Race, Intelligence and the value of scientific inquiry - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Menoman · 10-18-2007, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

Absolutely not! Just look at curling. White players dominate that sport! And despite the popularity of Cool Runnings, whites dominate bobsledding as well. So there!

maybe whites would be a more of an 'accuracy' superior, or something along those lines no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

I disagree that whites "have the upper hand" mentally. As I mentioned earlier, intelligence, at least the way it is understood by people who actually study it, is culturally specific and dependent on the environment in which you reside.

Also, I don't know why you would expect some kind of balance (or a lack of balance) of abilities across "races".

-_-

I didnt say "whites" are mentally superior, i said other races, Asians are imo probably the ones with the mental superiority.

Also we aren't talking about knowledge here. Obviously someone living in a shanty hut or middle of the desert nigeria, are never going to reach any type of knowledge 'peak' if you will. (Nobody will obviously but those people wont come close)

Location will dictate your "Amount" of knowledge, not your intelligence, that is most definately a genetic thing.

Ustwo · 10-18-2007, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

This is the same study that was in the news a while back for discovering that a shocking percentage of Asians are descendants of Ghengis Khan.

Quick side note...

Quote:

An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today.

Legacy of Genghis Khan

To have such a startling impact on a population required a special set of circumstances, all of which are met by Genghis Khan and his male relatives, the authors note in the study published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Khan's empire at the time of his death extended across Asia, from the Pacific Ocean to the Caspian Sea. His military conquests were frequently characterized by the wholesale slaughter of the vanquished. His descendants extended the empire and maintained power in the region for several hundred years, in civilizations in which harems and concubines were the norm. And the males were markedly prolific.

Khan's eldest son, Tushi, is reported to have had 40 sons. Documents written during or just after Khan's reign say that after a conquest, looting, pillaging, and rape were the spoils of war for all soldiers, but that Khan got first pick of the beautiful women. His grandson, Kubilai Khan, who established the Yuan Dynasty in China, had 22 legitimate sons, and was reported to have added 30 virgins to his harem each year.

"The historically documented events accompanying the establishment of the Mongol empire would have contributed directly to the spread of this lineage," the authors conclude.

Moral of the story, its good to be the king.

highthief · 10-18-2007, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menoman

Why make it complicated?

Are blacks better atheletes than whites? On the whole...

With all that I've said, and the reiteration and additions you've made, I think you'll find the answer to be yes.

I think you thinking much too locally and looking at one small area of sports. You are American, you watch American sports and there are a lot of black football and basketball players.

But look at the larger, worldwide sporting picture - soccer is the most popular sport on earth (by a mile) and the African nations have made great strides - but Italy won the last World Cup and I don't think there is a black guy on the team. Argentina just won the Under 20 World Cup - no blacks. Germany just won the Women's World Cup - no blacks. Shouldn't Nigeria be kicking everyone's butt if they are such superior athletes?

Rugby World Cup ongoing - England and South Africa are in the finals, two nations with large black populations. While both have black athletes, they are a distinct minority on the teams, even accounting for cultural bias (such as black athletes in England prefering to play soccer or run track than play rugby).

I think the only area we can absolutely say West African MALE blacks have a distinct upper hand (not mitigated by cultural biases - e.g., golf is a "white" sport or basketball is a "black" sport) is in areas of speed over short distances.

Other areas are tough to judge - triathlon has few elite black athletes; is it because blacks are abysmal swimmers or because poverty in the US and Africa precludes many athletes from participating in a sport where you need a $2,000 bike?

sapiens · 10-18-2007, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menoman

I didnt say "whites" are mentally superior, i said other races, Asians are imo probably the ones with the mental superiority.

Also we aren't talking about knowledge here. Obviously someone living in a shanty hut or middle of the desert nigeria, are never going to reach any type of knowledge 'peak' if you will. (Nobody will obviously but those people wont come close)

Location will dictate your "Amount" of knowledge, not your intelligence, that is most definately a genetic thing.

If you really want to get into it, typically racial differences in scores on IQ tests look something like this:

Asians
Jews
Whites
Blacks

But again, intelligence as measured by an IQ test like the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) is culturally specific. It predicts outcomes that you would normally associate with intelligence (or lack thereof) in Western environments. To say that white Europeans are smarter than black Africans is a misunderstanding of what the psychological construct "Intelligence" is. White europeans may score higher on the WAIS than black Africans, but that does not necessarily translate into white Europeans being more "Intelligent" than black Africans.

All of the information above is independent of the question: "Are racial differences in scores on the WAIS (or another Western IQ tes) due to differences in genes between the races?".

Ustwo · 10-18-2007, 07:21 AM

Jews get to be a race now?

Actually I don't see a problem with separating Jews from other 'whites' as they do form a sub group to some extent. The problem is the other subgroups are less well defined. This makes the data pretty meaningless.

It reminds me of when Europeans talk about violent America and our high murder rate. When I looked into this a few years ago I discovered as a young white male I had less of a chance of being murdered then a young white male in Germany, and I forget where else, and if anything at the time the US had a lower murder rate in my sub group than much of Europe (but not all). So for the subgroup of young white males the high murder rate in America didn't apply.

The same type of thinking would apply to intelligence. Simple genetic drift might apply to intelligence differences due to geographical separations, and your subgroup is the only one that matters to you.

Now lets add in the genetic mixing and it just gets to hard to classify. My children will have ancestors which come from pretty much ALL of northern Europe. The only possible predictor of their IQ will be my wifes and my own.

highthief · 10-18-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Jews get to be a race now?

