# Race and intelligence



## teuchter (Oct 26, 2009)

On C4 now. Anyone else watching this? The "last taboo"...hmm


----------



## madzone (Oct 26, 2009)

No, I'm watching Family Guy


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 26, 2009)

Hey, Rageh's just round the corner from Birkbeck.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 26, 2009)

I thought that the race and intelligence nonsense had been disproved sometime back in the 1950s.  Intelligence was measured using so called Intelligence Tests, which have long since been discontinued in the world of education because they are not valid.  These tests were literacy based and asked questions to which the answer was only easy if you lived in a Western society and were familiar with Western cultural concepts.  If you had then you scored highly.  If you came from sub-Saharan Africa for example then you could not score highly because the questions were not relevant to your world.

In short they were a test of your previous education and experience but were being used as if they measured something inherent in the person tested and showed their potential.

For a long time pupils in the UK were measured by their Reading Age which was based on size of vocabulary.  This was used as a base line against which other tests were compared.  It again was used as an indicator of basic intelligence but also was flawed in that children from different social backgrounds had differing access to books and reading so the tests were not objective.  Reading Ages were dropped for official testing purposes.

Quite why Channel 4 have decided to drag up this old chestnut is beyond me, unless they have fallen foul of some person or group with a nasty political agenda.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

Are you watching the program? You're an idiot.


----------



## Herbsman. (Oct 26, 2009)

i'm more intelligent than white people

thats why i could end the world with just a few keystrokes on this here computer of mine


----------



## discokermit (Oct 26, 2009)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I thought that the race and intelligence nonsense had been disproved sometime back in the 1950s.  Intelligence was measured using so called Intelligence Tests, which have long since been discontinued in the world of education because they are not valid.  These tests were literacy based and asked questions to which the answer was only easy if you lived in a Western society and were familiar with Western cultural concepts.  If you had then you scored highly.  If you came from sub-Saharan Africa for example then you could not score highly because the questions were not relevant to your world.
> 
> In short they were a test of your previous education and experience but were being used as if they measured something inherent in the person tested and showed their potential.
> 
> Quite why Channel 4 have decided to drag up this old chestnut is beyond me, unless they have fallen foul of some person or group with a nasty political agenda.



i think people get defensive about iq tests and race/class. when what we really should be asking is does it really matter?

if one race was on average five points lower than another, using culturally unbiased tests, what practical difference would it make? 

for instance, if the japanese were on average five points higher than the british and you were interviewing for a job that needed a great degree of intelligence and you had one japanese applicant and one british applicant, you would be a div to automatically think that the japanese candidate is the more intelligent one.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

Why were you expelled from the SWP again?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

discokermit said:


> i think people get defensive about iq tests and race/class. when what we really should be asking is does it really matter?
> 
> if one race was on average five points lower than another, using culturally unbiased tests, what practical difference would it make?
> 
> for instance, if the japanese were on average five points higher than the british and you were interviewing for a job that needed a great degree of intelligence and you had one japanese applicant and one british applicant, you would be a div to automatically think that the japanese candidate is the more intelligent one.



You're aware of the social policy debates related to thing like the bell curve and their real life importance right?


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

teuchter said:


> On C4 now. Anyone else watching this?



Nah.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 26, 2009)

Well, they've mentioned the Bell Curve a few times, but no mention of Gould's Mismeasure of Man yet.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> Well, they've mentioned the Bell Curve a few times, but no mention of Gould's Mismeasure of Man yet.




You're watching the idiot box, talking to randoms about it on the internet, not knowing whether they are watching the same shite you are....

...why?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 26, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> You're watching the idiot box, talking to randoms about it on the internet, not knowing whether they are watching the same shite you are....
> 
> ...why?



It's on in the background as I research tangent planes and work out partial derivatives. You?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 26, 2009)

Next week: "The Chinese - Just How Wily Are They?"


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 26, 2009)

nope, the thick of it special pt 2, laughing me socks off


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Next week: "The Chinese - Just How Wily Are They?"




Inscrutable.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 26, 2009)

It's not a bad programme, actually.

Though why C4 are doing it now is a mystery to me too.  Maybe it's one of their 'seasons'.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 26, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Next week: "The Chinese - Just How Wily Are They?"



not a wily as the pathan  next


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 26, 2009)

I have been watching this programme and it is very good.

James Flynn "IQ isn't a thing in itself"


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

Are there any programmes as good as this on the BEN channel?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 26, 2009)

Marred horribly at the end (though I should have seen it coming) by a sick-making conflation of intelligence and bourgeouis values.  Very good in parts, though.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Why were you expelled from the SWP again?




for criticising lack of internal democracy.

i know what you're saying about how this stuff is used/misused, i've read both mismeasure of man and the bell curve, but in the abstract (and it's probably a diversion from the real argument), i really don't know why anybody holds intelligence in such high regard.

f'rinstance i usually do very well in iq tests, but all i'm really good at is welding. my debating skills are awful, i can't remember anything, i was useless at school and failed all my exams. and i'm lazy. and i steal things from work.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Next week: "The Chinese - Just How Wily Are They?"




They're to blame for the worldwide blackout in Flash Forward


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 26, 2009)

There are very good reasons why many people hold IQ in high regard; they just don't tend to be based on it being an objective measure of some magic quality that makes you Not A Thicko.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> You're aware of the social policy debates related to thing like the bell curve and their real life importance right?


you're right, in real life, this debate is important. i just don't understand why.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 26, 2009)

discokermit said:


> i really don't know why anybody holds intelligence in such high regard.





And now my keyboard is full of tea - thanks for that.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2009)

Stupid people are happier ime, clever folk tend to think themselves into depression.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Stupid people are happier ime, clever folk tend to think themselves into depression.




Dance the night away


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Stupid people are happier ime, clever folk tend to think themselves into depression.


How you feeling today?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 26, 2009)

Just out of curiosity, I Google image searched 'American Family' . . .

(you'll know what I'm on about if you watched the programme)


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> How you feeling today?



A bit down but then i had a couple of original thoughts this morning and it fucked me up for the day.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> A bit down but then i had a couple of original thoughts this morning and it fucked me up for the day.



I smack myself in the head with a brick every now and then - cheers me right up.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2009)

8ball said:


> Just out of curiosity, I Google image searched 'American Family' . . .
> 
> (you'll know what I'm on about if you watched the programme)



And, did you find a white middle class family with 2.4 kids ?


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2009)

Back in the good old days we had endemic malnourishment to keep us thick and happy


----------



## discokermit (Oct 26, 2009)

8ball said:


> And now my keyboard is full of tea - thanks for that.


no seriously. i reckon most people could be trained up to most jobs. there are far more important traits than intelligence.

"if i could be for only an hour,
if i could be for an hour everyday,
if i could be for just one little hour,
cute! cute! in a stupid ass way"

jaques brel said that and he was a fucking genius!


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

discokermit said:


> jaques brel said that and he was a fucking genius!



A million blind people agree


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2009)

I thought Rageh Omar made quite a good program. 

He had to swallow hard when interviewing some people with very unpleasent views. 

Toward the end he met people with more progressive views. 

But the end of the program he returned to the issue, does it matter if it is in fact to do with environmental issues that black children are doing worse in IQ tests (and in school) than white or asian kids, when the basic problem is that they are and that needs addressing.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Back in the good old days we had endemic malnourishment to keep us thick and happy


i had chips for my dinner every day from the age of six to the age of sixteen. never did me any harm.


----------



## miss minnie (Oct 26, 2009)

8ball said:


> Just out of curiosity, I Google image searched 'American Family' . . .
> 
> (you'll know what I'm on about if you watched the programme)


out of 20 images on the first page of results...

7 african american families
3 native american families
1 estonian family
8 white american families
1 picture of marilyn manson


----------



## IMR (Oct 26, 2009)

James Flynn's book _What is Intelligence?_ is well worth reading. 

Richard Lynn did a passable Hannibal Lecter impersonation, but Omar could have picked him up on a few things, such as his claim in _IQ and the Wealth of Nations_ that Serbs have an average IQ around 90, which is lower than that for black British teenage cohorts who have been tested fairly recently.

Nesbit was good, and Rose waffled about defining race, which was fairly irrelevant anyway - the underlying issue not really resolved one way or another if it's shown that human genetic differences are clinal or gradient-like rather than typological.

On the whole the program made a pretty good fist of trying to address several different issues in the space of an hour and twenty minutes.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2009)

discokermit said:


> i had chips for my dinner every day from the age of six to the age of sixteen. never did me any harm.



I can just imagine you in those leg braces.

My Uncle John had Rickets, but that was a bit common so his mam always insisted it was Polio.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I thought Rageh Omar made quite a good program.
> 
> He had to swallow hard when interviewing some people with very unpleasent views.
> 
> ...



Ever met any black, white or asian 'kids'?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> I can just imagine you in those leg braces.
> 
> My Uncle John had Rickets, but that was a bit common so his mam always insisted it was Polio.



You had a pie every day for 15 years! (your own words)


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> You had a pie every day for 15 years! (your own words)



Haha, not quite, but Im glad your interest in my dietary habits has returned


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Haha, not quite, but Im glad your interest in my dietary habits has returned



I just have health concerns about my fav posters. I care too much.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I just have health concerns about my fav posters. I care too much.



You're like one of those 'women that love too much'.

Six stone I've lost this year and I still look like Uncle Buck


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> You're like one of those 'women that love too much'.
> 
> Six stone I've lost this year and I still look like Uncle Buck




Everyone loved Candy


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> Ever met any black, white or asian 'kids'?



Sure, why what is your point?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> You're like one of those 'women that love too much'.
> 
> Six stone I've lost this year and I still look like Uncle Buck



That hitler. Have you really lost 6 stone?


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Sure, why what is your point?



You sound like you've only just found out the different exam performances between black/white/asian, etc


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> That hitler. Have you really lost 6 stone?



