[TenSixtySix]

I stumbled upon this video on recently where a Danish TV program on free to air broadcaster DR2 talks about race and IQ.

[youtube]A7Fdl9Kmhgs[/youtube]

Whether you agree or not, it is interesting that this topic is being discussed on a national broadcaster in a European country.

Worthwhile points being made the science journalist(Lone Frank) in regards to the studies:

-There has been an aversion to study anything to do with race and intelligence because of WW2. Additionally, UNESCO since the war has promoted a humanitarian "Everyone is equal" outlook. Scientists have had to toe this line or it may affect their career. (I have no real knowledge of the latter part but I assume it true)
-If there are targets for x amount of university intake, yet the population bell curve is incapable of supporting this target, there will be people encouraged to study that are probably not academically capable.
-Ideological barriers should not inhibit research that isn't politically correct. If IQ is as research suggests 60 - 80% heritable, not knowing what the environmental factors are means the gap cannot be plugged at all.

This woman doesn't strike me as racist as many would call her, rather she is observing the science and suggest it should be used to remedy the situation rather than use it to discriminate. We need to admit there is a difference first before we can determine the environmental factors affecting IQ, which is important as many jobs are becoming more intellectually demanding.

[SecretSquirrel]

Intelligence is strongly (but not entirely) influenced by genes inherited from kin. People within "racial" groups are also strongly linked by genes to kin. It should not surprise anyone if there is some correlation between 2 things which are both (partially) dependent on a third thing.

I don't see why it matters in the end. Just don't make a judgement of anyone until you see their performance. Or don't. You have a right to be a prejudiced person as long as it is not in a public capacity.

If I'm a business owner I'd LOVE to have racist competitors. I'd be able to hire minorities (since I don't give a shit about people's color or whatnot) at lower rates!

[Donna]

SS, bringing back Jim Crow one Rothbardian talking point at a time.

[SecretSquirrel]

Jim Crow = Public Sector Laws Against Minorities = Not Legitimate

Private Business Owner Not Hiring Minorities = Perfectly Legitimate, Even If Stupid

Donald's Last = Strawman Post = Moronic

[Holt]

Autistically insisting that everyone else uses your own idealistic and moralistic definition of the state instead of the one in common parlance since the French Revolution = moronic

[Wolfman]

You want privately implemented Jim Crow. That's no better then publicly implemented. But since Jim Crow was only put into place because business owners wanted it, then Jim Crow is still a private issue.

[SecretSquirrel]

Man you guys fail at thinking. It's not as cute as it used to be two years ago either, wolfie

[McBaden]

First of all, IQ tests measure a particular type of intelligence, not general intelligence as it's understood by most modern theorists. In any case, if it happens that it can be scientifically proven that there are genetic factors involved in determining to some degree that particular type of intelligence, so be it. The problem doesn't lie in the science itself. Science doesn't care about our sensibilities nor should it. It's just a tool to measure reality. The problem arises with the interpretations layered over the science.

The interpretation, for example, that the ability to do better on an IQ test than someone else necessarily means you are more intelligent than them is not scientific. As mentioned there is more to intelligence than is measured on an IQ test. If you're sceptical try the wiki page on intelligence or dig a little deeper into the debates. The racist interpretation, therefore, that Race A is generally superior to Race B because of a general difference in IQ test scores is simply false. Furthermore as most racists seem to be white Europeans it's unlikely they would want to go down this route as it would involve admitting that East Asians were superior to them.

The argument holds for anything else that can be compared across races, like susceptibility to particular diseases, athletic ability, height etc. None of them can be used to show one race is superior to another. And there's almost always more intra-race than inter-race variability anyway. So I don't think there's any need for anyone to feel threatened by the science. It's ignorance that's the problem, not science.

[Kman]

del

[Kman]

The interpretation, for example, that the ability to do better on an IQ test than someone else necessarily means you are more intelligent than them is not scientific.

It measures that your more intelligent than them at that particular assignment of completing that test and that is actually scientific.

As mentioned there is more to intelligence than is measured on an IQ test.

Yes there is, that still doesnt take away from the fact that there appears to be heavy correlation between measured IQ levels and the level of civilizational development that exists in that particular country.

I dont think it is a coincidence that the dirt poor oppressive countries tend to have very low average IQ levels and that the rich and relatively free countries have high average IQ levels.

Furthermore as most racists seem to be white Europeans it's unlikely they would want to go down this route as it would involve admitting that East Asians were superior to them.