Actually I don't see a problem with separating Jews from other 'whites' as they do form a sub group to some extent. The problem is the other subgroups are less well defined. This makes the data pretty meaningless.

Exactly - there are a lot of distinct groups within larger groups. The Finns, the Welsh, and the Basque, for instance, are all "white" Europeans yet are, on the whole, genetically distinct from much of the rest of the European population, although I confess, terming Jews a "race" (given that there are very, very "white" Jews along with some pretty "black" Jews, and a whole lot of "in between" Jews) has always seemed a bit of a stretch to me.

sapiens · 10-18-2007, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Jews get to be a race now?

I don't care whether or not they are a race. Their scores on IQ tests, however, do differ from other "whites".

Quote:

Actually I don't see a problem with separating Jews from other 'whites' as they do form a sub group to some extent. The problem is the other subgroups are less well defined. This makes the data pretty meaningless.

How does this make the data meaningless? (I didn't even present data).

Quote:

The same type of thinking would apply to intelligence. Simple genetic drift might apply to intelligence differences due to geographical separations, and your subgroup is the only one that matters to you.

Again, the data examining racial differences in cognitive abilities focuses on IQ scores. IQ scores are not the same thing as intelligence. IQ tests favor certain abilities over others (those that predict outcomes in western cultures). Big "G" as measured by IQ scores isn't very informative about differences in cognitive abilities between groups anyway. IQ tests are made up of a number of different subtests. You can get an IQ of 100 a number of different ways (verbal ability, mathematical ability, spatial ability, etc.).

Ustwo · 10-18-2007, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

I don't care whether or not they are a race. Their scores on IQ tests, however, do differ from other "whites".

So would using the males of my paternal family line which have been scientists of some kind for the last 5 generations. Which is my point, its just a limited sub group and that lots of groups of whites would differ from other whites.

Quote:

How does this make the data meaningless? (I didn't even present data).

You seem touchy on this and I'm not sure why. The 'data' in this case would be any racial IQ which crossed so many sub groups. These data would be meaningless due to the subgrouping. Lets say you used 'whites' from Minnesota as part of your study. Even if you had 10,000 randomly selected IQ scores, you would be oversampling the Scandinavian sub group.

Quote:

Again, the data examining racial differences in cognitive abilities focuses on IQ scores. IQ scores are not the same thing as intelligence. IQ tests favor certain abilities over others (those that predict outcomes in western cultures). Big "G" as measured by IQ scores isn't very informative about differences in cognitive abilities between groups anyway. IQ tests are made up of a number of different subtests. You can get an IQ of 100 a number of different ways (verbal ability, mathematical ability, spatial ability, etc.).

I suppose I'm using IQ to represent intelligence and thats where the hang up is. I took a myrid of IQ tests as a child and I was average in spatial ability, superior in verbal ability and off the charts for deductive reasoning. These tests were done when I was about 8 and have remained surprisingly true up until my last standardized test which was the GRE about 7 years ago. (and much to my chagrin they have taken the deductive reasoning section out of the GRE and rely on the basics only now). It should be easy to break down 'races' on subgroups as well if they could do it to a 8 year old child.

But my point isn't about the deficiencies of the IQ exam. Its that trying to measure any form of intelligence as applied to our current definition of race is rather meaningless.

skada · 10-18-2007, 08:59 AM

Are Jews a race ??
And please can somebody tell me major races in world
blacks (africans), whites (Caucasian / Europeans and North America), Asians (Chinese , Japs and similar) ,South Asians (south Asia : Pak, India , BDesh etc) Middle Easterns , South Americans (what will u call 'em hispanians or something ??)
Am i Missing something ??

roachboy · 10-18-2007, 09:02 AM

it seems to me that the idea of an iq test leans on so many assumptions which are socially specific that they really only measure the fit between the subject who takes the test and an abstract-to-cartoon version of the rationality dominant at the time the tests are written.

so the scale seems to me entirely normative--so what is measured, then, is fit relative to an ideal-typical image of the rationality that the creators of the test understand to be binding on themselves.

so i dont even see how iq tests are interesting or important, once you move outside the class positions occupied by those who generate such tests.

and i am not sure why or how the fact that x or y might do well on such tests is an argument for or against them on the basis of what kind of information they gather, how they weight it, and what these weightings are taken to mean.

signal is differentiated from noise by redundancy.
that there is redundancy implies nothing about value.
so it seems to me that iq tests are important because they are said to be important.

addendum:

why is the 19th century colonial residuum that is the notion of "race" of any interest?
i dont see the value of this category AT ALL and so cannot for the life of me figure out why it is at play in this thread.

sapiens · 10-18-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So would using the males of my paternal family line which have been scientists of some kind for the last 5 generations. Which is my point, its just a limited sub group and that lots of groups of whites would differ from other whites.

The difference is that there have not been reliable differences found within "whites" other than the differences between jews and other "whites" as a group.

Quote:

I suppose I'm using IQ to represent intelligence and thats where the hang up is.

That is part of my concern. IQ is not the same as intelligence. Comparisons of general IQ scores (as a measure of Intelligence) across cultures are misleading. So, to suggest that a particular racial group has a higher or lower intelligence isn't accurate. Researchers have examined differences between self-identified racial groups in the US. Those differences are well established. Of course, the research itself is not very well received.

I generally have issues with talking about topics like this without any reference to actual studies. I don't have access to references right now, and even if I did, I'm not sure how the discussed would work. Off the top of my head, here are a few sources:

The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray is a good source of information about IQ. Of course, it is a very controversial book. A teacher and colleague of mine used to say that Herrnstein had the good fortune to die before the book was published. The book does address issues of race in one chapter, but the approach is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's also an interesting argument about whether or not IQ is affecting the social and economic structure of the US.

