Race and intelligence
 

Kind of a taboo topic, but do you think that race has any sort of reflection on how intelligent a person is? I'm not talking about this on an individual basis, but the race as a whole.

I'm curious to this, because after all, different races obviously evolved differently and at different speeds, after we were separated by continents. This would explain different cultures. Lots of the people of asian descent look more neotenized, and less neanderthal which would suggest that, from a physical standpoint at least, they've evolved more than others. True or not?

Your thoughts?

No.

Out.

It's an interesting question and one that doesn't go without debate, but as there are no universally defined meanings of race or intelligence—it's also impossible to make any kind of definitive conclusions.

Sociological influences aside, the real evidence for this would be found in race genetics. While there is evidence that races vary in susceptibility to physically disabling conditions and diseases, there is currently no evidence to suggest that race significantly affects brain development to the point of decreased capability of intelligence.

Definitely true on both counts. Even if it is true, it'd be impossible to prove because with whatever method you'd use to test, you'd have to account for test bias, environment that one grew up in (and the education they received), culture they were surrounded by, etc. Maybe in the future we'll have a computer that scans the brain and spits out a number that denotes intelligence, but for now it's pretty much impossible to determine. :p:

I definitely think that it has potential to be true though that certain races are more intelligent at certain things than others, it's all how you measure that intelligence. The migration out of Africa, and the resulting differences in our makeup (while not vast) does show that we evolved differently.

Paloma's response to me only proved that some people are unwilling to discuss this kind of science without getting emotional (understandably). Which is why I'm deliberately going to avoid saying any one race is dumb (plus I don't think it's true; like you said intelligence can be measure in so many ways).

Yep the closest thing we have is IQ tests, a very poor indicator I think we can both agree.

This is more a hypothetical draw your own conclusions thread, based on information that we DO have.

A couple points to consider:

• What is a race? Until you can define that, there isn't much to discuss here.
• Neanderthals were not a phase of our evolution, they were an evolutionary cousin which coexisted with us. So your reference to them is kind of a non sequitur.
• There is no such thing as "more evolved".

• Geographical ancestry I suppose? Physical traits that link a race like how a coroner determine' race on a skeleton by distinguishing physical features
  
  Quote:

  Neanderthals were not a phase of our evolution, they were an evolutionary cousin which coexisted with us. So your reference to them is kind of a non sequitur.

  I'm not an expert on evolution by any means, but weren't neanderthals (who fall under the grouping of archaic homo sapiens) our ancestors?
  
  Archaic Homo sapiens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
  If not, who are our most recent ascendants?
  
  Quote:

  There is no such thing as "more evolved".

Evolved further than our ancestors is what I mean, the less the human looks and acts like it's homo erectus ancestors.


Good questions by the way. Got me thinking, which is the goal of this thread.

Also: Neanderthals are our ancestors, study finds - White Coat Notes - Boston.com

Well not entirely. While they may have evolved separately there is evidence of interbreeding.

Neanderthals, Humans Interbred—First Solid DNA Evidence

There is no race.

You haven't really defined race here. In fact, you're using the word in the definition, which isn't very helpful.

I believe there are competing theories about this. This point is, though, that it wasn't neanderthals. While, as fazstp pointed out, there is evidence that homo sapiens may have interbred with them to some extent, but the two were separate branches of the tree.

Well, neanderthals had evolved quite a ways from homo erectus in that sense. And there's apparently some evidence to suggest they actually had bigger brains than homo sapiens, which brings us back to why you think lack of similarity to neanderthals would mean a group is "more evolved".

Actually, I did. Distinguishing physical characteristics perpetual to a certain population group that has a common geographic ancestor population.


It really doesn't matter, modern humans that followed the interbreeding now have neanderthal DNA in them, thus making the neanderthals an ancestor. It's really not something up for debate.

What relevance does bigger brains have? For the second time, I'm saying that certain groups seem further evolved based on their appearance, namely neoteny. This has been a trend as "Homo Sapiens are more neotenized than Homo Erectus, Homo Erectus was more neotenized than Australopithicus, Great Apes are more neotenized than Old World monkeys and Old World monkeys are more neotenized than New World monkeys."

Actually, you didn't unless you are arguing that there are thousands and thousands of human races.

It does matter, because of what you were saying in the post I was initially responding to. You implied that the "less neanderthal" a group is, the "more evolved" they are. The problem with this, as I said earlier, is that neanderthals were cousins of modern humans, not their predecessors. What this means is that there are humans alive today who do not have neanderthal DNA in them. This is not because these groups evolved "further" than anybody else, but rather because their ancestors never mated with neanderthals.

Let me answer your question with a question: Who has a bigger brain to body ratio, adults or kids?

Why do I smell nothing but racism behind the entire purpose of this thread? People of all colors and all looks have varying degrees of intelligence. There are both brilliant and less than brilliant in all peoples. Evolution is equal among all.

Don't jump to conclusions. He's not racist, he's curious.