Yup. I'm gonna give up smoking next.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Yup. I'm gonna give up smoking next.



Piece of piss that, chuck it all in the bin.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Yup. I'm gonna give up smoking next.



Wow, that's brilliant (in fact, that's amazing). Got any tips?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Yup. I'm gonna give up smoking next.


what about weed? who am i gonna sit and smoke with at parties?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> You sound like you've only just found out the different exam performances between black/white/asian, etc



Ive studied with Nigerians, Arabs, Chinese, etc .. I did not correlate our results by race no ... 

So perhaps it is news to me.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, that's brilliant (in fact, that's amazing). Got any tips?



Eat really really healthily weekdays, do what you want at weekends - working for me.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2009)

discokermit said:


> what about weed? who am i gonna sit and smoke with at parties?



The only time I smoke weed is when i see you! I'm going to be annoyingly smug telling you how much healthier I feel etc


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Eat really really healthily weekdays, do what you want at weekends - working for me.


You cycling/walking to work?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> The only time I smoke weed is when i see you! I'm going to be annoyingly smug telling you how much healthier I feel etc


you selfish bastard.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> You cycling/walking to work?



Walking more, but I aint been on a bike since 1989!

Need to do more exercise, I swam a lot as a kid, should take that up again.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Ive studied with Nigerians, Arabs, Chinese, etc .. I did not correlate our results by race no ...
> 
> So perhaps it is news to me.



You've studied with academic middle class Nigerians, Arabs, Chinese etc

Nowt more to say but sleep on it


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2009)

discokermit said:


> you selfish bastard.



I'm gonna be high on life


----------



## discokermit (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> You cycling/walking to work?


for fucksake don't get him cycling! he's smug enough as it is.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> I'm gonna be high on life


smug cunt.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2009)

Oh yeah, I started eating meat again in March after 15 years of vegetarianism.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Oh yeah, I started eating meat again in March after 15 years of vegetarianism.



Jesus, must be like being reborn.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Oh yeah, I started eating meat again in March after 15 years of vegetarianism.



Murderer.

6 stone, fair fucking play.


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 26, 2009)

the term "race" is a lie. The difference in intelligence between humans is in Culture they were raised in.

Sorry have I derailed this thread from the "Belishi Show"  ??


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

It's also a truth


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> It's also a truth



Not in Science.

We all (outside of Africa at least) come from one Mother.

http://www.ramsdale.org/dna18.htm

This is "truth: with a capital "T"

We need to fuck off this term called "race" It's utter bullshit


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

It's a social truth, your astounding science aside.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> Not in Science.
> 
> We all (outside of Africa at least) come from one Mother.



Eve?


----------



## D'wards (Oct 26, 2009)

I thought the programme could not make up its mind between saying it was bollocks, that iq is a load of shit, and saying that iq is linked with achievement and blaming it all on cultural factors.

Culture all the way for me - shame theres not a study in the iq's of social groups, i'm sure working class blacks/whites/chinese would be all virtually identical. Traditionally there's always been more percentage-wise of the middle class whites than blacks - them fellas bring the average up, tho as they said, things are changing fast.
All the 3 African people i work with have kids doing top degrees currently.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

D'wards said:


> I thought the programme could not make up its mind between saying it was bollocks, that iq is a load of shit, and saying that iq is linked with achievement and blaming it all on cultural factors.
> 
> Culture all the way for me - shame theres not a study in the iq's of social groups, i'm sure working class blacks/whites/chinese would be all virtually identical. Traditionally there's always been more percentage-wise of the middle class whites than blacks - them fellas bring the average up, tho as they said, things are changing fast.
> All the 3 African people i work with have kids doing top degrees currently.



Good ole Blair


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> It's a social truth, your astounding science aside.



For social read "culture" (and I have no astounding links for that, you'll be glad to read) So no arguments there.

Totally separate in terms of Truth.

However, one is politics and the other is science. I know which one I'd rather believe in how I should view my fellow Humans.

We have to aim for the higher ground (surly?)


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 26, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> Eve?






But no rib in sight......


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> But no rib in sight......



Not likely, but from where did this Mother spring? Egg? UFO?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> For social read "culture" (and I have no astounding links for that, you'll be glad to read) So no arguments there.
> 
> Totally separate in terms of Truth.
> 
> ...



Ignore social truth at your peril. Tell me that racism doesn't exist. I know which one etc


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> For social read "culture" (and I have no astounding links for that, you'll be glad to read) So no arguments there.
> 
> Totally separate in terms of Truth.
> 
> ...



This is just massive drivel. I was too polite to say it on my other post.


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Ignore social truth at your peril. Tell me that racism doesn't exist. I know which one etc



As a political phenomena, yes it does.

It's about re-thinking and re-educating this notion of "race" that's at the route of tis particular type of prejudice.

We need to trash this term, because it's been used to often by scum to justify unspeakable crimes. In reality (impirically) it has absolutely no basis what-so-ever.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

How, what's the hours pay at your camps?


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> As a political phenomena, yes it does.
> 
> It's about re-thinking and re-educating this notion of "race" that's at the route of tis particular type of prejudice.
> 
> We need to trash this term, because it's been used to often by scum to justify unspeakable crimes.



Yeah man


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

Be nice and racists will go away, We've got full on fucking niceness now. What happened?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 26, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> Not likely, but from where did this Mother spring? Egg? UFO?



From her mother.  Going back from this one female that lived about 200,000 years ago, every female right down the female->female line is the mother of all humanity.  The 'mitochondrial Eve' is just the most recent. 

Her IQ is undocumented.

There are almost certainly much more recent 'mothers of all humanity' but they won't be ancestors solely through the female line.


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Be nice and racists will go away, We've got full on fucking niceness now. What happened?



Not overnight (nothing in life does changes that dramatically, as you know). But we must start now, to leave a better future.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 26, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> As a political phenomena, yes it does.



That's the thing.  The programme never quite nailed the point that likening 'race' to intelligence makes about as much sense as likening having blue eyes, or long fingers, or pointy teeth to intelligence.  The amount of variety that occurs within races far outstrips the variety between races on almost every measure.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

8ball said:


> From her mother.  Going back from this one female that lived about 200,000 years ago, every female right down the female->female line is the mother of all humanity.  The 'mitochondrial Eve' is just the most recent.
> 
> Her IQ is undocumented.
> 
> There are almost certainly much more recent 'mothers of all humanity' but they won't be ancestors solely through the female line.




Never thought that people (part from religious nuts) still believed in this one-mama theory. Did she fall out of the sky?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 26, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> Never thought that people (part from religious nuts) still believed in this one-mama theory. Did she fall out of the sky?



I already said where she came from.  Reading comprehension not too good or just a bit pissed?  Wikipedia isn't actually bad on this one, look up 'mitochondrial eve'.


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 26, 2009)

8ball said:


> That's the thing.  The programme never quite nailed the point that likening 'race' to intelligence makes about as much sense as likening having blue eyes, or long fingers, or pointy teeth to intelligence.  The amount of variety that occurs within races far outstrips the variety between races on almost every measure.



Being locally adapted to your environment (ie skin colour) does not denote a difference in race.  

Anyhow...A better link for the God-botherers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 26, 2009)

8ball said:


> That's the thing.  The programme never quite nailed the point that likening 'race' to intelligence makes about as much sense as likening having blue eyes, or long fingers, or pointy teeth to intelligence.  The amount of variety that occurs within races far outstrips the variety between races on almost every measure.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 26, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> Never thought that people (part from religious nuts) still believed in this one-mama theory. Did she fall out of the sky?



Still here two hours later talking to randoms about a programme you didn't watch? It makes no sense. Ya big nobber.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2009)

It's what 'being nice' entails and the assumptions behind it that cause problems.  Things can and do change very quickly when put up there - change doesn't have to happen on a teacher-pupil basis, they'll get it in the end typr stuff. Stop being nice and make this easier.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 27, 2009)

8ball said:


> I already said where she came from.  Reading comprehension not too good or just a bit pissed?  Wikipedia isn't actually bad on this one, look up 'mitochondrial eve'.



The one female?

What happened to all the other females' offspring?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 27, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> Being locally adapted to your environment (ie skin colour) does not denote a difference in race.
> 
> Anyhow...A better link for the God-botherers.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve



Hmmm.  Then we have the mismatch between political/social definitions of race and anything biological.  You lose clarity if you confuse the two.

One useful bit from Wikipedia:

'A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time.

Indeed, not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have living descendants through their sons. While the mtDNA of these women is gone, their Nuclear genes are present in today's population.[42]

What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her female contemporaries with descendants alive today have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve.'


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 27, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> Never thought that people (part from religious nuts) still believed in this one-mama theory. Did she fall out of the sky?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Religion is just memory masked in spirituality.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 27, 2009)

This means nothing to me, oh Vienna


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
> 
> Religion is just memory masked in spirituality.



What's Fascism then?


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 27, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
> 
> Religion is just memory masked in spirituality.



Jesus wept a hippy.


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 27, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> What's Fascism then?



A political movement started in Italy 'round the 1920's.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 27, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> A political movement started in Italy 'round the 1920's.



By one man?


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 27, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> Jesus wept a hippy.



Man that hurts....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2009)

No banal little tale?


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 27, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> By one man?



Where exactly are you going with this line of questioning?


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 27, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> Where exactly are you going with this?



Back to year dot, when Mito-wotsit Eve popped her's out.

Was it an only child?


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 27, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> Back to year dot, when Mito-wotsit Eve popped her's out.
> 
> Was it an only child?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Read it. Nothing psuedo science about this.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 27, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
> 
> Read it. Nothing psuedo science about this.



It was written by aspergers dudes. I got as far as the second sentence.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 27, 2009)

teuchter said:


> On C4 now. Anyone else watching this? The "last taboo"...hmm



I come back to the office: Two threads. One on race and intelligence; the other on fireworks. 

