diminishing returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is that currently there is no theory of general intelligence. It's more or less on a "we know it when we see it"-level, which is bad.

Until we raise it from this primitive level, then, I don't think any kind of sweeping and supposedly scientific claims like this are possible--and considering the kinds of radical conclusions that could be drawn from it, I don't think it at all safe or intellectually responsible to write it an IOU in lieu of future developments.

Interestingly the ability to abstract -- or number of mental operations per second -- is directly related to induction. What is induction if not the ability to compare and differentiate many different units and find their common conceptual denominators? Thus, the ability to reason -- to induce -- is directly proportional to one's general intelligence. 'g' IS the quantification of the ability to reason.

Here I would need proof that 'g' is not influenced by culture, environment, and exercise of will.

There's adoption studies, and there's the striking correlation with physiological factors such as reaction times, brain size, glucose metabolic rate etc.

That could prove more convincing, so if somebody knowledgeable about the subject has the time to look at such studies, I think it would be helpful to respond to this.

Oh absolutely. It's well known that being unrested, tired, sick or exhausted temporarily lowers your intelligence.

Intelligence or response time, geometric reasoning, etc.? I insist that we keep straight exactly what it is that we are quantifying before we call it "intelligence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_...on_Behavior.pdf

Which, as an addendum, I put in my very first post in this topic.

That paper lacks evidence. Are you prepared to defend it scientifically? I invited Viking to defend it, but he was apparently daunted by the idea of actually locating and evaluating scientific literature. I extend the same invitation to you, to present and prove a claim from that paper.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I haven't even had the time to look at it. I was presenting it as the information Onar presented to me, which I thought would be a potential resource for this conversation and I thought it would be good to see exactly how Onar defends his views. I haven't even implied that I would be inclined to defend it, and if anything should say that I've implied the very opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve. It seems to me that you are more interested in quarreling than in the main point, namely that the highly irrational nazi philosophy didn't make the leadership stupid as measured by IQ. IQ is largely independent of philosophy.

I introduced my statement with the words, "I'm just curious". I've never thought of Hitler or the Nazi leadership as "extremely intelligent", so that was obviously a surprising statement to read, especially that you presented it so boldly. I think you've cleared yourself up.

2.

Moebius asked "what is original thinking? what does it have to do with IQ."

I think original thinking would be the ability to come up with new (workable) ideas, or the ability to solve complex problems by seeing them in a different (or new) way. Miss Rand's take on the old and complex mind-body problem, for example, was to see that this was actually a false dichotomy.

What does it have to do with IQ? Actually, i think truly high IQs should reflect this ability as the dominant factor since it is the most useful part of intelligence. Remember how Einstein changed 300 years of physics by simply looking at the problems very differently from everyone else (relativity versus classical newtonian physics).

I'm not very sure that IQ Tests are able to identify this ability efficiently. The Physicist Richard Feynman, for example, scored very low on IQ Tests, but he went on to win a Nobel Prize for his very original work in quantum mechanics. (When Mensa asked him to join them, he answered, "my IQ is not high enough!".)

I think one of the questions that IQ testing has to deal with is whether it tests the ability to stick to rules much more than it tests the ability to question the rules. Ability to stick to (and master) the rules is probably a sign of intelligence, but could it be that the ability to create new rules by disproving existing rules is a higher mark of genius, and yet IQ testing work within the former paradigm?

However, i'm not an expert in this field so what i am saying might indeed have already been thoroughly discussed and even solved by experts in the field.

I hope i have not digressed too far from the topic in trying to answer that question! [but just to "rationalise" this back to topic, what if some people from certain ethnic groups that show low IQ's actually have high genius, but are discouraged from pursuing intellectual interests by the rule-bound system, only to manifest this ability in great originality in music and other lucrative artistic careers?]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until we raise it from this primitive level, then, I don't think any kind of sweeping and supposedly scientific claims like this are possible--and considering the kinds of radical conclusions that could be drawn from it, I don't think it at all safe or intellectually responsible to write it an IOU in lieu of future developments.