It depends on how specific you want to get. Look, I gave you my definition of race for this thread, as you asked. You are basically telling me that my definition of race is wrong. Maybe next time rather than asking a question of me that you would accept no answer for, you should save me the time and dictionary.com it. :thumb:

Ok first of all you are getting way too attached to my use of the word neanderthal. I'm sorry if I may have used it incorrectly in the first place. How about substituting "homo erectus" in for it from here on out.


http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources-rx/im...k_106361_1.jpg
This just better illustrates my point anyways. The homo erectus is on the left, neanderthal in the middle, sapien on the right. One can clearly see the evolution away from the homo erectus here, and the movement towards more neotenous traits.


Kids I believe?


Anyways, it kind of disappoints me that this has (inevitably) moved from a discussion to an internet debate.

No, it's not. And life isn't fair. If evolution was equal, you wouldn't see people with different skin colors. Or disparities in height among different countries. My point is that if there's height differences, why not intelligence differences necessarily? Probably because, if true, it would bother a lot of people (again understandably).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_h...ound_the_world

A more important question; if you recognize the relationship between evolutionary necessity and the influence that social relations and environment have on the developing human mind, why are you still trying to judge books by their covers?

How is it racist to ask questions?

That said, intelligence is unquantifiable.

I think this kinda sums up the thread in a nice way :)

I'm not judging, I'm challenging an often avoided scientific query. To be controversial and all that. ;)

Reading his comments, I don't believe I am the one making conclusions.

I rest my case right here. Saying that people are better/worse or smarter/dumber based on height or weight or color is the most asinine thing I have heard lately.

I'm not telling you it's wrong, I'm just asking for a clear definition. You do understand that even your beloved dictionary.com offers several definitions, right? It would be helpful to know which one you are going by.

How so? Again, keep in mind that the neanderthal skull isn't necessarily the middle of the story here.

Right. How does that square with what you're saying about neoteny?

Well, if you're all curious, here's some numbers:

link

To put that in perspective; if we take the average IQ to be 100, that would mean only 10-15% of black Americans have an IQ exceeding 100.

If we look at the PISA reading scores, we see similar results:

http://www.vdare.com/sites/default/f...910_ss001c.png

USA Asians; 541
USA White; 526
USA Total; 500
USA Hispanic; 466
USA Black; 441

From an international standpoint, you'll find that (north) East Asians dominate; Finland is a notable exception, although that may have something to do with having less than 5% of its populace being born abroad.

Phew. It's a good thing I didn't say that.


This one I suppose most fits with my view:

No I agree it's not. The neanderthal skull is just in that picture, I wasn't saying the transition. But clearly you can see the human skull is more neotenous than the homo erectus, it's form of evolution away from the homo erectus species.


[/quote]Right. How does that square with what you're saying about neoteny?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't really apply I think. The meaning of neoteny is the retention of child-like features in an adult. Could you stop beating around the bush and come out and tell me what you're getting at. :p:

Oh and here's how neoteny and intelligence are connected Jans:
Facilitating factors in the evolution of intelligence. A unit of: Using science fiction to study the evolution of intelligence

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...more-infantile

Most people know Americans aren't very intelligent, not that I share that view for one minute, but just thought I'd mention it.

On a more serious note, HHBH's chart would seem to indicate that those with the greatest brainpower are of Asian origin, I always thought Howie Il Duck was a damn sight smarter than the rest of us.

I think those numbers might reflect standard of education more than they do capacity for intelligence.

i find generally that everyone i've met from different races were all smarter than the other races in there own way. some of them just have "street smarts" and others have "book smarts."

This is why intelligence cannot be properly quantified. Some of the smartest (bookwise) that I've known, the people who study physics, have pretty much no common sense.

HHBH loves stats, race and intelligence usually just comes down to how many people have access to a decent level of education and then pursue that education to higher levels, here in the UK certain races are attracted to different subject areas in universities and at times its very noticeable.

The "Bell Curve" which he also linked has been scrutinized to no end as well. I'm sure most people are aware of that but I thought I'd mention it anyway:shycouch:

I excelled in Physics.:wave:

Alright, you know what? I've had enough of this PC, pusyfooting around. The Smartest race in order are:

Xel'Naga, That master race from Stargate, The Dutch, Whatever Krang from TMNT was, and then probably Predator.

This is probably the single most offensive thing I have read on this forum.

Clearly the Daleks are more intelligent than Krang.

They are, but since only dummies watch Doctor Who they were excluded from the list.

/awaits flamewar

Yes there is. It's called a 'rat race':)

Race and intelligence? Okay. If Americans were a race, they would certainly be on the dumb scale:) That would include me, so, i take that back.

Good grief. Who created this thread? i won't stick around for the answer. i don't think i'm intelligent enough for this 'debate'.

Here's a 'death race'.



have fun folks.

And, Americans make Polish jokes. And, they are a point higher on the scale:)

Oh the irony.

Poor Kyrgyzstan. In last place by a solid 48 points:)

You're right These guys. This is nonsense. It is an education issue. Whoever made the racist remark is dumber than a day old Kyrgyzstanian!:stupid:



Can't post the lyrics, but, my skin is lily white:)

My thoughts? What tuna boat did you fall off of?:)

Just kidding dude, i think i know.

Just passing through, so, no need to reply.

well, of course the Master Race is the most supremely intelligent

the Master Race being the Chinese

By what measure?