I think it's something in the air.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 27, 2009)

Herbsman. said:


> i'm more intelligent than white people



Aren't you the guy who cooked a pizza on a paving stone?


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 27, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> It was written by aspergers dudes. I got as far as the second sentence.


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 27, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I come back to the office: Two threads. One on race and intelligence; the other on fireworks.
> 
> I think it's something in the air.



Here it's Guy Fawkes (both "race" and fireworks) what's Canada's excuse?


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 27, 2009)

iROBOT said:


>



Maybe get Usain Bolt to explain it for me.

Or Dizzee Rascal.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 27, 2009)

discokermit said:


> for instance, if the japanese were on average five points higher than the british and you were interviewing for a job that needed a great degree of intelligence and you had one japanese applicant and one british applicant, you would be a div to automatically think that the japanese candidate is the more intelligent one.



I agree with this, actually. It's not outside the realm of possibility for such a thing to be; however, it would make no difference. Given the normal curve distribution, it would mean that there are still millions of people of any given race both below and above the median. The mere fact that the median point differed by a couple of marks for different races, would have no practical effect.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 27, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I smack myself in the head with a brick every now and then - cheers me right up.



You could  go for the lobotomy, and be happy all the time.


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 27, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> Maybe get Usain Bolt to explain it for me.
> 
> Or Dizzee Rascal.





When I see them next I'll ask them.

Cheers for the heads up.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 27, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I agree with this, actually. It's not outside the realm of possibility for such a thing to be; however, it would make no difference. Given the normal curve distribution, it would mean that there are still millions of people of any given race both below and above the median. The mere fact that the median point differed by a couple of marks for different races, would have no practical effect.



I totally agree with this, thought about the pals/colleagues of mine of different race, and can see absolutely no correlation at all, but they are all peers i suppose, so would not be that different to me.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 27, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> When I see them next I'll ask them.



Yeah at your Guardian dinner party.


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 27, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> Yeah at your *Guardian* dinner party.





You really have a cutting wit. I'm glad you've decided to share this laser insight with us on Urban.

I look forward to years of sage like wisdom from you.


----------



## iROBOT (Oct 27, 2009)

Oh and for the record newbie, on urban I'm nothing more then a Gooner....


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 27, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> Oh and for the record newbie, on urban I'm nothing more then a Gooner....



This means nothing to me, oh Vienna.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 27, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> Yeah at your Guardian dinner party.



Do they actually have newspaper parties in England?


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 27, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Do they actually have newspaper parties in England?



In some parts of London they do.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 27, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> In some parts of London they do.



Imagine that.

Around here, you'd never get a Vancouver Sun party. Not even a Globe and Mail party, which would be way worse, because it would be filled with Torontonians.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 27, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> You really have a cutting wit. I'm glad you've decided to share this laser insight with us on Urban.
> 
> I look forward to years of sage like wisdom from you.


he is quite funny.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 27, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Aren't you the guy who cooked a pizza on a paving stone?


and rides a bmx and gets skanked by kids.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 27, 2009)

discokermit said:


> and rides a bmx and gets skanked by kids.



The normal curve applies to all races.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2009)

It seemed to me that the conclusion of the programme was that no convincing correlation between "race" and "intelligence" has been made, and in any case is probably a bit of a red herring anyway. Nothing new there really. But it seemed to end up saying that there is a correlation between culture and IQ. Higher IQs being associated with greater "modernity" as I think they put it. Is that controversial, or just stating the obvious?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 27, 2009)

teuchter said:


> It seemed to me that the conclusion of the programme was that no convincing correlation between "race" and "intelligence" has been made, and in any case is probably a bit of a red herring anyway. Nothing new there really. But it seemed to end up saying that there is a correlation between culture and IQ. Higher IQs being associated with greater "modernity" as I think they put it. Is that controversial, or just stating the obvious?



well, is their a culturally unbiased way of setting IQ tests? and what culture is it that sets them?


----------



## silverfish (Oct 27, 2009)

what the fuck will this documentary achieve?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

teuchter said:


> It seemed to me that the conclusion of the programme was that no convincing correlation between "race" and "intelligence" has been made, and in any case is probably a bit of a red herring anyway. Nothing new there really. But it seemed to end up saying that there is a correlation between culture and IQ. Higher IQs being associated with greater "modernity" as I think they put it. Is that controversial, or just stating the obvious?


Perhaps neither and both.

Race is a social perception, not a biological fact. 

The human animal is the same beast as it was 100,000 years ago. If your tests are showing a significant difference in intelligence varying with culture, then your measures are culturally specific.

Obviously


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

Hadjibashi said:


> Maybe get Usain Bolt to explain it for me.
> 
> Or Dizzee Rascal.


JOURNEY OF MANKIND - The Peopling of the World

There was only one migration of modern humans, people like us, out of Africa; and the fossil record shows that is where we evolved.


----------



## Hadjibashi (Oct 27, 2009)

Jonti said:


> JOURNEY OF MANKIND - The Peopling of the World
> 
> There was only one migration of modern humans, people like us, out of Africa; and the fossil record shows that is where we evolved.



Are you saying that modern-day Africans haven't evolved?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

I'm saying all life forms are equally evolved; to deny this is to fall into the error of speciesism, and if you do that, the Vogons come and get you 

Consider yourself warned!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 27, 2009)

iROBOT said:


> Here it's Guy Fawkes (both "race" and fireworks) what's Canada's excuse?



It's halloween here.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)

I watched this programme. IMO it developed into becoming a fair bit better and more interesting than it threatened to be at the start, when Rageh was talking in what seemed/sounded (to begin with) suspiciously** like deliberately 'contrarian' terms about Bell Curve and its advocates. 

A definite hint/suggestion/tone of 'Let's bravely confront this controversial debate whose existence that we're not allowed to acknowledge honestly'  etc.

**Given C4's history of running that Climate Change denialist 'documentary' and similar ... 

But as it went on and as he interviewed more people for me it became a better programme, within the limits of what's possible in a television documentary of one and a quarter hours anyway. Made a fair fist of questioning the entire concept of IQ tests, maybe should have been clearer at asking and doubting outright whether a culturally and socially unbiased IQ test was even possible. And I still think the thoroughly discredited status of 'Bell Curve' stuff among reputable scientists/psychologists wasn't made clear _enough_.

But not too bad at all at covering/introducing the issues, of which a reasonable range were brought in. I'm sure people much more expert than me in this whole area will be able to assess and criticise the thing better than I can though.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)

teuchter said:
			
		

> It seemed to me that the conclusion of the programme was that no convincing correlation between "race" and "intelligence" has been made, and in any case is probably a bit of a red herring anyway. Nothing new there really. But it seemed to end up saying that there is a correlation between culture and IQ. Higher IQs being associated with greater "modernity" as I think they put it. Is that controversial, or just stating the obvious?





Lo Siento. said:


> well, is their a culturally unbiased way of setting IQ tests? and what culture is it that sets them?



Lo Siento asks the key question for me, and more clearly/directly than Rageh Omar did, but I think teuchter sums the programme up well enough ...


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2009)

Lo Siento. said:


> well, is their a culturally unbiased way of setting IQ tests? and what culture is it that sets them?



Well, the suggestion was that IQ tests test something like "likelihood to be successful in a modern society".

I think that what some may see as controversial is an implication that different cultures can be measured on a sliding scale of "modernity" which could also be described as sophistication or advancement. That is not too far away from saying that certain cultures are superior to others, which is not a view that everyone is comfortable with.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 27, 2009)

IQ tests are flawed, and I thought everybody knew that?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> IQ tests are flawed, and I thought everybody knew that?



Spot on .... and can they ever be unflawed? Apply extreme doubt ....


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Well, the suggestion was that IQ tests test something like "likelihood to be successful in a modern society".
> .



How the hell do you measure _that_ unbiasedly?


----------



## Stoat Boy (Oct 27, 2009)

The thing I dont get is this.

If humanity originated in Africa then it follows that this continent has had the longest human occupation.

Yet why is it the most backward continent ? 

Is it all just down to chance ?


----------



## Cid (Oct 27, 2009)

The thing is the IQ test was not conceived as an objective measure of intelligence... It's designed to find someone's weak points so that they can be improved on. I mean to argue that they can do anything more than that is bordering on farcical. As a crude example imagine if someone told you they were going to compare the intelligence of the illiterate population of the UK and a group of, say, university students using the standard written IQ test. Clearly the illiterate group are going to perform terribly, but this is no reflection on their innate intelligence. 

Whilst you might formulate a verbal test for that group there's a whole range of reading abilities in between that would be far harder to cater for... Not to mention numeracy problems, problems with the style of the test questions etc.


----------



## Cid (Oct 27, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> The thing I dont get is this.
> 
> If humanity originated in Africa then it follows that this continent has had the longest human occupation.
> 
> ...


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 27, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Spot on .... and can they ever be unflawed? Apply extreme doubt ....



I doubt it seriously. My ex bf would wallop me in IQ tests, yet still comes out with stuff like asking if our classically autistic son who barely speaks and is in nappies will do his GCSEs.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> The thing I dont get is this.
> 
> If humanity originated in Africa then it follows that this continent has had the longest human occupation.
> 
> ...


Pretty much. The technology that enabled european empire (globe-girdling tall ships, chronometer and sextant) could have developed anywhere; the conditions were most propitious in north europe, that's all.


----------



## IMR (Oct 27, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> The thing I dont get is this.
> 
> If humanity originated in Africa then it follows that this continent has had the longest human occupation.
> 
> ...



If you really want to know why it worked out that way, and why there weren't Zulu ironclads steaming up the Thames sending Cockneys fleeing from their little wattle-and-daub huts, then get a hold of Jared Diamond's 'Guns, Germs and Steel' - it's a brilliant book.

I take it you're really talking about sub-Saharan Africa, hence overlooking the example of ancient Egypt.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> How the hell do you measure _that_ unbiasedly?