Well I am one of those people you probably would call racist and I dont take such a simplistic view of IQ tests, I realize that they are just indicators, not final proof of anything, north-east asians might do well on IQ tests but they have other intellectual deficiencies that IQ tests dont measure well like for example their relatively poor understanding of political systems.

The argument holds for anything else that can be compared across races, like susceptibility to particular diseases, athletic ability, height etc. None of them can be used to show one race is superior to another.

Yes it can, if you measure the jumping ability of black men and get an average number of X centimeters and then measure the jumping ability of white men and get Y centimeters, if blacks on average score significantly higher then there is a high probability that they are on average better jumpers.
Now you cant say that every black is athletically superior to every white but then again I dont remember seeing that many ''racists'' use such crude reasoning, that seems to be more similar to the type of thinking that the anti-racism fanatics like to portray us people who are interested in human evolution as having.

Edit: It is also very encouraging that this woman is actually allowed on television, I think 20 years ago the PC-police would have managed to kill this interview before it aired.

[McBaden]

Well I am one of those people you probably would call racist and I dont take such a simplistic view of IQ tests, I realize that they are just indicators, not final proof of anything...

So far, I don't have any evidence to think you are racist. Racism to me is pretty simple. It's the mistaken belief that behaviour, character, personal worth, values etc. are determined by genetic differences rather than environmental ones. So racists believe that genetic differences in race are somehow determinative of a hierarchy of human worth (with their race at the top of course). A scientist who points out that there are differences between races in terms of particular attributes of intelligence or athletic ability isn't necessarily making a value judgement about human worth and therefore doesn't qualify as a racist.

Racists, I think, are utterly confused people. They're confused between biologically defined race and socially defined culture which are absolutely separate. What racists are really against it seems to me are cultures that hold values different to their own but they don't seem to realise that members of different races don't necessarily fall into equal divisions with members of different cultures. A middle class Black American is likely to have more in common with a middle class White American than either would have with a working class Black South African, for example. So I think it's a fairly basic category mistake to confuse the issue of race and culture. They often overlap but it's not necessary that they do and that's the key point.

Yes it can, if you measure the jumping ability of black men and get an average number of X centimeters and then measure the jumping ability of white men and get Y centimeters, if blacks on average score significantly higher then there is a high probability that they are on average better jumpers.
Now you cant say that every black is athletically superior to every white but then again I dont remember seeing that many ''racists'' use such crude reasoning, that seems to be more similar to the type of thinking that the anti-racism fanatics like to portray us people who are interested in human evolution as having.

You misunderstand me. I meant they couldn't be used to show that one race was generally superior to another. If one race is on average superior to another in some specific way, and that can be demonstrated by fact taking all the confusing environmental issues into account (which is extremely difficult to do) well, that's just science, not a value judgement. So it's not racist to say it. It is racist though to use it to try to denigrate someone of a particular race or to try to draw the false conclusion that your race is "better" because of it.

North-east asians might do well on IQ tests but they have other intellectual deficiencies that IQ tests dont measure well like for example their relatively poor understanding of political systems.

Do you have evidence for this?

[Kman]

Racism to me is pretty simple. It's the mistaken belief that behaviour, character, personal worth, values etc. are determined by genetic differences rather than environmental ones.

That is not a mistaken belief, that is the truth, have you never heard the old saying ''like father, like son?'', it is a true statement because personality and behavior and character are too a large degree inherited genetically, it is not something you can change by putting someone in a different enviroment.

So racists believe that genetic differences in race are somehow determinative of a hierarchy of human worth (with their race at the top of course).

I dont think about race as a seperate brackets, there is overlap between whites, blacks and asians, some asians act like black people and some white people act like asians, the important thing however is that if you look at the average type of person there are some traits more dominant in certain races, just like there are some traits more dominant in pitbulls than labradors.

They're confused between biologically defined race and socially defined culture which are absolutely separate.

They are not absolutely seperate, culture is for the most part determined by genetics, culture is just the combined values of the people living in a certain area and if you have a people disposed towards thievery then you will have a culture with alot of theft. Japan is a country where people generally dont steal, that is why they did not have widespread looting after the tsunami that hit them recently, Haiti on the other hand has a population with a more how shall we say it, lax moral code and because of this there is utter chaos on that island after major disasters because the haitians dont have the same kind of personality and genes as japanese people do.

Do you have evidence for this?

Well Japan had the same political party in power for like 50 years after the war, Koreans were dumb enough to support communism and ditto for the chinese, then you also have to consider the widespread political abuse committed by the various chinese dynasties that held back scientific and economic development greatly not to mention the political centralization in China that was a disaster for Asian development, so yeah that is the kind of proof I have for asians not being all that good at understanding and managing political systems.
They have historically been significantly worse at it than the europeans and this is what enabled Europe to become more advanced than Asia.