This is very unfair. I would claim that we don't really have a very good quantum theory of physics either. The state of theoretical physics is a sorry morass. We know that the equations work (i.e. have predictive power) but that's about it. Nevertheless, to through out such a successful theory as QM just because we don't have a proper interpretation of it is wildly exaggerated. QM still has immense predictive power and therefore deserves to be taken serious as truth. The same is true for intelligence. It has extraordinary predictive power and on this basis alone it must be taken seriously.

Here I would need proof that 'g' is not influenced by culture, environment, and exercise of will.

How on earth can culture impact brain size, gray matter, glucose metabolic rate, and perceptual reaction times and discriminatory power?

That could prove more convincing, so if somebody knowledgeable about the subject has the time to look at such studies, I think it would be helpful to respond to this.

I have read quite a few studies. Most of these studies are summarized by the works of people like Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn and Philippe Rushton. The link to "Race, Evolution and Behavior" I provided was to the *abridged* popularized version of the much longer and more scholar book. This book is packed with scientific references to the peer reviewed litterature, as are all the other of these books.

Intelligence or response time, geometric reasoning, etc.?

All of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... I would simply like to see a refutation of Onar's evidence, which at least superficially supports the claim that average intelligence varies significantly between races. My suspicion is that it is only a superficial support since I highly doubt that we actually can measure intelligence (I think there is more to intelligence than quickness of reaction time, ability to reason geometrically, etc.), and I doubt that the sampled population was sufficiently non-biased.

That's exactly where I am. The human brain is extremely complex and until we have a more comprehensive understanding of how it works, it's a bit premature to claim we can measure intelligence all that well. I'm very skeptical. Furthermore, my only interest in this subject would be that I can understand intelligence better so that I can improve it. I could just pop the lid on my brain, tune a few neurons, and bang!, she's humming like never before. Sort of like Kryton on the Red Dwarf. <_<

Historically China had been consistently ahead of the west in almost every single aspect, from science to engineering (things like literature and art is harder to compare across cultures) until about 500 years ago.

I don't believe this. China didn't rival Rome, nor Roman architecture, nor Roman engineering, nor the sheer power of the Roman army. They didn't rival the Greeks either. The Greeks are the ones who came up with the science of math and science itself. The concept of proof in math goes back to Thales, the philosopher of my avatar. Once that idea was put in place, mathematics took off, and men like Pythagoras, Eudoxus, Euclid and Archimedes advanced the field. As bad as Aristotle's concept of physics was, it was cutting edge, and his biology was definitely cutting edge.

The key point when the West gained ascendancy over the rest of the world was during the time of the ancient Greeks.

ps - I remember reading that there are greater genetic difference amongst Asians than the difference between whites and blacks. Can someone more knowledgeable about genetics or anthropology confirm or deny this?

Asians do look quite different if you look across the spectrum. I myself have read that Japanese are closer to Caucasians genetically, than they are to Chinese people.

Also interesting are Australian aborigines, who look quite different from other races.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asians do look quite different if you look across the spectrum. I myself have read that Japanese are closer to Caucasians genetically, than they are to Chinese people.
Though I've read here that Chinese and Japanese are about as close as whites and Hispanics.
Also interesting are Australian aborigines, who look quite different from other races.
Except, IMO, New Guineans, Andaman Islanders, New Ireland and some Solomon Islanders, i.e. that particular part of the south Pacific / Indian Ocean.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly where I am. The human brain is extremely complex and until we have a more comprehensive understanding of how it works, it's a bit premature to claim we can measure intelligence all that well. I'm very skeptical. Furthermore, my only interest in this subject would be that I can understand intelligence better so that I can improve it. I could just pop the lid on my brain, tune a few neurons, and bang!, she's humming like never before. Sort of like Kryton on the Red Dwarf. <_<

I don't believe this. China didn't rival Rome, nor Roman architecture, nor Roman engineering, nor the sheer power of the Roman army. They didn't rival the Greeks either. The Greeks are the ones who came up with the science of math and science itself. The concept of proof in math goes back to Thales, the philosopher of my avatar. Once that idea was put in place, mathematics took off, and men like Pythagoras, Eudoxus, Euclid and Archimedes advanced the field. As bad as Aristotle's concept of physics was, it was cutting edge, and his biology was definitely cutting edge.