I would have thought that agreeing a definition of "successful" is more of a stumbling block than avoiding bias.

Assuming we could agree on definitions of "successful" and "modern", what kind of bias would you be anticipating?


----------



## Stoat Boy (Oct 27, 2009)

IMR said:


> If you really want to know why it worked out that way, and why there weren't Zulu ironclads steaming up the Thames sending Cockneys fleeing from their little wattle-and-daub huts, then get a hold of Jared Diamond's 'Guns, Germs and Steel' - it's a brilliant book.



I think I have it somewhere at home amongst piles of books to read. Will dig it out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> Still here two hours later talking to randoms about a programme you didn't watch? It makes no sense. Ya big nobber.



That's Lynch for you.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 27, 2009)

For all the criticisms being made about IQ tests, I would say that the far BIGGER conceptual fail is that of "race".  What the hell is "race"?  

Of *course* there is no "scientific" research into IQ and race... because scientifically, _there is no such thing as a "race"_!


----------



## beeboo (Oct 27, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I would have thought that agreeing a definition of "successful" is more of a stumbling block than avoiding bias.
> 
> Assuming we could agree on definitions of "successful" and "modern", what kind of bias would you be anticipating?



I'd have a problem with the conflation of "successful" and "modern".


----------



## IMR (Oct 27, 2009)

kabbes said:


> For all the criticisms being made about IQ tests, I would say that the far BIGGER conceptual fail is that of "race".  What the hell is "race"?
> 
> Of *course* there is no "scientific" research into IQ and race... because scientifically, _there is no such thing as a "race"_!



1996 paper about identifying subspecies among leopards:

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publicati...pdfs/c83be722-60c1-4022-bd48-60009a4be8cd.pdf

If the same methods and criteria were applied to humans as with leopards, would our geographic variation resolve itself into distinctive subspecies or races? 

On the measures reported in that paper, humans are notably less diverse than leopards (although more so than species which have experienced recent population bottlenecks, such as cheetahs and humpback whales).


----------



## Virtual Blue (Oct 27, 2009)

.


----------



## Cid (Oct 27, 2009)

IMR said:


> 1996 paper about identifying subspecies among leopards:
> 
> http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publicati...pdfs/c83be722-60c1-4022-bd48-60009a4be8cd.pdf
> 
> ...



Just briefly as I haven't read the article but, (sorry, wiki sourced), the modern leopard evolved 470,000-820,000 years ago and spread 170,000-300,000 years ago... Given the shorter life cycle, earlier fertility and larger numbers of offspring that's one hell of a lot more generations than there have been since early humans first left Africa. That's before you get into other factors (ie leopards adapting to different types of prey, nature of predator/prey relationship etc).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2009)

Didn't see the programme, but how utterly depressing that such a thing should still be discussed.

Next week: Phrenology, fact or fiction? 

Week after next: The four humours, are they really the best way to explain the human body?


----------



## IMR (Oct 27, 2009)

Cid said:


> Just briefly as I haven't read the article but, (sorry, wiki sourced), the modern leopard evolved 470,000-820,000 years ago and spread 170,000-300,000 years ago... Given the shorter life cycle, earlier fertility and larger numbers of offspring that's one hell of a lot more generations than there have been since early humans first left Africa. That's before you get into other factors (ie leopards adapting to different types of prey, nature of predator/prey relationship etc).



Hence humans aren't as diverse as leopards.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2009)

Africans are fairly diverse. All non-Africans are significantly less diverse, as they are all descended from a small group that left Africa about 90,000 years ago.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Didn't see the programme, but how utterly depressing that such a thing should still be discussed.



I think it's good that it is discussed. The more taboo a subject it remains, the more ill-informed assumptions will fester in people's heads.

They did mention that they found it hard to find people to interview, presumably because a lot of people are scared of a kneejerk backlash simply for talking about it. Like the schoolteacher interviewed in the programme suffered a couple of years back.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2009)

Would you also welcome a documentary on the validity of phrenology, teuchter?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 27, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Didn't see the programme, but how utterly depressing that such a thing should still be discussed.



I didn't find it at all depressing, there seemed valid reasons (in the program) for discussing it now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2009)

There is an interesting documentary subject to be made about the evolution of different races, in which the topic of relative intelligence could conceivably be mentioned in passing. That such idiocy was considered worthy of a full documentary is, for me at least, deeply depressing.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Would you also welcome a documentary on the validity of phrenology, teuchter?



I don't see any reason not to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2009)

Where would you stop? How about a programme debunking the theory that the Earth is flat?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where would you stop? How about a programme debunking the theory that the Earth is flat?



Again, I wouldn't have any objection to it being shown.

But I think there are probably more people in the world who consider intelligence to be linked to race, than there are who believe that the earth is flat.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2009)

Then one on the brain. Was Aristotle right that its main purpose is to keep the body cool, or might it possibly be used for thinking?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2009)

TV channels are full of stupid documentaries giving validity to stuff like UFO theories and paranormal happenings. There is no taboo about discussing those things.

Why object to a fairly intelligent documentary about something that is not generally discussed openly, and which has the potential to impact negatively on lots of peoples' lives?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2009)

What you are talking about is prejudice. Again, a programme charting the history of beliefs in racial superiority I could see the point in.

You may be right, that such a corrective programme is needed.

If so, I find that deeply depressing.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 27, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Didn't see the programme, but how utterly depressing that such a thing should still be discussed. ..



But what Rageh Omar actually did, was first to establish that where IQ tests are concerned there are differences related to race. 

Then he tried to establish if there are physical differences between races and found that there were not, thus bringing into question the very concept of race. 

Then he established that culture could perhaps explain the differences. 

I thought it was interesting. 
It is not a subject I have been much exposed to and I suspect a lot of others have also not been.


----------



## Cid (Oct 27, 2009)

weltweit said:


> But what Rageh Omar actually did, was first to establish that where IQ tests are concerned there are differences related to race.



whereas what he _should_ have done is started (and ended) the programme by pointing out that the very idea of using an IQ test to determine an objective, innate level of intelligence is ridiculous... To be fair I haven't watched the prog and will do in a bit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2009)

I haven't watched it either – and won't – it sounds like a refutation of the Bell Curve 'study'. That that moronic study was ever given any airtime in the first place is itself depressing. Maybe such a docu will draw a line under it finally here.

(I'm easily depressed today, it seems. )


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 27, 2009)

Channel 4 is really shite these days.

The programme before was about "breakfast cereals have sugar in them" shock horror !!

Rageh Omaar did some rather low-brow documentaries on organised crime a while back ...


----------



## kabbes (Oct 27, 2009)

Leopard subgroups aren't continually migrating and interbreeding with other leopard subgroups across the world.  Human societies are far too fluid to compare them with leopards.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 27, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Leapard subgroups aren't continually migrating and interbreeding with other leapard subgroups across the world.  Human societies are far too fluid to compare them with leapards.



Hmm well we have had the Normans and the Romans and Vikings and Spanish... I wonder if there was a BNP back then ... protecting the indigenous!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2009)

Cid said:


> whereas what he _should_ have done is started (and ended) the programme by pointing out that the very idea of using an IQ test to determine an objective, innate level of intelligence is ridiculous... To be fair I haven't watched the prog and will do in a bit.



There was quite a bit of stuff going on about what IQ tests do and don't actually measure, and the biases inherent in them, and so forth.


----------



## IMR (Oct 27, 2009)

kabbes: Yes, but there is a fairly rigorous and up-to-date scientific definition of subspecies, a.k.a. 'race'. So it's not correct to say 'there's no such thing as race'.

You'd be on safer ground saying that human genetic diversity isn't great enough or lumpy enough in its distribution to warrant sorting people into subspecific boxes labelled _Homo sapiens orientalis_, _Homo sapiens caucasus_ etc.

There is nonetheless some structure to the human population, and that results from there having been obstacles to gene flow in the form of geographic features like mountain ranges, deserts, and seas.


----------



## Cid (Oct 27, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Hmm well we have had the Normans and the Romans and Vikings and Spanish... I wonder if there was a BNP back then ... protecting the indigenous!



You're forgetting the anglo-saxons...


----------



## weltweit (Oct 27, 2009)

Cid said:


> You're forgetting the anglo-saxons...



I always forget the anglo-saxons!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 27, 2009)

At first I thought that this documentary would be a waste of time as it just covers ground that had been long establishe ie that intelligence tests are not objective and are culturally determined so that conclusions about race and intelligence are false.

However, having seen the documentary I think it was good.  It was quite thorough in its interviews with a range of theoreticians.  I even made notes. In the end I decided that it was worthwhile on the 'Tchaik 5' principle.  This is the equivalent of going to a classical concert and being disappointed that Tchaikovsky's Fifth Symphony is on the play list because everyone has heard it so many times.  On further thinking you realise that not everyone has heard it because there is always a new generation of people growing up for whom it is new.  So the documentary was worthwhile.  If you haven't seen it get it on the Channel 4 player.  Was it Channel 4?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2009)

IMR said:


> kabbes: Yes, but there is a fairly rigorous and up-to-date scientific definition of subspecies, a.k.a. 'race'. So it's not correct to say 'there's no such thing as race'.
> 
> You'd be on safer ground saying that human genetic diversity isn't great enough or lumpy enough in its distribution to warrant sorting people into subspecific boxes labelled _Homo sapiens orientalis_, _Homo sapiens caucasus_ etc.
> 
> There is nonetheless some structure to the human population, and that results from there having been obstacles to gene flow in the form of geographic features like mountain ranges, deserts, and seas.



There always seems to be an implication from some people, when this discussion comes up, that the very notion that innate intelligence could vary between human subgroups (call them what you like) is fundamentally implausible. I don't see there is any reason to assume this.