[Rich]

I dont think it is a coincidence that the dirt poor oppressive countries tend to have very low average IQ levels and that the rich and relatively free countries have high average IQ levels.

How do a billion Chinese fit into this? China's not exactly been a model of freedom for the last two thousand years.

One things for sure most people lack the intellectual capability to add anything worthwhile to this debate. That dozy bitch of a journalist didn't even mention epi-genetics.

[Lightman]

They are not absolutely seperate, culture is for the most part determined by genetics, culture is just the combined values of the people living in a certain area and if you have a people disposed towards thievery then you will have a culture with alot of theft. Japan is a country where people generally dont steal, that is why they did not have widespread looting after the tsunami that hit them recently, Haiti on the other hand has a population with a more how shall we say it, lax moral code and because of this there is utter chaos on that island after major disasters because the haitians dont have the same kind of personality and genes as japanese people do.

I take it there was a great genetic change in the Russian population between 1914 and 1960.

[McBaden]

That is not a mistaken belief, that is the truth, have you never heard the old saying ''like father, like son?'', it is a true statement because personality and behavior and character are too a large degree inherited genetically, it is not something you can change by putting someone in a different enviroment.

My point is that the genes that determine race (like skin colour etc.) do not determine behaviour. Other genes obviously have some affect on behaviour. There may be genes that affect a tendency towards aggression, for example, but those genes are not the same ones that determine race so they're not relevant to the argument. If you know of one gene that say only Asians or Blacks have that Whites don't have and that specifically determines an identifiable behavioral trait, just tell me what it is and quote your source.

I dont think about race as a seperate brackets, there is overlap between whites, blacks and asians, some asians act like black people and some white people act like asians, the important thing however is that if you look at the average type of person there are some traits more dominant in certain races, just like there are some traits more dominant in pitbulls than labradors.

There is no identifiable 'way' that asians or blacks or whites act like. That's a complete misunderstanding. Within each category there are huge differences. Would you claim, for example, that Russians and Americans act more similarly to each other than Black English and White English people do, or that somehow Koreans and Indians have more in common than American Blacks and American hispanics? The world just doesn't work that way. Two middle class English stockbrokers who happen to be of different races, say Black and White, are likely to have far more in common than a Bangladeshi farmer and a Thai factory owner. I mean isn't that completely self-evident? Or if you don't think so, you should outiline the 'way' you think white people act like as opposed to Asians or blacks.

They are not absolutely seperate, culture is for the most part determined by genetics, culture is just the combined values of the people living in a certain area and if you have a people disposed towards thievery then you will have a culture with alot of theft. Japan is a country where people generally dont steal, that is why they did not have widespread looting after the tsunami that hit them recently, Haiti on the other hand has a population with a more how shall we say it, lax moral code and because of this there is utter chaos on that island after major disasters because the haitians dont have the same kind of personality and genes as japanese people do.

This argument is just not based on scientific fact. Culture is limited by genetics not determined by it. There's an important difference. Obviously our genes limit our abilities. There are only so many things we can do physically and cognitively. However, within that scope culture is wide open and the cognitive and physical limits of a white person are no different than that of a black or an Asian, at least not to any extent that would matter in cultural terms. If you were brought up in an Asian country from birth -let's say you had been adopted by Asian parents - you'd share their culture, their language, and their religion, you wouldn't be any different. There is no white gene in you that would somehow come into effect and make you act like you would if brought up in a different culture, make you a Christian, or make you speak English or change your table manners, obviously. As I said, none of this has anything to do with the genes that determine your skin color, eye shape, or any other aspect of you that's race specific.

Well Japan had the same political party in power for like 50 years after the war, Koreans were dumb enough to support communism and ditto for the chinese, then you also have to consider the widespread political abuse committed by the various chinese dynasties that held back scientific and economic development greatly not to mention the political centralization in China that was a disaster for Asian development, so yeah that is the kind of proof I have for asians not being all that good at understanding and managing political systems.
They have historically been significantly worse at it than the europeans and this is what enabled Europe to become more advanced than Asia.

That's not evidence not to mention proof. It's just an expression of your contempt for Asian politics.

[Wolfman]

They are not absolutely seperate, culture is for the most part determined by genetics, culture is just the combined values of the people living in a certain area and if you have a people disposed towards thievery then you will have a culture with alot of theft. Japan is a country where people generally dont steal, that is why they did not have widespread looting after the tsunami that hit them recently, Haiti on the other hand has a population with a more how shall we say it, lax moral code and because of this there is utter chaos on that island after major disasters because the haitians dont have the same kind of personality and genes as japanese people do.