Jerry Waller did a study examining the effects of IQ on SES within family . I don't recall the particular reference. He computed average family IQ, looked at the IQ of children and their occupational outcomes. He found that if you are above the family average, you go up in social class. If you are below the family average, you go down in social class.

Sandra Scarr (1996) completed a transracial adoption study and looked at IQs.

Eyferth (Year?) found that that in the American army in Germany, there were illegitimate black/white and German mother children, but no IQ differences between those children. When one parent was white/1 black, if the mother was black, child IQ would be lower, if mother was white, higher child IQ.

There is some evidence from giant prenatal studies point out that ethnicity of mothers is important. Lee Willerman looked at the effect of the race of the mother on IQ in interracial (black-white) families.

Gerald Lesser studied the contribution of ethnicity to intellectual development. I don't recall the specific reference. He focused on more specific mental abilities than IQ (verbal, spatial, number, etc.) He also considered SES. He found that effect of SES on intellectual development varied dramatically by ethnicity. For example, there was a huge social class effect for African Americans, but barely any effect for Chinese. Jews, regardless of their social class or their geographic location, had the highest verbal and lowest spatial abilities. Chinese the world over had high spatial abilities and low verbal abilities.

This is a very limited representation of the research available.

A mainstream position on Intelligence can be found in this reprinted editorial submitted to the WSJ by many of the leading researchers in the field. The article is also hidden

here click to show

Quote:

Wall Street Journal, Dec. 13, 1994, p A18

Mainstream Science on Intelligence

Since the publication of "The Bell Curve," many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly supported.

This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

4. The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be represented well by the bell curve (in statistical jargon, the "normal curve"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold for mental retardation).

5. Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.

6. The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little understood. Current research looks, for example, at speed of neural transmission, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity of the brain, uptake, and electrical activity of the brain.

Group Differences

7. Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.

8. The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered.

Practical Importance

9. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance.

10. A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.

11. The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life settings become more complex (novel, ambiguous, changing, unpredictable, or multifaceted). For example, a high IQ is generally necessary to perform well in highly complex or fluid jobs (the professions, management): it is a considerable advantage in moderately complex jobs (crafts, clerical and police work); but it provides less advantage in settings that require only routine decision making or simple problem solving (unskilled work).

12. Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting performance in education, training, and highly complex jobs (no one claims they are), but intelligence is often the most important. When individuals have already been selected for high (or low) intelligence and so do not differ as much in IQ, as in graduate school (or special education), other influences on performance loom larger in comparison.

13. Certain personality traits, special talents, aptitudes, physical capabilities, experience, and the like are important (sometimes essential) for successful performance in many jobs, but they have narrower (or unknown) applicability or "transferability" across tasks and settings compared with general intelligence. Some scholars choose to refer to these other human traits as other "intelligences."

Source and Stability of Within-Group Differences

14. Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their environments and genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals. (Heritability is the squared correlation of phenotype with genotype.) If all environments were to become equal for everyone, heritability would rise to 100% because all remaining differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin.

15. Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points) for both genetic and environmental reasons. They differ genetically because biological brothers and sisters share exactly half their genes with each parent and, on the average, only half with each other. They also differ in IQ because they experience different environments within the same family.

16. That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment. Individuals are not born with fixed, unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they are). IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter.

17. Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs permanently. Whether recent attempts show promise is still a matter of considerable scientific debate.

18. Genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable (consider diabetes, poor vision, and phenalketonuria), nor are environmentally caused ones necessarily remediable (consider injuries, poisons, severe neglect, and some diseases). Both may be preventable to some extent.

Source and Stability of Between-Group Differences

19. There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial-ethnic groups are converging. Surveys in some years show that gaps in academic achievement have narrowed a bit for some races, ages, school subjects and skill levels, but this picture seems too mixed to reflect a general shift in IQ levels themselves.

20. Racial-ethnic differences in IQ bell curves are essentially the same when youngsters leave high school as when they enter first grade. However, because bright youngsters learn faster than slow learners, these same IQ differences lead to growing disparities in amount learned as youngsters progress from grades one to 12. As large national surveys continue to show, black 17- year-olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year-olds in reading, math, and science, with Hispanics in between.

21. The reasons that blacks differ among themselves in intelligence appear to be basically the same as those for why whites (or Asians or Hispanics) differ among themselves. Both environment and genetic heredity are involved.

22. There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too.

23. Racial-ethnic differences are somewhat smaller but still substantial for individuals from the same socioeconomic backgrounds. To illustrate, black students from prosperous families tend to score higher in IQ than blacks from poor families, but they score no higher, on average, than whites from poor families.

24. Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors-the white admixture is about 20%, on average--and many self-designated whites, Hispanics, and others likewise have mixed ancestry. Because research on intelligence relies on self- classification into distinct racial categories, as does most other social-science research, its findings likewise relate to some unclear mixture of social and biological distinctions among groups (no one claims otherwise).

Implications for Social Policy

25. The research findings neither dictate nor preclude any particular social policy, because they can never determine our goals. They can, however, help us estimate the likely success and side-effects of pursuing those goals via different means.