The danger is of course that if you say that there could be, then certain people will extrapolate that to all sorts of unfounded conclusions. That's why people don't like to discuss it. But this just gives the impression that there is something to hide, which gives more fuel to those who want to misrepresent the implications.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 27, 2009)

That was an excellent documentary. It showed that the real question was class, culture and attitude towards education. It showed how racist myths and anti-racist refusal to even discuss these myths obscures everything that's important.

As to the science, I don't think it is quite as clear cut as some people are suggesting. But I'm not an expert. I do know that there have been debates around race based medicine, I can't rule out the possibility of racial links to intelligence. But possibility is a very weak thing. I am sort of glad that there are obscure researchers arguing their improbable cases. It's the politicisation of these obscure ideas that needs to be tackled.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2009)

Apparently we are all "idiots" for having watched it in the first place though.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 27, 2009)

It was basically "intelligence, nature or nurture?"

And the conclusion was that intelligence is mainly nurture. 

Or am I missing something?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

weltweit said:


> It was basically "intelligence, nature or nurture?"
> 
> And the conclusion was that intelligence is mainly nurture.
> 
> Or am I missing something?



Well, that the "intelligence" measured by IQ tests is significantly affected by nurture, at least.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Oct 28, 2009)

I knew there would be a thread about this on here....five pages though? urban, you can do better than that c'mon!


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2009)

Whadda ya mean, its 8 pages .. mind you a lot of it is mindless. 

For some reason the program did not have many fans.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

IMR said:


> 1996 paper about identifying subspecies among leopards:
> 
> http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publicati...pdfs/c83be722-60c1-4022-bd48-60009a4be8cd.pdf
> 
> ...


No. According to the biological criteria used to divide a species into subspecies or races, _homo sapiens_ has no subspecies.

Human race is a political or social perception, not a biological fact.  That's why the null hypothesis is that there are no significant biological differences between the nations. Not to say that none can occur.  It is significant that Kenyans tend to have a different body shape than Inuit, and that Norwegians are paler than Hottentot.

But there's nothing mysterious about those diffences. A lanky body form with little subcutaneous fat disperses heat, whereas a rounded body shape complete with insulating layer of fat is more suitable to Arctic conditions.

And a lot of melanin in the skin protects against sunburn; but a pale skin is better at synthesising vitamin D from sunlight (this is vital because we cannot absorb this substance from our food; we can only maufacture it within our own bodies).

Peripheral stuff, all that. But our intelligence compared to the other beasts is our unique evolutionary advantage.  It's hard to see how this core characteristic is going to be compromised by evolutionary pressure. Enhanced, yes; and remember that our chief competition is -- other humans.

Humans form a unified breeding population, so this pressure would tend to act on the whole species.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

kabbes said:


> For all the criticisms being made about IQ tests, I would say that the far BIGGER conceptual fail is that of "race".  What the hell is "race"?
> 
> Of *course* there is no "scientific" research into IQ and race... because scientifically, _there is no such thing as a "race"_!


This.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> This.



It's a good starting off point, but denying the political and social concepts of 'race' is lalala not listening ostrich (not saying you are, just generally like)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 28, 2009)

Barking mad posted a really good photo in the photo thread.






The photo is a little uncomfortable to me.

Chimps share 96% of the same genetic material as us. You could say, we're all one race.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> It's a good starting off point, but denying the political and social concepts of 'race' is lalala not listening ostrich (not saying you are, just generally like)



How can there be a biological consequence of a social and political concept?  Of *course* any correlation between IQ test scores and the social construct of "race" is entirely social -- it's a tautology!


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

kabbes said:


> How can there be a biological consequence of a social and political concept?  Of *course* any correlation between IQ test scores and the social construct of "race" is entirely social -- it's a tautology!



I didn't say that there was a biological consequence.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

I don't think you can categorically say that "race" doesn't exist as a biological reality. As far as I'm aware there is not really a consensus on this. 

George Gill


> Where I stand today in the "great race debate" after a decade and a half of pertinent skeletal research is clearly more on the side of the reality of race than on the "race denial" side. Yet I do see why many other physical anthropologists are able to ignore or deny the race concept. Blood-factor analysis, for instance, shows many traits that cut across racial boundaries in a purely clinal fashion with very few if any "breaks" along racial boundaries. (A cline is a gradient of change, such as from people with a high frequency of blue eyes, as in Scandinavia, to people with a high frequency of brown eyes, as in Africa.)
> 
> 
> "Clines" represent gradients of change, such as that between areas where most people have blue eyes and areas in which brown eyes predominate.
> ...



In the interests of balance, the opposing view


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

Oh, ffs!

Is there nothing so obvious that an idiot cannot be found to deny it?

The fact that humans form a unified breeding population is sufficient to scupper the notion that human races have any biological reality. 

If one travels east across europe from the atlantic coast, cheekbones get higher, eyes more slanted, and skin hue changes very slightly as the hundreds, then thousands of miles tick by.  The transition from the typical portugese morphology to the typical mongolian form takes place insensibly, by degrees.

This is because there are no human subspecies - humans on earth form one united breeding population, and there is no clear dividing line between the claimed "races".


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 28, 2009)

There is only one race. The sack race. As in, get you into. Not you personally Jonti.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

That seems clear cut enough to me.

This is not to assert that the techniques of physical anthropology *cannot* be used to determine a person's nation (using the word in its ancient tribal sense, as in Sioux or Gaul). They can, and rather well.

All it asserts is that the definitions du jour of physical anthropologists don't get to trump those of evolutionary biology. And that says, unequivocally, there are no living subspecies of humans.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

If the argument is about whether it's totally implausible that levels of intelligence or IQ can vary according to "race", does it matter whether or not "race" is an artificial perception of what in reality is a gradual change across populations according to geographical/climatic conditions?

In other words, if other biological characteristics can vary across populations (gradually or otherwise) then is there any reason not to suppose that cognitive abilities might also? That seems to be the question that people avoid trying to answer.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> If the argument is about whether it's totally implausible that levels of intelligence or IQ can vary according to "race", does it matter whether or not "race" is an artificial perception of what in reality is a gradual change across populations according to geographical/climatic conditions?
> 
> In other words, if other biological characteristics can vary across populations (gradually or otherwise) then is there any reason not to suppose that cognitive abilities might also? That seems to be the question that people avoid trying to answer.



Until any such tests are constructed that accurately measure according to the population being tested, with all the appropriate gradations, I doubt anyone could answer that.


----------



## IMR (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter: Re. the George Gill quote above, there is a reason why forensic anthropologists in the US might be more likely to think in terms of discrete races rather than clines.

Whilst America is pretty cosmopolitan, it isn't a scaled-down version of the global population. Presumably forensic anthropologists often encounter the remains of people of predominantly West African descent as well as those of European descent, but rather more rarely those from Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Egypt.

It could be a sampling artifact, just as someone might disbelieve the existence of the colour spectrum if they were reared in an artificial environment where everything came in just four different Pantone colours.

Jonti: not really sure about humans having formed a universal breeding or panmictic population. The clinal account of human variation seems much more reasonable than the notion of discrete races, but it cannot be correct that the angle of some relatedness gradient will be the same everywhere. 

Humans are much more versatile at getting around than other large land animals, but mountain ranges and wide bodies of water are still harder to move across than open plains.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> If the argument is about whether it's totally implausible that levels of intelligence or IQ can vary according to "race", does it matter whether or not "race" is an artificial perception of what in reality is a gradual change across geographic areas?
> 
> In other words, if other biological characteristics can vary across populations (gradually or otherwise) then is there any reason not to suppose that cognitive abilities might also? That seems to be the question that people are scared to answer.


It doesn't. And the kinds of differences that are found across geographical areas are not of the same nature as a difference that would affect relative cognitive abilities. 

It isn't a question of being scared to answer certain questions. Are there differences in intelligence across different races? No. There's your answer.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Apparently we are all "idiots" for having watched it in the first place though.



Well. I only watched it for the 10 secs when the nutty professor said Chinese people were the most intelligent in the world - cos our mums had large pelvises to carry enlarged baby heads.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> the kinds of differences that are found across geographical areas are not of the same nature as a difference that would affect relative cognitive abilities.



What makes you say this so confidently?


----------



## Wonky (Oct 28, 2009)

What would Richard Dawkins say?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> Until any such tests are constructed that accurately measure according to the population being tested, with all the appropriate gradations, I doubt anyone could answer that.



I can see that no-one can satisfactorily answer the question about whether there is a variation in cognitive ability - and I certainly don't see that there is any convincing evidence that there is any significant variation. 

My question is whether it is plausible that there _could_ be some variation. Because it seems often to be stated in these discussions that the very idea is totally implausible. But I don't see why this should be the case.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> What makes you say this so confidently?


Put it another way (and scientifically speaking, this is actually saying the same thing): Are there any _measurable_ differences in intelligence between the races? No.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I can see that no-one can satisfactorily answer the question about whether there is a variation in cognitive ability - and I certainly don't see that there is any convincing evidence that there is any significant variation. .


You can put it more strongly than that – there is a great deal of convincing evidence that there is no correlation between race and intelligence at all.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

Still talking biology ... the idea of an isolated breeding population is essential to the biological notion of a sub-species.  This may be a physical isolation, or it may be achieved by a difference in the timing of the animal's mating cycles. It doesn't matter how the isolation is achieved, it just has to be there. This is because, without it, sub-species would simply interbreed and the differences in phenotypes would vanish.

So a sub-species is the first, tentative step along the road of speciation.  Does anyone really think the subtle differences between the nations are the first step of a speciation of _Home sapiens_? Really?

That's mental.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

Wonky said:


> What would Richard Dawkins say?


He says there are no sub-species of _Homo sapiens_, that the animal is one species with a unified breeding population.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Still talking biology ... the idea of an isolated breeding population is essential to the biological notion of a sub-species.  This may be a physical isolation, or it may be achieved by a difference in the timing of the animal's mating cycles. It doesn't matter how the isolation is achieved, it just has to be there. This is because, without it, sub-species would simply interbreed and the differences in phenotypes would vanish.
> 
> So a sub-species is the first, tentative step along the road of speciation.  Does anyone really think the subtle differences between the nations are the first step of a speciation of _Home sapiens_? Really?
> 
> That's mental.