I take it there was a great genetic change in the Russian population between 1914 and 1960.

Don't forget the great genetic changes that happened in Germany from late 1920s to mid 1940s, or the great genetic shift in the American colonies in the from the 1750s to 1790s, or in the US from the 1840s to 1860s, or in any of a hundred countries that went from established democracies to dictatorships or Fascist states, or went from Capitalist to Communist, or back again.

[Kman]

My point is that the genes that determine race (like skin colour etc.) do not determine behaviour.

The genes that determine behavior are part of what makes up a race, it is not solely about skin color or external attributes, it is also about how their brains work and while these attributes are not seperated perfectly between the races you can still make a generalized statement as to what kind of behavior attributes are more prevalent among certain races.

Other genes obviously have some affect on behaviour. There may be genes that affect a tendency towards aggression, for example, but those genes are not the same ones that determine race so they're not relevant to the argument.

Yes they are and they do infact help determine racial differences.

If you know of one gene that say only Asians or Blacks have that Whites don't have and that specifically determines an identifiable behavioral trait, just tell me what it is and quote your source.

I dont and neither do the people that research genes atm i'm sure. I also dont need to name specific genes to be able to figure out that certain human traits are more prevalent in some races, you can just look at their behavior and physical and intellectual skill to determine that.

There is no identifiable 'way' that asians or blacks or whites act like.

Yes there is, you just need to look at them and observe how they behave towards each other and in various activities. I do this constantly with all the races and ethnic groups (and people in general actually) because I find the topic of human evolution pretty fascinating.

Within each category there are huge differences.

That is true but you can still arrive at a conclusion as to what type of behavior and personality is most dominant within each genetic group.

Would you claim, for example, that Russians and Americans act more similarly to each other than Black English and White English people do

That is hard to say because russians are very collectivist in nature partly because of the communist era that exterminated alot of russians that had individualistic personalities, in the same way blacks are also very collectivist in nature because the black people in africa who did not share with the tribe were killed, so it is not an easy assessment to make since blacks and russians are kind of similar in personality, both groups tend to be very collectivist and tolerant of tyrants.

The world just doesn't work that way. Two middle class English stockbrokers who happen to be of different races, say Black and White, are likely to have far more in common than a Bangladeshi farmer and a Thai factory owner. I mean isn't that completely self-evident?

Yes they will most likely have more in common but how many black english stockbrokers actually exist? They are extremely rare because in order to be hired as a financial expert today you need to understand how some very complex financial instruments work and the percentage of black people that are blessed with that kind of raw brain power are pretty rare so the odds of a black man becoming a stockbroker is pretty slim and if he does he will most likely only get in because said financial company wants to appear tolerant and diverse, not because he is all that good at his job.

If you were brought up in an Asian country from birth -let's say you had been adopted by Asian parents - you'd share their culture, their language, and their religion, you wouldn't be any different. There is no white gene in you that would somehow come into effect and make you act like you would if brought up in a different culture, make you a Christian, or make you speak English or change your table manners, obviously.

Yes I would be different because I am born with white genes and because of this I am far more rebellious and disrespectful towards authority than the vast majority of asians but let us make the example even more extreme in order to drive home the point, let us imagine that I was adopted by a saudi arabian couple and spent my life growing up in Saudi Arabia being taught the traditions of Islam, I am 100% sure that I would not be comfortable with being a muslim because I always question authority and the Koran demands it to be worshipped as a perfect book, I am confident I would grow up in Saudi Arabia being taught Islam and then when I reached my teenage years and developed the ability to think for myself I would start questioning why the hell I should be praying to allah 5 times a day or why I should waste time fasting 1 month every year, I would most likely stop attending the mosque and spend my time on more interesting things than shoving my butt into the air for Allah and then my fellow saudi arabians would go ''omg what is that freak doing!!! He is not attending the mosque like he is supposed to like a good muslim'' and then conflict would arise because I have a very different genetic personality from your average saudi arabian.

You cannot change people's fundamental genetic personalities with culture, you can suppress them but the true self will always be in a state of rebellion against this culture imposed from the outside.

That's not evidence not to mention proof. It's just an expression of your contempt for Asian politics.

I dont feel ''contempt'', I am objectively observing these asian human beings like a scientist would observe an ant colony or a beetle.