The following professors-all experts in intelligence an allied fields-have signed this statement:
Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota
Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota
John B. Carroll, U.N.C. at Chapel Hill
Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii
David B. Cohen, U.T. at Austin
Rene W. Dawis, University of Minnesota
Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve U.
Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota
Hans Eysenck, University of London
Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology
Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University
Grover C. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve U.
Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University
Linda S. Gottfredsen, University of Delaware
Richard J. Haier, U.C. Irvine
Garrett Hardin, U.C. Berkeley
Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa
Joseph M. Horn, U.T. at Austin
Lloyd G. Humphreys, U.Ill. at Champaign-Urbana
John E. Hunter, Michigan State University
Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College
Douglas N. Jackson, U. of Western Ontario
James J. Jenkins, U. of South Florida
Arthur R. Jensen, U.C. Berkeley
Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama
Nadeen L. Kaufman, Cal. School of Prof. Psych., S.D.
Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University
Nadine Lambert, U.C. Berkeley
John C. Loehlin, U.T. at Austin
David Lubinski, Iowa State University
David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota
Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine
Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota
R. Travis Osborne, University of Georgia
Robert Perloff, University of Pittsburg
Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Cecil R. Reynolds Texas A&M University
David C. Rowe University of Arizona
J. Philippe Rushton U. of Western Ontario
Vincent Sarich, U.C. Berkeley
Sandra Scarr, University of Virginia
Frank L. Schmidt University of Iowa
Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A&M University
James C. Sharf, George Washington University
Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University
Del Theissen, U.T. at Austin
Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve U.
Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington University
Philip Anthony Vernon, U. of Western Ontario
Lee Willerman, U.T. at Austin

I enjoy research on IQ and intelligence. I find it interesting and I do appreciate the OP. However, I'm not that interested in race/ethnicity differences.

Willravel · 10-18-2007, 09:03 AM

African, Caucasians, Oceanian, East Asians, Native Americans. Isn't that it?

roachboy · 10-18-2007, 09:05 AM

sapiens--we seem to be posting at the same time...i didnt see either your first post to the thread or number 51 when i was putting stuff up. you seem to have addressed one of the concerns i outlined in no. 50...thanks.

highthief · 10-18-2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

The difference is that there have not been reliable differences found within "whites" other than the differences between jews and other "whites" as a group.

I think you'll find that to be incorrect.

Firstly, the higher scores were related to Ashkenazi Jews (basically, Jews of Central European descent) not other Jews.

Second, comparative analysis shows large variation between different European populations. Now, one can argue that the tests don;t take cultural and environmental biases into account, such that Bulgarians are scoring lower than Danes, but then the same might account for Ashkenazi Jewish scores.

sapiens · 10-18-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

I think you'll find that to be incorrect.

Firstly, the higher scores were related to Ashkenazi Jews (basically, Jews of Central European descent) not other Jews.

Second, comparative analysis shows large variation between different European populations. Now, one can argue that the tests don;t take cultural and environmental biases into account, such that Bulgarians are scoring lower than Danes, but then the same might account for Ashkenazi Jewish scores.

I can't find the specific references related to this topic. I'm fairly certain that the statements in that post were related to differences within the United States. So, you may very well be correct that it's Ashkenazi Jews that are driving the difference I cited above. I'm not making a claim about innate differences between Jews and other white groups. Would you expect environmental biases to affect differences between Azhkenazi Jews and other "whites" within the United States?

I know that Lesser (1972?) found differences between ethnic groups supposedly across cultures. He focused on specific abilities and I don't have the article. So, I can't be sure that his Jewish sample wasn't entirely Ashkenazi.

Willravel · 10-18-2007, 01:20 PM

sapiens, where'd you go to school? I've been really impressed with your level of knowledge on specific scientific knowledge.

highthief · 10-18-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

Would you expect environmental biases to affect differences between Azhkenazi Jews and other "whites" within the United States?

I don't see why not - not everyone within the US lives the same way. Jews live (largely) in the US in cities. Many have special diets. Many Jews work in traditional occupations - finance, jewelry, law, medicine - which influence them and their children. Many Jews go to seperate schools. They observe many different cultural traditions. There are many factors, aside from genetics.

Personally, I think there are likely to be some differences, on average, between people of different ancestry, both physically and mentally, but I think the differences are specific not general, and there is 99% overlap between any one group versus another.

So sweeping statements like "whites are smarter than blacks" or "blacks are better athletes than whites" are inaccurate.

Here's some info from a wiki entry on the subject - make of it what you will:

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

Psychometrics research has found that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest mean score of any ethnic group on standardized tests of general intelligence, with estimates ranging from 7 to 17 points above the mean IQ of the general white population at 100, which ranges from 107 for Germany to 90 for Turkey according to Richard Lynn's estimates for 2006 [4]. These studies (see references) also indicate that this advantage is primarily in verbal and mathematical performance; spatial and visual-perceptual performance is average. However some statistic data on Israel, which has about 50% of Ashkenazi Jews in its population show that Israel achieves lower average IQ scores than countries of Europe or East Asia (IQ and the Wealth of Nations). (Israel 94, England 100, Hong Kong 107). Israel however is multicultural in nature, where Jews, Muslims (around 1/4 of population) and Christians reside. Besides being controversial, this work relies on existing studies "of questionable validity",[1] leading to results even the authors don't believe to be correct.

roachboy · 10-18-2007, 03:38 PM

watson's retraction/apology about these remarks, from this afternoon's guardian:

Quote:

DNA pioneer apologises over race row

James Randerson and Claire Truscott
Thursday October 18, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The DNA pioneer James Watson today apologised "unreservedly" for his apparent claim that black people are less intelligent than whites.

"I am mortified about what has happened," he told a group of scientists and journalists at the launch of his new book, Avoid Boring People, at the Royal Society in London.