Forget all this stuff about sub-species. That doesn't matter to the question:

We can see that there are variations in physical characteristics across populations, and that these are correlated with geographical origin.

Is there any reason to say that it is impossible that cognitive ability could also vary across populations and be correlated with geographical origin.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I can see that no-one can satisfactorily answer the question about whether there is a variation in cognitive ability - and I certainly don't see that there is any convincing evidence that there is any significant variation.
> 
> My question is whether it is plausible that there _could_ be some variation. Because it seems often to be stated in these discussions that the very idea is totally implausible. But I don't see why this should be the case.



It's just one of those questions that I find myself asking 'why are you asking?' in response. It's virtually impossible to accurately test, and even if it _were_ possible, it's likely that there would be more significant differences within the population being tested than across populations.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Put it another way (and scientifically speaking, this is actually saying the same thing): Are there any _measurable_ differences in intelligence between the races? No.



That's not the question.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Is there any reason to say that it is impossible that cognitive ability could also vary across populations and be correlated with geographical origin.


Why do you want this 'it is impossible' – that's not really a scientific approach. It's not a question of 'is it possible', just 'is it?' – you don't have to ask a hypothetical question when the concrete evidence is there for you to study. Here, in this universe, on this planet, today, there is a huge amount of convincing evidence to say that differences in IQ scores within populations of humans are not to be explained by race, at all, in any way.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> That's not the question.


Your question is not a scientific one.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> In other words, if other biological characteristics can vary across populations (gradually or otherwise) then is there any reason not to suppose that cognitive abilities might also?



Yes.  Because cognitive abilities are not a biological characteristic.

Your argument shows the danger of biological reductionism in science.  It does indeed allow for racism.  However biological reductionism is mistaken because cognitive abilities are culturally rather than biologically formed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Yes.  Because *cognitive abilities are not a biological characteristic*.


LOL

I was wondering whether you'd turn up.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> It's just one of those questions that I find myself asking 'why are you asking?' in response.



Because it seems to be one of those taboo questions, and in my opinion that's not helpful to a rational debate. As I said before, those who want to promote dubious ideas about race etc can use this kind of thing to imply there is some kind of cover-up or whatever. 





> It's virtually impossible to accurately test,



That's not relevant to the question of "is it plausible that there could be a variation (even if practically unmeasurable)?"




> and even if it _were_ possible, it's likely that there would be more significant differences within the population being tested than across populations.



That goes without saying.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Because it seems to be one of those taboo questions, and in my opinion that's not helpful to a rational debate. As I said before, those who want to promote dubious ideas about race etc can use this kind of thing to imply there is some kind of cover-up or whatever.
> 
> 
> That's not relevant to the question of "is it plausible that there could be a variation (even if practically unmeasurable)?"
> ...



It's clearly not a taboo question, otherwise the debate would not have been grinding on for years, would it?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why do you want this 'it is impossible' – that's not really a scientific approach. It's not a question of 'is it possible', just 'is it?' – you don't have to ask a hypothetical question when the concrete evidence is there for you to study. Here, in this universe, on this planet, today, there is a huge amount of convincing evidence to say that differences in IQ scores within populations of humans are not to be explained by race, at all, in any way.



I don't think you are understanding what I'm asking.

The question I am asking is independent of the concept of discreet races, and IQ scores are irrelevant because we know that they are affected by factors such as cultural/educational background.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> LOL
> 
> I was wondering whether you'd turn up.



Well, if cognitive abilities are biological, then the OP is correct: there is no reason why they wouldn't vary along with other biological characteristics.

But they're not, so they don't.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 28, 2009)

It makes as much sense to suppose that hair colour defines a "race" as skin colour.

It makes as much sense to suppose that foot size defines a "race" as eye shape.

The whole concept of "races" just doesn't stand up to any decent scrutiny.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

Teuchter, you're becoming confused, I think. If the question is: Are there differences in intelligence across the races?, the answer is, emphatically, after studying the evidence, no. But you seem to want to ask a question that doesn't look at the evidence. Your question is a metaphysical (and therefore worthless) one.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Yes.  Because cognitive abilities are not a biological characteristic.



Are the differences in the cognitive abilities between a mouse and an orangutan "culturally formed", then?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Are the differences in the cognitive abilities between a mouse and an orangutan "culturally formed", then?



Of course not.  But those between two Orang Utans are.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Teuchter, you're becoming confused, I think. If the question is: Are there differences in intelligence across the races?,



No, that's not the question. I am deliberately not using the term "race".

Phildwyer and I think cesare understand what I am asking.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Are the differences in the cognitive abilities between a mouse and an orangutan "culturally formed", then?



Those are two different species. There aren't different species of humans.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Of course not.  But those between two Orang Utans are.




Except that there are two sub-species of Orangutan, whereas there are no sub-species of human.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Of course not.  But those between two Orang Utans are.



Exactly.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Of course not.  But those between two Orang Utans are.



So you are of the belief that all humans are born equal in terms of potential cognitive ability?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> Those are two different species.



Thank you for pointing this out. I hadn't realised that.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> So you are of the belief that all humans are born equal in terms of potential cognitive ability?



No. But their cognitive potential isn't determined by their phenotype.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Thank you for pointing this out. I hadn't realised that.



So, you were deliberately using two different species as a comparator, then?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 28, 2009)

Actually, come to think of it, foot size is actually exceedingly well correlated to all measures of human cognitive ability.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Actually, come to think of it, foot size is actually exceedingly well correlated to all measures of human cognitive ability.


Yes, this is exactly the point. Fair skin was selected in cold climates so that children didn't develop rickets, for instance. Fuck all to do with cognitive ability.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> So, you were deliberately using two different species as a comparator, then?



It was to demonstrate that phildwyer's statement that cognitive ability is a purely cultural rather than biological factor is nonsense.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> No. But their cognitive potential isn't determined by their phenotype.



That's not the question.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> It was to demonstrate that phildwyer's statement that cognitive ability is a purely cultural rather than biological factor is nonsense.



It didn't demonstrate that.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 28, 2009)

Teuchter, for your question to be meaningful, you would have to postulate a mechanism by which a surface-level appearance can affect cognitive ability.  I'm not seeing it.

If you want to bring the concept of distinct groups of people into it, you also need to explain where the boundaries lie between those groups.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> That's not the question.



OK, I'll rephrase. No. It's sufficiently implausible that their potential cognitive ability is determined by their phenotype as to make the question virtually worthless.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Teuchter, for your question to be meaningful, you would have to postulate a mechanism by which a surface-level appearance can affect cognitive ability.  I'm not seeing it.
> 
> If you want to bring the concept of distinct groups of people into it, you also need to explain where the boundaries lie between those groups.





cesare said:


> OK, I'll rephrase. No. It's sufficiently implausible that their potential cognitive ability is determined by their phenotype as to make the question virtually worthless.



I'm not suggesting that a surface-level appearance could affect cognitive ability, or that potential cognitive ability is "determined by phenotype".

I am saying that if physical characteristics can be correlated with geographical origin, then it seems plausible that cognitive abilities could also be correlated with geographical origin. 

(And I'm not interested in the concept of distinct groups. That's irrelevant to this particular question.)


----------



## IMR (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> We can see that there are variations in physical characteristics across populations, and that these are correlated with geographical origin.
> 
> Is there any reason to say that it is impossible that cognitive ability could also vary across populations and be correlated with geographical origin.



No, of course it's not impossible. All that can be said with much certainty at present is that if they do exist, they cannot be very significant. There's no place in the world where people are unable to read and write when allowed to learn and given the resources, or operate complex machinery and other systems.

What might be discovered in the future, when there is a better understanding of the genes and developmental processes that build our mental faculties? No one knows.

But political and moral beliefs seldom lead to scientific discoveries, so the state of scientific knowledge in, say, 2080, will probably confound everything that everyone hopes for today, whether they're racist or egalitarian in outlook.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

IMR said:


> No, of course it's not impossible. All that can be said with much certainty at present is that if they do exist, they cannot be very significant. There's no place in the world where people are unable to read and write when allowed to learn and given the resources, or operate complex machinery and other systems.



Cesare/kabbes - do you disagree with this?


----------



## ericjarvis (Oct 28, 2009)

The difficulty a lot of people have with understanding this is that they don't understand the biological (lack of) basis for race. Because we are primarily a visual species, an obvious visible difference such as skin colour has a strong emotional impact. A lot of people seem to find it extremely difficult to accept that something that has such a strong impact to them in fact has very little importance when it comes to genetics. There's also a tendency to assume that genetics works on the basis of one gene for one characteristic, which is also not at all the case.

As a consequence there are a lot of people who just can't grasp how little difference there actually is between "races". The simple fact is that there is a wider genetic range amongst the indigenous population of any African nation than in the entire rest of the human race. That's how genetics works. It's not down to how obvious the differences are between population groups, it's how long that population group has had to diversify. Genetic variation is effectively not related to appearance to any great extent, and thus the whole concept of race, as it's usually used, is completely worthless.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I'm not suggesting that a surface-level appearance could affect cognitive ability, or that potential cognitive ability is "determined by phenotype".
> 
> I am saying that if physical characteristics can be correlated with geographical origin, then it seems plausible that cognitive abilities could also be correlated with geographical origin.
> 
> (And I'm not interested in the concept of distinct groups. That's irrelevant to this particular question.)



If you divide people up according to geographical origin for the purposes of measurement, how can they not be distinct groups?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> (And I'm not interested in the concept of distinct groups. That's irrelevant to this particular question.)