The only thing that the West definitively had an edge was in logic-based philosophy up until 500 years ago. It's hard to compare the Chinese army and the Roman army, given that China was united much earlier than Europe and proceeded to completely dominate its neighboring countries, over a much greater geographical area.

Asians do look quite different if you look across the spectrum. I myself have read that Japanese are closer to Caucasians genetically, than they are to Chinese people.

I find that highly unlikely, given that the Japanese people branched off from the Chinese not longer three thousand years ago. Perhaps you're talking about the Japanese aboriginal Ainu people? But even then I find it pretty unlikely. I'd like you to show proof of your source, given that it's a pretty ridiculous claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that the West definitively had an edge was in logic-based philosophy up until 500 years ago.

I don't agree with you, but rather than rehashing the issue try this old thread out. I'll bump it up as well, since it was an excellent discussion.

I find that highly unlikely, given that the Japanese people branched off from the Chinese not longer three thousand years ago. Perhaps you're talking about the Japanese aboriginal Ainu people? But even then I find it pretty unlikely. I'd like you to show proof of your source, given that it's a pretty ridiculous claim.

You're probably right. I read it in an issue of Scientific American well over ten years ago. I don't remember which.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh wow you're right, they do look Caucasian. Must be what the guy was talking about in Scientific America.

The reason I didn't think they were is because the modern day Ainus look much more Asian than those pictures. But that's probably because of a large amount of inter-breeding with the Japanese people.

Edited by Moebius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the whole Europe vs. Asian achievements issue: I have heard this explained by how Caucasians have larger IQ variability than Orientals, thus more geniuses, thus more progress. I'll see if I can find a source for it.

Eh. Yeah I would seriously like to see a study like that.

Thing is, there really wasn't any obvious superior progress among Caucasians when compared to Asians until relatively recently (relative to their respective histories). Specifically after Europe adopted imperialism and developed muskets and cannons. Pretty much after that Europeans dominated the modern world.

But then you look at Japan, who became the world's second largest economy in less than thirty years. And you look at the rate that China is progressing currently. It would seem to me that "progress" has more to do with economics, education, and culture than the rate that geniuses crop up.

I am not sure if this is relevant or this has been referenced already, but a related article that I found to be interesting:

Race and IQ

That's a pretty interesting article. Because if it's true that the IQ of an average black person has risen 16 points over the last fifty years, then it's very likely that success on an IQ test has more to do with culture and/or education than genetics. It's very improbable that the gene pool of African Americans has suddenly changed to such a degree as to raise the IQ of the entire population in two or three generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, there really wasn't any obvious superior progress among Caucasians when compared to Asians until relatively recently (relative to their respective histories).

This is a fairly correct observation. Philippe Rushton's main point is that both Orientals and Europeans have high cultural achievements whereas blacks have low achievements, thereby indicating that for blacks IQ is a limiting factor.

But then you look at Japan, who became the world's second largest economy in less than thirty years. And you look at the rate that China is progressing currently. It would seem to me that "progress" has more to do with economics, education, and culture than the rate that geniuses crop up.

Actually you everyday mundane economic growth is not due to geniuses, but due to the smart fraction of the population which is related to average IQ.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

That's a pretty interesting article. Because if it's true that the IQ of an average black person has risen 16 points over the last fifty years, then it's very likely that success on an IQ test has more to do with culture and/or education than genetics.

Actually it has more to do with familiarity with IQ-tests. Many IQ-problems are built on a formula and once you have figured out this formula you will always be able to solve these problems. However, *knowledge accumulation* has not increased in society, strongly suggesting that the underlying general intelligence has not increased and that the Flynn effect is a measuring artifact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it has more to do with familiarity with IQ-tests. Many IQ-problems are built on a formula and once you have figured out this formula you will always be able to solve these problems. However, *knowledge accumulation* has not increased in society, strongly suggesting that the underlying general intelligence has not increased and that the Flynn effect is a measuring artifact.

1. So blacks have actually *figured out* the formula on which all IQ Tests are based? That must have taken some high IQ! :lol:

2. Once you have figured the formula out, you will "always be able to solve these problems"? Onar, it's just 16 points increase; that doesn't sound like someone who has figured out "the formula".

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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