"I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have."

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly.

"That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

Prof Watson attracted a deluge of criticism for his comments in a Sunday Times interview, reportedly saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".

He was quoted as saying he hoped everyone was equal, but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true".

Britain's most senior black MP, the skills minister, David Lammy, said the 79-year-old scientist's comments were "deeply offensive" and would "succeed only in providing oxygen for the BNP".

"It is a shame that a man with a record of scientific distinction should see his work overshadowed by his own irrational prejudices," Mr Lammy said.

"It is no surprise to me that the scientific community has condemned this outburst, and I think people will recognise these comments for what they are."

The London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, also condemned the comments, calling them "racist propaganda masquerading as scientific fact".

"His offensive and grossly inaccurate comments will no doubt be seized upon by extreme right groups to fuel their campaigns of hatred," he said. "Such views are not welcome in a city like London."

In his statement today, Prof Watson said science should not be afraid of tackling controversial issues.

"Science is no stranger to controversy and I am not one to shy away from tackling issues, however, difficult they might prove to be. I have had my share of controversy, as many of you know," he added.

"I have always fiercely defended the position that we should base our view of the world on the state of our knowledge, on fact, and not on what we think it should be.

"This is why I believe passionately in genetics - for it will lead us to answers to many of the big and difficult questions that have troubled people for hundreds, if not thousands, of years."

The eminent geneticist made his name as one half of science's most famous double act when he and Francis Crick worked out the now famous double helix structure for DNA - a discovery for which they won the Nobel prize in 1962.

Prof Watson's statement did not clarify what his views on the issue of race and intelligence are, but he hinted that he had been misquoted.

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said," the statement said.

The professor had been due to speak at the Science museum in London tomorrow, but its directors called off the event last night after his comments were made public.

A spokesman said Prof Watson had "gone beyond the point of acceptable debate".

Some scientists have voiced anger at the museum's decision. "It's outrageous to ban someone based on newspaper reports of their views," Colin Blakemore, a professor of Neuroscience at the University of Oxford, said.

"Jim Watson is well known for being provocative and politically incorrect. But it would be a sad world if such a distinguished scientist was silenced because of his more unpalatable views."

Prof Watson has regularly courted controversy, reportedly saying that a woman should have the right to abort her child if tests were able to determine that it would be homosexual.

He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, proposing that black people have higher libidos, and claimed beauty could be genetically manufactured.

"People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty," he said. "I think it would be great."

Born in Chicago, he studied in the US and Denmark before moving to Cambridge University, where he met Crick while a student in 1951.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...193899,00.html

just to poke at this with a stick, i copied this:

Quote:

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said," the statement said.

because i couldnt understand it either.

Ustwo · 10-18-2007, 03:48 PM

So hes going with 'crazy old'.

ASU2003 · 10-18-2007, 07:10 PM

I hate political correctness. If he would have said Asians are smarter than whites, anger, violence, slamming him in the media, or forcing this guy to apolgize wouldn't have been the reaction I would have.

If he could back up his claim with sound, peer-reviewed, and an understanding of 'why', then it could be believed.

Now there are way too many other factors to conclude that just by the color of your skin that you would be dumb. There are plenty of minority people who are smarter than whites, so the theory wouldn't pass right there. If he said it might be easier for whites to retain information in memories better, he might be able to test that theory.

Menoman · 10-18-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I hate political correctness. If he would have said Asians are smarter than whites, anger, violence, slamming him in the media, or forcing this guy to apolgize wouldn't have been the reaction I would have.

If he could back up his claim with sound, peer-reviewed, and an understanding of 'why', then it could be believed.

Now there are way too many other factors to conclude that just by the color of your skin that you would be dumb. There are plenty of minority people who are smarter than whites, so the theory wouldn't pass right there. If he said it might be easier for whites to retain information in memories better, he might be able to test that theory.

It is a theory, you have to come up with a the theory, before you can test your theory right?

He can't test it yet, but look at the hype this has caused, I'm going to bet that it will cause at least a small boost in research by the believers - to prove the theory, AND by the opponents, in attempts to disprove it.

It will however be testable once they can find the DNA pieces that effect intelligence, so thats the goal is it not?

All you guys keep talking about intelligence, none of it makes any sense you are talking about IQ and etc, that's not what he is talking about. The more you learn, the better you will do on those tests. That is not intelligence that is knowledge.

At this point we cannot honestly measure intelligence, so the discussion on 'oh this jew is more intelligent than this white, and this white is more intelligent than this asian' is futile.

You can't break down a theory like this(into subgroups of each race), that is generalizing the majority of the race, to disprove it, that doesn't make sense. The whole thing is based on a majority.

Ustwo · 10-19-2007, 07:33 AM

Quote:

The Nobel Prize-winning DNA pioneer James Watson has been suspended by his research institution in the US.

Dr Watson has drawn severe criticism over remarks he made in a British newspaper at the weekend.

In the interview, he was quoted as saying Africans were less intelligent than Europeans.

The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory had already distanced itself from the scientist's comments but its trustee board has also now suspended him.

A statement from the Long Island, New York, institution said the action was being taken "pending further deliberation by the board".

This I find disappointing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7052416.stm

Willravel · 10-19-2007, 07:38 AM

I remember a story from some time ago of someone involved in baseball making a comment about how slavery may have aided natural selection leading to black people in the US being more physically fit. I also recall him being chastised for it rather severely.

highthief · 10-19-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This I find disappointing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7052416.stm

Why? Senility should be a valid reason for getting sacked ...