No it's not. It is central. For instance, a random British person and a random Pakistani are on average about 12th cousins. There is more variation within groups than between groups. There is far more variation in Africa than anywhere else. 

The differences that have developed are overwhelmingly responses to climate, involving a small genetic difference. That difference could, conceivably have an unintended consequence for cognitive ability, but it is very unlikely, and would need to be demonstrated. The whole idea of enquiry in this direction is muddle-headed.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Cesare/kabbes - do you disagree with this?



I don't disagree. I don't see how it differs too much from this:



cesare said:


> It's just one of those questions that I find myself asking 'why are you asking?' in response. It's virtually impossible to accurately test, and even if it _were_ possible, it's likely that there would be more significant differences within the population being tested than across populations.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> If you divide people up according to geographical origin for the purposes of measurement, how can they not be distinct groups?



You don't need to "divide them up". The measurements can be made on a combination of various sliding scales.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> You don't need to "divide them up". The measurements can be made on a combination of various sliding scales.


You're not taking on board what is being said to you.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're not taking on board what is being said to you.



You're assuming I'm saying something I'm not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> You're assuming I'm saying something I'm not.


tbh, I don't think you're saying much at all. Give a concrete example of a testable hypothesis.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> You don't need to "divide them up". The measurements can be made on a combination of various sliding scales.



How?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 28, 2009)

Geographical differences lead to clear social differences, if that's any help to you.  But as for some spurious link between geographic difference ==> genetic difference ==> cognitive difference, well -- it's a chain so far removed from what we understand about how these things actually work that it's like postulating anything else you have to take on faith alone... you can ask me to imagine it's true if you want but it says far more about you than it does about reality.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

Are we agreed that cognitive ability is hereditary?

If so, it's subject to natural selection.

I don't find it implausible that differing environmental conditions could favour different cognitive abilities.

Personally, I doubt that any differences would be very great or of any significance, but the suggestion that differences might exist doesn't seem unbelievable. It's not a "spurious link" to make.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> How?



Are you asking "how do I measure something?"


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Are you asking "how do I measure something?"



I'm asking how you would do this:




			
				teuchter said:
			
		

> The measurements can be made on a combination of various sliding scales.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Are we agreed that cognitive ability is hereditary?



Have they isolated a cognition gene then?


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

It'd also be helpful to know what you mean by 'cognition' too.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 28, 2009)

We are not agreed that cognitive ability is hereditary, no.  Certainly not in the way you are talking about.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Forget all this stuff about [biological] sub-species. That doesn't matter to the question.


lol

If you are not using the hard, scientific definition, that what are you talking about? A social perception, that's what. 

Nothing wrong with that.  Where it goes wrong is in trying to make it real; it is not real in the way rocks are real. It is real in the way cops are real.  If no-one, _no-one at all_ believed in cops, they would not exist.  But universal disbelief in the existence of the planet Mars would leave the heavenly wanderer ploughing its distant course just the same as before.

The conceptual confusion you are facing is equivalent to trying to measure ACAB attitudes, "nation by nation", and then trying to correlate them with biological facts. Your arguments seem to me to support that sort of attempt, just as well as they support the attempt to correlate IQ to nationhood*.

If you did that (if you managed to convince enough folks that Scots are lawless savages, say, as compared to the noble and fearless researches) you may perhaps find something to report.  But you would not fail to notice this is a social finding, and not a biological one.

* as ever, I use the term in its archaic sense of a people


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> lol
> 
> If you are not using the hard, scientific definition,



Definition of what?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

race


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

kabbes said:


> We are not agreed that cognitive ability is hereditary, no.  Certainly not in the way you are talking about.



How have humans evolved to have greater cognitive ability than other species, then?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> race



As I think I've said about a zillion times by now, I am deliberately not using the term "race" in my question.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

That doesn't save you from the category error though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> How have humans evolved to have *greater cognitive ability* than other species, then?


They haven't. You appear to be using the term cognitive ability in order to avoid the word intelligence and thus having to define it. Different term, same problem.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> That doesn't save you from the category error though.



There is no category error; I am talking about observable, measurable differences.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> How have humans evolved to have greater cognitive ability than other species, then?


Very slowly, very very slowly 

The short answer is, there seems to be a survival advantage in being smarter than the other beast (and in fact modern animals are smarter than those that were around 100 million years ago). Of course many biological qualities may have an effect on survival; strength, speed, ability to hibernate, compassion for other members of the troop; whatever.

But specialising in smart is what hominds have done.  And it's really useful.  Consider _tracking_ - the kind of reading of the environment that a wild human rapidly learns, the kind that allows one to realise what a footprint _means_; or that circling vultures may mean food. No other animal does this.  The survival advantages of this intelligent reading of signs are obvious, I think.

Once we were set off down that route, things snowballed.  Skilled trackers, able to share meat with females were more likely to get laid (presumably to the incoherent fury of whatever passed for the puritan tendency, back in those days).  That's a heavy enough pressure, but why stop there?  People who found such smarts sexy would select mates accordingly and compound the evolutionary pressure.  

And it didn't stop there; soon enough the evolutionary pressure would have been jacked up again.  To the factors of raw survival advantage and sexual selection one has to add competitive advantage.  The biggest killer of humans (possibly excepting smallpox) is of course other humans.  

See how a simple, almost marginal advantage, can be compounded and compounded until it is overwhelming.  Dumb people can't find food, or mates, and they are readily killed and exploited by their fellows, the most dangerous predator ever to walk the planet.

Roughly speaking, that's the route that hominids took, that has resulted in our species having such great cognitive ability.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They haven't. You appear to be using the term cognitive ability in order to avoid the word intelligence and thus having to define it. Different term, same problem.



I'm avoiding using the word intelligence because people love to bang on about how it isn't one single variable.

I should perhaps say "cognitive abilities" rather than "cognitive ability". 

There are certain things that humans can do that other animals can't. Language, say. We are able to use and understand language to a much greater extent than any other animal. Are you unhappy with me describing the ability to use language as a cognitive ability?


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> There is no category error; I am talking about observable, measurable differences.



Measurable, how? And how do you decide who would be an objective observer?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> There is no category error; I am talking about observable, measurable differences.


You may talk about observable, measurable biological differences, and try to relate them to a social perception.  

But what you are doing is sociology, or politics, not biology.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I'm avoiding using the word intelligence because people love to bang on about how it isn't one single variable.
> 
> I should perhaps say "cognitive abilities" rather than "cognitive ability".
> 
> There are certain things that humans can do that other animals can't. Language, say. We are able to use and understand language to a much greater extent than any other animal. Are you unhappy with me describing the ability to use language as a cognitive ability?


A bit, yes.

We are instinctual language creators. A person may be as cognitively challenged as your average canine, yet still have the power of speech.  It's just what people do, like the birds make nests.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Very slowly, very very slowly
> 
> The short answer is, there seems to be a survival advantage in being smarter than the other beast (and in fact modern animals are smarter than those that were around 100 million years ago). Of course many biological qualities may have an effect on survival; strength, speed, ability to hibernate, compassion for other members of the troop; whatever.
> 
> ...



So you at least will agree that there is a hereditary element to cognitive ability/smartness/wahtever we are allowed to call it?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> You may talk about observable, measurable biological differences, and try to relate them to a social perception.
> 
> But what you are doing is sociology, or politics, not biology.



I am not relating them to a social perception.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> Measurable, how? And how do you decide who would be an objective observer?



Eg - height: with a tape measure.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 28, 2009)

elves get +1 intelligence btw


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Eg - height: with a tape measure.



Let's use the example that's relevent to your question. Cognitive ability.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> So you at least will agree that there is a hereditary element to cognitive ability/smartness/wahtever we are allowed to call it?


I think it is indisputable that ravens are smart, and, say, sheep stupid, yes.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I am not relating them to a social perception.


The social perception is the IQ test


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> Let's use the example that's relevent to your question. Cognitive ability.



Well, the point is that we aren't good at measuring it at the moment because we aren't sure how to separate it from all sorts of compounding factors. And I accept that we may never be able to measure the small differences that might exist between populations of different geographical origin.

Hence the question I'm asking is not "what are the differences" but "is it plausible that there could be a difference".

The reason we went off onto this "measurement" diversion was because you seemed to be saying that if I say we can measure physical differences between populations, it follows that I am assuming they can be assigned to distinct groups.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> The social perception is the IQ test





How many times do I have to say I'm not talking about IQ tests?


Two pages back


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> How many times do I have to say I'm not talking about IQ tests?


What are you talking about, though? You haven't said. Give us a concrete example of a hypothesis.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

OK, back to the Ravens ... 





> Is there any reason to say that it is impossible that cognitive ability of Ravens could also vary across populations and be correlated with geographical origin?


Yes, there is. They're all Ravens, you see.

If you did get such a result, it could have to be sustained within an isolated breeding population; and that would imply the existence of subspecies.  

Contrariwise, if you were to get such a result in the absence of subspecies, it would mean you are not measuring raven smartness as such, but some cultural factor, some aspect of learned behaviour.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What are you talking about, though? You haven't said. Give us a concrete example of a hypothesis.





My question is perfectly clearly stated here

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9878302&postcount=207

If you're unhappy with the term "cognitive ability", tell me what word you'd rather I used to describe the difference between me and a goat that means I can light a fire and it can't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> My question is perfectly clearly stated here
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9878302&postcount=207
> 
> If you're unhappy with the term "cognitive ability", tell me what word you'd rather I used to describe the difference between me and a goat that means I can light a fire and it can't.


But the question isn't 'could it vary'. The question is 'does it vary'. And the answer is 'no'.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> My question is perfectly clearly stated here
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9878302&postcount=207
> 
> If you're unhappy with the term "cognitive ability", tell me what word you'd rather I used to describe the difference between me and a goat that means I can light a fire and it can't.