[McBaden]

Yes I would be different because I am born with white genes and because of this I am far more rebellious and disrespectful towards authority than the vast majority of asians but let us make the example even more extreme in order to drive home the point, let us imagine that I was adopted by a saudi arabian couple and spent my life growing up in Saudi Arabia being taught the traditions of Islam, I am 100% sure that I would not be comfortable with being a muslim because I always question authority and the Koran demands it to be worshipped as a perfect book, I am confident I would grow up in Saudi Arabia being taught Islam and then when I reached my teenage years and developed the ability to think for myself I would start questioning why the hell I should be praying to allah 5 times a day or why I should waste time fasting 1 month every year, I would most likely stop attending the mosque and spend my time on more interesting things than shoving my butt into the air for Allah and then my fellow saudi arabians would go ''omg what is that freak doing!!! He is not attending the mosque like he is supposed to like a good muslim'' and then conflict would arise because I have a very different genetic personality from your average saudi arabian.

You cannot change people's fundamental genetic personalities with culture, you can suppress them but the true self will always be in a state of rebellion against this culture imposed from the outside.

This is just conjecture though. There's no scientific evidence that any such 'white genes' regulating rebelliousness exist. And if you hypothesise that they do exist the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate it. If you just want them to exist or want to say that's what you believe as a result of your observations. That's fine. But no-one else will have any reason to believe you. I have no stake in this either way. I don't believe scientific fact is an ethical issue. But because my background is in Science, I am interested in facts not simply opinions.

So, if you want to convince anyone of this, just point to one actual documented case where someone was brought up in a culture and rebelled against that culture because of their 'white' genes. Or point to a scientific experiment that identified these 'white genes' controlling rebelliousness etc.

From my own studies in this area, (I have studied genetics, evolution and culture at University level) I'm pretty sure you won't be able to find this evidence for the simple reason that it doesn't exist. I'm also pretty sure though from what I know about culture and identity that this won't damage your belief because you seem to have an emotional attachment to it, rather than any rational justification. So I doubt we'll agree on much apart from the fact that scientists shoud be allowed on television and elsewhere to dispassionately describe the results of their experiments.

[Kman]

This is just conjecture though. There's no scientific evidence that any such 'white genes' regulating rebelliousness exist.

Oh really? How about the fact that white civilization has been the most free and tolerant in the last what 2500 years?

And if you hypothesise that they do exist the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate it.

No the burden of proof lies on you disproving it, personally I find no flaws in my theory.

If you just want them to exist or want to say that's what you believe as a result of your observations. That's fine. But no-one else will have any reason to believe you

Why not? It is a theory that makes perfect sense and it has no logical holes so to speak.

But because my background is in Science, I am interested in facts not simply opinions.

Your theories are opinions just as much as mine.

So, if you want to convince anyone of this, just point to one actual documented case where someone was brought up in a culture and rebelled against that culture because of their 'white' genes.

I dont really have it but I know how my own personality works and this is what makes it possible for me to make this sort of judgement.

Or point to a scientific experiment that identified these 'white genes' controlling rebelliousness etc.

How about you just study white history?

From my own studies in this area, (I have studied genetics, evolution and culture at University level) I'm pretty sure you won't be able to find this evidence for the simple reason that it doesn't exist.

That doesnt surprise me since race studies in universities have become incredibly corrupt and taken over by people influenced by totally un-scientific marxist race theories, this means that the opinion of the vast majority of university employed professors on this subject are pretty irrelevant since the universities are corrupt and dont care about the truth, they care about getting government funds and in order to get government money you have to say politically correct things and the theory of human evolution is not politically correct, marxist style ''creationism'' is what dominates universities today.

If you want to read the opinion of a man who actually knows wtf he is talking about I suggest you read Murray Rothbard and in particular his article called ''Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature''. Here is the link http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.html.

[McBaden]

I don't have a theory, I'm just trying to present basic scientific fact, of the sort you read in University textbooks, not 'race studies' which might have political elements to them (though again you provide no evidence for your negative characterization) but genetics. The cultural part of my studies isn't even necessary to see the contradictions in what you're saying. You, on the other hand, do have a theory, about 'white genes' determining behaviour as well as physical racial characteristics, one for which you've offered no evidence just a few of your own subjective observations, which there's no reason for anyone to care about. All I suggested was that if you wanted to be taken seriously by anyone you need to provide evidence. If you're happy not to be taken seriously, fine. As I said I have no stake in this. I was only trying to help you understand how you sound to people who know something about the issue. I mean if it were me and I was trying to convince someone of something that was totally outside the mainstream of scientific thought I'd hardly expect them to give it any respect without backing it up.