Ustwo · 10-19-2007, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Why? Senility should be a valid reason for getting sacked ...

I rather doubt the motivation was senility.

highthief · 10-19-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I rather doubt the motivation was senility.

Why? I know, you want to look at PC motivations, but he basically said afterwards he had no idea why he said what he did, and could not recall doing so, at least initially. Not sure if the story has changed since then.

Sounds like a crazy old fool to me!

QuasiMondo · 10-19-2007, 02:59 PM

The whole thing smacks of that good old fashioned 19th century scientific racism.

Ourcrazymodern? · 10-19-2007, 03:10 PM

It's just us here, people.

I see argument relating to racism. There are no races.

The sexes should at least be pretending to get along, since we currently need each other.

Intelligence transcends perceived boundaries, and real ones. This is not a debate about anything useful.

I think our species needs more (and less) imagination.

sapiens · 10-19-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

I don't see why not - not everyone within the US lives the same way. Jews live (largely) in the US in cities. Many have special diets. Many Jews work in traditional occupations - finance, jewelry, law, medicine - which influence them and their children. Many Jews go to seperate schools. They observe many different cultural traditions. There are many factors, aside from genetics.

Intelligence as measured by IQ is quite heritable. However, I agree with you that many ethnic differences are likely to be environmentally based. Some ethnic differences in general IQ scores do appear to be resistant to environmental intervention, but I would not discount the influence of cultural factors as well.

I wouldn't place a number like 99% on the overlap between groups. First, because the overlap is likely to differ depending on what is being measured. Second, in particular measurements, the overlap is demonstrably less, but I do think that many differences are more likely to be specific than general. (And those differences may be more interesting). Sex differences in cognitive abilities are specific rather than general (Men and women don't differ in IQ scores - General intelligence scores).

Quote:

So sweeping statements like "whites are smarter than blacks" or "blacks are better athletes than whites" are inaccurate.

Agreed.

Quote:

Here's some info from a wiki entry on the subject - make of it what you will:

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

That was a wacky wiki entry. I have my doubts about the described evolutionary account of IQ differences between Askenazi Jews and "Whites".

stingc · 10-19-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So hes going with 'crazy old'.

I saw Watson give a talk in Chicago a couple of weeks ago. I thought he was nuts. He made a lot of racial statements, insulted several colleagues with no real explanation, complained about his salary, and kept giggling at himself for no apparent reason. While some of the things he said had grains of plausibility, the lack of tact was astonishing. I've been around a lot of eccentric scientists, but this really took the cake.

Ustwo · 10-19-2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stingc

I saw Watson give a talk in Chicago a couple of weeks ago. I thought he was nuts. He made a lot of racial statements, insulted several colleagues with no real explanation, complained about his salary, and kept giggling at himself for no apparent reason. While some of the things he said had grains of plausibility, the lack of tact was astonishing. I've been around a lot of eccentric scientists, but this really took the cake.

Makes me want to get his new book for comedic value.

Shame if hes gone over the deep end.

abaya · 10-20-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

I think the best athletes - and I'm thinking of some of the greats including decathletes like Brian Clay and Daley Thompson, Muhammed Ali, Tiger Woods, have been mixed race.

Hybrid vigor.

Anyway, clearly I missed out on the bulk of this discussion (been away in Italy for a week... and if there's any room for joking about background, I don't know how that nation descends from the Romans

), but didn't we just go over this whole topic (race) recently in another thread?...

Sapiens has covered pretty much everything, and he kicks my social scientific ass (and I have no idea what his genetic background is, but I'd be willing to be he's a damn good sociologist, statistician, demographer, or something of the like... professor?).

Clines, anyone? That's my paltry contribution.

Ourcrazymodern? · 10-20-2007, 04:31 PM

99.9999999(ad nauseum)

I don't want to pretend we aren't all the same. Our mutual future lies in pretending otherwise, even if we don't have the stomach for it.

Um...thankyou?

loquitur · 10-21-2007, 07:09 PM

A lot of this depends on how one defines "intelligence." Ther eare people with very high g scores, which means that they are highly adept at manipulating concepts and reasoning abstractly, who are unable to function well because they can't deal with other people well. Are they really "intelligent?" Depends on what you mean by intelligent.

IQ scores measure g, which means people with high IQs are able to do well on the sorts of tasks that IQ tests measure. It's not a proxy for success in life, though it might be a proxy for getting good grades in school. Success in life depends far more on good judgment and interpersonal schools than on raw g, at least so far as I can tell. That said, the most successful people I have met have high g and good judgment and social skills. Oh, and some good luck, too.

waltert · 10-21-2007, 07:44 PM

I can see how its possible that isolated populations could develop to have different average intelligences. in a "wild" society, it would be likely that the people would breed for physical prowess, whereas in an industrialized nation, intelligence becomes more of a factor for mate selection.

roachboy · 10-25-2007, 07:15 AM

i was surprised to stumble across this article a couple minutes ago.

Quote:

October 25, 2007
James Watson Retires After Racial Remarks
By CORNELIA DEAN

James D. Watson, the eminent biologist who ignited an uproar last week with remarks about the intelligence of people of African descent, retired today as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island and from its board.

In a statement, he noted that, at 79, he is “overdue” to surrender leadership positions at the lab, which he joined as director in 1968 and served as president until 2003. But he said the circumstances of his resignation “are not those which I could ever have anticipated or desired.”

Dr. Watson, who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for describing the double-helix structure of DNA, and later headed the American government’s part in the international Human Genome Project, was quoted in The Times of London last week as suggesting that, overall, people of African descent are not as intelligent as people of European descent. In the ensuing uproar, he issued a statement apologizing “unreservedly” for the comments, adding “there is no scientific basis for such a belief.”