Opposable thumbs, I think


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> OK, back to the Ravens ... Yes, there is. They're all Ravens, you see.
> 
> If you did get such a result, it could have to be sustained within an isolated breeding population; and that would imply the existence of subspecies.
> 
> Contrariwise, if you were to get such a result in the absence of subspecies, it would mean you are not measuring raven smartness as such, but some cultural factor, some aspect of learned behaviour.



What if you found ravens in one area had a tendency to slightly different markings compared with those in another area. Would that be learned behaviour?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But the question isn't 'could it vary'. The question is 'does it vary'. And the answer is 'no'.



No, the question is "could it vary". That is the question I asked. It is there for you to see, several times over the last few pages.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Opposable thumbs, I think



Ok, me and a chimpanzee then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> No, the question is "could it vary". That is the question I asked. It is there for you to see, several times over the last few pages.


And I've explained to you several times why it is a bad question.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Well, the point is that we aren't good at measuring it at the moment because we aren't sure how to separate it from all sorts of compounding factors. And I accept that we may never be able to measure the small differences that might exist between populations of different geographical origin.
> 
> Hence the question I'm asking is not "what are the differences" but "is it plausible that there could be a difference".
> 
> The reason we went off onto this "measurement" diversion was because you seemed to be saying that if I say we can measure physical differences between populations, it follows that I am assuming they can be assigned to distinct groups.



Which brings me back to:




			
				cesare said:
			
		

> It's just one of those questions that I find myself asking 'why are you asking?' in response. It's virtually impossible to accurately test, and even if it were possible, it's likely that there would be more significant differences within the population being tested than across populations.



Why are you asking the question?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> What if you found ravens in one area had a tendency to slightly different markings compared with those in another area. Would that be learned behaviour?


If they came out of the egg like that, and they bred true, it would be a sign of speciation taking place.  One would then want to show the birds formed a distinct breeding population that does not swap genetic material with other ravens.

If that proved not to be the case, if it turned out that ravens form a unified breeding population, you would be sure the slightly different markings would rapidly* spread to the rest of the raven population, if they provided a benefit to the animal; otherwise one would expect the atypical form to slowly be eliminated from the raven gene-pool.

* a few thousands of years should do it


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And I've explained to you several times why it is a bad question.



No, you've repeatedly tried to explain to me that some question I'm not asking is a bad question.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Ok, me and a chimpanzee then.


Culture.

Chimps can learn to use a box of matches (not sure they'd manage to work a firestick, or the flints and wood dust technique).


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> If they came out of the egg like that, and they bred true, it would be a sign of speciation taking place.  One would then want to show the birds formed a distinct breeding population that does not swap genetic material with other ravens.
> 
> If that proved not to be the case, if it turned out that ravens form a unified breeding population, you would be sure the slightly different markings would rapidly* spread to the rest of the raven population, if they provided a benefit to the animal; otherwise one would expect the atypical form to slowly be eliminated from the raven gene-pool.
> 
> * a few thousands of years should do it



And yet for some reason, if they displayed some unusual cognitive ability, you would neither accept that it was the beginning of speciation, nor that that ability would slowly be eliminated or propogated according to its benefits to the animal? You would simply say "it must be cultural". That doesn't make sense.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> No, you've repeatedly tried to explain to me that some question I'm not asking is a bad question.


Nope. Your question is very clear, and badly formulated.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Culture.
> 
> Chimps can learn to use a box of matches (not sure they'd manage to work a firestick, or the flints and wood dust technique).



Come on; are you going to tell me that we can teach a chimp to do anything we can teach a human to do?


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Come on; are you going to tell me that we can teach a chimp to do anything we can teach a human to do?



Why are you concerned with cross species comparisons?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

Sometimes, I get a glimpse of why science can be so infuriating.  It seems to demand a certain meaning to words, and that real life conclusions should follow from these assigned meanings.  It looks at one over the top of its spectacles and says, "Nah, you can't talk that way."

Seems outrageous, that. But the reason is, things like the term _species_ are a scientific construct. People used to think animals could turn into each other, and mud and horse hairs into eels and lamreys.  They don't.  We had to study the world for a long time to find out what this species word means.  It's not a simple idea, and a consequence of that, is that it cannot always be combined with other ideas the way one might imagine.

It's meaning carries with it a certain logic.  One of them is, systematic differences between populations which are advantageous will tend to spread through the population; disadvantageous ones will tend to be eliminated.

Animal smart is one such difference.  It confers reproductive advantage. It will spread through a unified breeding population. That's what _species_ means.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Come on; are you going to tell me that we can teach a chimp to do anything we can teach a human to do?


My advice: slow down, read it again , and then ask a mod to move this to the science forum.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Sometimes, I get a glimpse of why science can be so infuriating.  It seems to demand a certain meaning to words, and that real life conclusions should follow from these assigned meanings.  It looks at one over the top of its spectacles and says, "Nah, you can't talk that way."
> 
> Seems outrageous, that. But the reason is, things like the term _species_ are a scientific construct. People used to think animals could turn into each other, and mud and horse hairs into eels and lamreys.  They don't.  We had to study the world for a long time to find out what this species word means.  It's not a simple idea, and a consequence of that, is that it cannot always be combined with other ideas the way one might imagine.
> 
> ...



And...?


None of this is news to me.

It seems you are more interested in giving lectures about stuff that you want to think people can't understand, than dealing straightforwardly with the question.

Why exactly is it that you don't consider it conceivable that a cognitive ability (some kind of "animal smart" if you want to call it that) could confer a slight advantage in humans in certain set of environmental conditions, and thereby gradually become more common in that population than in another human population in different environmental conditions? Why is this impossible, whereas a slight variance in skeletal frame or skin colour isn't?


----------



## Cid (Oct 28, 2009)

What's cognitivie ability when it's at home then? linguistic ability? Numeracy? consciousness? ability for rational thought? capacity to analyse one's actions?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

I'd describe those all as "cognitive abilities", yes. Except perhaps consciousness. Not sure about that one.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

I was thinking not everyone who is interested would necessarily know these things, is all.  You can now skip to the final paragraph without missing anything 



> Why do you consider that "animal smarts" could confer a slight advantage in humans in a certain set of environmental conditions?


I consider it does that in all environmental conditions.  


> What's different between "animal smarts" and skin tone?


A pale skin works better where the sun does not shine so brightly as melanin, while protecting from sunburn, also inhibits the synthesis of Vitamin D by the skin. This is a specific environmental pressure, quite different from those on "animal smarts".


> Hmm, what about Mau-Mau and Inuit, then? What about overall body morphology?


A lanky frame with little subcutaneous fat is easier to keep cool, a stouter shape with a good layer of subcutaneous fat is easier to keep warm.  Again this is a specific environmental pressure, quite different from the pressures selecting for "animal smarts".

In a unified breeding population, variations that confer benefit under all environmental conditions will spread throughout the whole population. All the same, trivial variations reflecting local environmental pressures are to be expected (mediated by the rate of gene flow).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Why exactly is it that you don't consider it conceivable that a cognitive ability (some kind of "animal smart" if you want to call it that) could confer a slight advantage in humans in certain set of environmental conditions, and thereby gradually become more common in that population than in another human population in different environmental conditions? Why is this impossible, whereas a slight variance in skeletal frame or skin colour isn't?


Here's an example of what I would consider a valid question, whatever its answer:

Is the extreme plasticity of the human brain a result of neoteny?

Is the asiatic body type the result of an even more extreme neoteny than that found in other body types?

If so, do those with that body type also have even more plastic brains?

Those are all in principle testable hypotheses.

(ETA: That an idea is a testable hypothesis of course doesn't stop it being complete bollocks.)


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Here's an example of what I would consider a valid question, whatever its answer:
> 
> Is the extreme plasticity of the human brain a result of neoteny?
> 
> ...



I think you fall into your own trap there by talking about an "asiatic body type".


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> And yet for some reason, if they displayed some unusual cognitive ability, you would neither accept that it was the beginning of speciation, nor that that ability would slowly be eliminated or propogated according to its benefits to the animal? You would simply say "it must be cultural". That doesn't make sense.


I certainly wouldn't want to downplay the cultural aspect.  It is culture that makes us smart in the way the psychologist's tests can measure ~ just consider the power of positonal notation, compared to roman numerals.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I think you fall into your own trap there by talking about an "asiatic body type".


Language is difficult here. Oppenheimer uses the term 'mongoloid' body type. Use that if you prefer.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Language is difficult here. Oppenheimer uses the term 'mongoloid' body type. Use that if you prefer.



This is derailing really, but changing the word doesn't help you. Where are the distinct boundaries of this "mongoloid" body type, then?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I certainly wouldn't want to downplay the cultural aspect.  It is culture that makes us smart in the way the psychologist's tests can measure ~ just consider the power of positonal notation, compared to roman numerals.



Sometimes I ponder this and then wonder how much further we might have come if mammals had evolved with hexadactyl limbs . . .


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> This is derailing really, but changing the word doesn't help you. Where are the distinct boundaries of this "mongoloid" body type, then?


Think of it as more of a familial resemblance; you don't need _distinct_ boundaries.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Think of it as more of a familial resemblance; you don't need _distinct_ boundaries.



Well ... feel free to argue about that with cesare, and whoever else it was going on about there being no distinct boundaries - not that it was actually relevant to what I was talking about at the time.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> This is because there are no human subspecies - humans on earth form one united breeding population, and there is no clear dividing line between the claimed "races".



I don't think anyone said anything about subspecies. One needn't declare a subspecies to recognize that certain large groupings of human beings have identified genetic similarities.

Pontiacs, Buicks, Saabs and Toyotas are all autos. They have different 'cheekbones'. We know that they are all autos, but we also can recognize a Buick and a Saab.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2009)

It is pointless to say there are not differences between and among the peoples of the world.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 29, 2009)

weltweit said:


> It is pointless to say there are not differences between and among the peoples of the world.



Meaninglessly generalised point without saying anything about which differences you mean, and without saying anything about what causes them.


----------