But Dr. Watson, who has a reputation for making sometimes incendiary off-the-cuff remarks, did not say he had been misquoted.

Within days, the Cold Spring board had relieved him of the administrative responsibilities of the chancellor’s job. In that position, a spokesman for the laboratory said, he was most involved with educational efforts and fund-raising.

In his statement announcing his resignation, he said he would remain at the laboratory, working particularly on cancer research. “Final victory is within our grasp,” he said. “I wish to be among those at the victory line.”

In the years after he left Harvard to direct the laboratory, Dr. Watson transformed it from a small facility into a world-class institution prominent in research on cancer, plant biology, neuroscience and computational biology, the board said in announcing his retirement. Bruce Stillman, who succeeded him as president, said today that he had created an “unparalleled” research environment at the laboratory.

In his statement, Dr. Watson said the work of the Human Genome Project, an international effort which deciphered the chemical contents of human genes, had opened the door to work on many diseases, particularly illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, ailments he said have afflicted members of his family.

He also referred to his Scots and Irish forebears, saying their lives were guided by faith in reason and social justice, “especially the need for those on top to help care for the less fortunate.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/sc...hp&oref=slogin

that is all. surprised.
i dont see this as an outcome of any "pc" phenomenon--i see it as more a situation where certain limitations on the use of one's professional position to espouse crackpot theories concerning areas not exactly in your area have kicked in. but perhaps others will disagree....

Ustwo · 10-25-2007, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

that is all. surprised.
i dont see this as an outcome of any "pc" phenomenon--i see it as more a situation where certain limitations on the use of one's professional position to espouse crackpot theories concerning areas not exactly in your area have kicked in. but perhaps others will disagree....

Sounds like the guy lost it and it happens.

On the other hand I don't think crackpot theories themselves matter much these days, take a look at tilted paranoia and the otherwise intelligent people who believe pretty much any crackpot theory that fits their world view. No its not crackpot theories that are a problem, just crackpot theories that don't fit the current climate.

highthief · 10-26-2007, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltert

I can see how its possible that isolated populations could develop to have different average intelligences. in a "wild" society, it would be likely that the people would breed for physical prowess, whereas in an industrialized nation, intelligence becomes more of a factor for mate selection.

I doubt that has been a factor for the last couple hundred years of the industrial revolution. How smart does one have to be to do factory work? (No disrespect to anyone who does it). You arguably have to be a smarter cookie to hunt or farm your own food than to insert bolt A into widget B a thousand times a day.

Arguably, it may become important in the techology age, but I work with a lot of techies - there's precious few I'd call "smart".

raveneye · 10-27-2007, 09:38 AM

The purpose of scientific inquiry, generally, is to shed light on causal mechanisms, not to describe artificial categories in terms that are inherently subjective.

Since human "races" are artificial categories, asking which "race" is more "intelligent" is like asking who is more beautiful, people whose names begin with consonants or people whose names begin with vowels. You might find an answer, but it would be meaningless as a genetic proposition because there is no genetic mechanism at issue.

Certainly it makes sense to ask questions about the correlations between genetic traits, but trying to say that these are caused by "race" confuses an unstable statistical phenomenon with a categorical one. Genetic correlations are in constant random flux in any finite group, and can arise, reverse sign, or disappear in a single generation due to the pattern of mating.

And speaking of scientific inquiry, it has shown that every person on the planet descended from the same man and woman in an African village that lived about 4000 generations ago. That's a blink of an eye in evolutionary time, and it means that we are all one race, and we're all Africans. Including James Watson.

Ustwo · 10-27-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

The purpose of scientific inquiry, generally, is to shed light on causal mechanisms, not to describe artificial categories in terms that are inherently subjective.

Since human "races" are artificial categories, asking which "race" is more "intelligent" is like asking who is more beautiful, people whose names begin with consonants or people whose names begin with vowels. You might find an answer, but it would be meaningless as a genetic proposition because there is no genetic mechanism at issue.

Certainly it makes sense to ask questions about the correlations between genetic traits, but trying to say that these are caused by "race" confuses an unstable statistical phenomenon with a categorical one. Genetic correlations are in constant random flux in any finite group, and can arise, reverse sign, or disappear in a single generation due to the pattern of mating.

And speaking of scientific inquiry, it has shown that every person on the planet descended from the same man and woman in an African village that lived about 4000 generations ago. That's a blink of an eye in evolutionary time, and it means that we are all one race, and we're all Africans. Including James Watson.

Its one thing to over emphasize racial differences, but its another to ignore them.

There are verifiable, measurable, and real differences between what we classically call 'races' and they are genetic differences.

Its scientific dishonesty to deny this.

10-18-2007, 07:21 AM	#45 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Jews get to be a race now? Actually I don't see a problem with separating Jews from other 'whites' as they do form a sub group to some extent. The problem is the other subgroups are less well defined. This makes the data pretty meaningless. It reminds me of when Europeans talk about violent America and our high murder rate. When I looked into this a few years ago I discovered as a young white male I had less of a chance of being murdered then a young white male in Germany, and I forget where else, and if anything at the time the US had a lower murder rate in my sub group than much of Europe (but not all). So for the subgroup of young white males the high murder rate in America didn't apply. The same type of thinking would apply to intelligence. Simple genetic drift might apply to intelligence differences due to geographical separations, and your subgroup is the only one that matters to you. Now lets add in the genetic mixing and it just gets to hard to classify. My children will have ancestors which come from pretty much ALL of northern Europe. The only possible predictor of their IQ will be my wifes and my own. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 10-18-2007 at 07:25 AM..

10-18-2007, 08:59 AM	#49 (permalink)
skada Upright	Are Jews a race ?? And please can somebody tell me major races in world blacks (africans), whites (Caucasian / Europeans and North America), Asians (Chinese , Japs and similar) ,South Asians (south Asia : Pak, India , BDesh etc) Middle Easterns , South Americans (what will u call 'em hispanians or something ??) Am i Missing something ?? __________________ No Signature

10-18-2007, 09:02 AM	#50 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it seems to me that the idea of an iq test leans on so many assumptions which are socially specific that they really only measure the fit between the subject who takes the test and an abstract-to-cartoon version of the rationality dominant at the time the tests are written. so the scale seems to me entirely normative--so what is measured, then, is fit relative to an ideal-typical image of the rationality that the creators of the test understand to be binding on themselves. so i dont even see how iq tests are interesting or important, once you move outside the class positions occupied by those who generate such tests. and i am not sure why or how the fact that x or y might do well on such tests is an argument for or against them on the basis of what kind of information they gather, how they weight it, and what these weightings are taken to mean. signal is differentiated from noise by redundancy. that there is redundancy implies nothing about value. so it seems to me that iq tests are important because they are said to be important. addendum: why is the 19th century colonial residuum that is the notion of "race" of any interest? i dont see the value of this category AT ALL and so cannot for the life of me figure out why it is at play in this thread. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-18-2007, 09:05 AM	#53 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	sapiens--we seem to be posting at the same time...i didnt see either your first post to the thread or number 51 when i was putting stuff up. you seem to have addressed one of the concerns i outlined in no. 50...thanks. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-18-2007, 03:48 PM	#59 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	So hes going with 'crazy old'. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-18-2007, 09:03 AM	#52 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	African, Caucasians, Oceanian, East Asians, Native Americans. Isn't that it?

10-18-2007, 01:20 PM	#56 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	sapiens, where'd you go to school? I've been really impressed with your level of knowledge on specific scientific knowledge.

10-18-2007, 07:10 PM	#60 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I hate political correctness. If he would have said Asians are smarter than whites, anger, violence, slamming him in the media, or forcing this guy to apolgize wouldn't have been the reaction I would have. If he could back up his claim with sound, peer-reviewed, and an understanding of 'why', then it could be believed. Now there are way too many other factors to conclude that just by the color of your skin that you would be dumb. There are plenty of minority people who are smarter than whites, so the theory wouldn't pass right there. If he said it might be easier for whites to retain information in memories better, he might be able to test that theory.

10-19-2007, 07:38 AM	#63 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I remember a story from some time ago of someone involved in baseball making a comment about how slavery may have aided natural selection leading to black people in the US being more physically fit. I also recall him being chastised for it rather severely.

10-19-2007, 02:59 PM	#67 (permalink)
QuasiMondo Wise-ass Latino Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA	The whole thing smacks of that good old fashioned 19th century scientific racism. __________________ Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator Last edited by QuasiMondo; 10-19-2007 at 03:04 PM..

10-19-2007, 03:10 PM	#68 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	It's just us here, people. I see argument relating to racism. There are no races. The sexes should at least be pretending to get along, since we currently need each other. Intelligence transcends perceived boundaries, and real ones. This is not a debate about anything useful. I think our species needs more (and less) imagination. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

10-20-2007, 04:31 PM	#73 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	99.9999999(ad nauseum) I don't want to pretend we aren't all the same. Our mutual future lies in pretending otherwise, even if we don't have the stomach for it. Um...thankyou? __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

10-21-2007, 07:09 PM	#74 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	A lot of this depends on how one defines "intelligence." Ther eare people with very high g scores, which means that they are highly adept at manipulating concepts and reasoning abstractly, who are unable to function well because they can't deal with other people well. Are they really "intelligent?" Depends on what you mean by intelligent. IQ scores measure g, which means people with high IQs are able to do well on the sorts of tasks that IQ tests measure. It's not a proxy for success in life, though it might be a proxy for getting good grades in school. Success in life depends far more on good judgment and interpersonal schools than on raw g, at least so far as I can tell. That said, the most successful people I have met have high g *and* good judgment and social skills. Oh, and some good luck, too.

10-21-2007, 07:44 PM	#75 (permalink)
waltert Insane	I can see how its possible that isolated populations could develop to have different average intelligences. in a "wild" society, it would be likely that the people would breed for physical prowess, whereas in an industrialized nation, intelligence becomes more of a factor for mate selection.

10-27-2007, 09:38 AM	#79 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	The purpose of scientific inquiry, generally, is to shed light on causal mechanisms, not to describe artificial categories in terms that are inherently subjective. Since human "races" are artificial categories, asking which "race" is more "intelligent" is like asking who is more beautiful, people whose names begin with consonants or people whose names begin with vowels. You might find an answer, but it would be meaningless as a genetic proposition because there is no genetic mechanism at issue. Certainly it makes sense to ask questions about the correlations between genetic traits, but trying to say that these are caused by "race" confuses an unstable statistical phenomenon with a categorical one. Genetic correlations are in constant random flux in any finite group, and can arise, reverse sign, or disappear in a single generation due to the pattern of mating. And speaking of scientific inquiry, it has shown that every person on the planet descended from the same man and woman in an African village that lived about 4000 generations ago. That's a blink of an eye in evolutionary time, and it means that we are all one race, and we're all Africans. Including James Watson.