NationStates Jolt Archive

Interesting article...


The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.


http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530

Interesting. It seems that the "white race" isn't the "master race" after all.

Also:
Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.

Interesting. It seems that the "white race" isn't the "master race" after all.

Also:

Yup. If you read a bit above, you'll see that east asians score highest (106)(whites are 100).

Yup. If you read a bit above, you'll see that east asians score highest (106)(whites are 100).Yes... that was what I was playing at with my statement...

I'm not last place!
But I'm way above the Asian average and I'm White.

Does it take into account people with mental issues? A lot of "genius" people tend to have high-functioning autism, Asperger's and other things like that. Those could mess up the spectrum.

Race differences in average are no difference in Races at all... On average the differences between races are about the same as the differences between football teams (assuming USA Football but i'm sure it is the same for other sports).

Hmm.. well, then, for the betterment of human kind, I'll try to hook up with a nice asian girl ;)

Interesting. It seems that the "white race" isn't the "master race" after all.

Also:

See what we mean when we say that you can't let go of the war?

IMHO, IQ Tests measure only the ability to take IQ tests. :p

This is interesting because I just read the following:

Testing for Racial Differences in the Mental Ability of Young Children: Roland G. Fryer, Steven D. Levitt NBER Working Paper No. 12066 Issued in March 2006: Abstract: On tests of intelligence, Blacks systematically score worse than Whites, whereas Asians frequently outperform Whites. Some have argued that genetic differences across races account for the gap. Using a newly available nationally representative data set that includes a test of mental function for children aged eight to twelve months, we find only minor racial differences in test outcomes (0.06 standard deviation units in the raw data) between Blacks and Whites that disappear with the inclusion of a limited set of controls. The only statistically significant racial difference is that Asian children score slightly worse than those of other races. To the extent that there are any genetically-driven racial differences in intelligence, these gaps must either emerge after the age of one, or operate along dimensions not captured by this early test of mental cognition...

...IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture...
I believe that this is the key sentence, and shows what a load of rubbish it is to claim that some people are 'genetically smarter' than others.

IMHO, IQ Tests measure only the ability to take IQ tests. :p

If you read the article, you'll see it's not only about iq tests...


Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

IMHO, IQ Tests measure only the ability to take IQ tests. :p

You just say that because you're no good at them. :p

*cough* (http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html)

"There's about a 15 percent genetic variation between any two individuals," according to science writer Deborah Blum. "Less than half of that, about 6 percent, is accounted for by known racial groupings....A randomly selected white person, therefore, can easily be genetically closer to an African than another white"

If you want to find out why Asians are over-represented in California's universities while blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented, you will probably search in vain for a genetic answer. Those who are interested in such things would do better to look at family structure, ethnic traditions, and social conditions.

*cough* (http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html)

"There's about a 15 percent genetic variation between any two individuals," according to science writer Deborah Blum. "Less than half of that, about 6 percent, is accounted for by known racial groupings....A randomly selected white person, therefore, can easily be genetically closer to an African than another white"

If you want to find out why Asians are over-represented in California's universities while blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented, you will probably search in vain for a genetic answer. Those who are interested in such things would do better to look at family structure, ethnic traditions, and social conditions.

I'm not doubting the point you are making.
But the drole thing is, perhaps, that you are making the case for a hierarchy of cultures... ;)

They're a bit quick with conclusions about brain size. e.g. Men have larger brains than women on average, but not more neurons and connections. Women simply have smaller neurons, which gives them a higher neuron density.
A similar difference between races might explain a 5 cubic inch difference, without meaning anything for the number of neurons.

I'm not doubting the point you are making.
But the drole thing is, perhaps, that you are making the case for a hierarchy of cultures... ;)

Well, a culture that values education above all is likely to perform better on IQ tests than one that values physical strength or wealth.

I make no judgements as to which is superior, but that's an obvious fact.

But the drole thing is, perhaps, that you are making the case for a hierarchy of cultures... ;)But you have to admit it's a bit easier to change culture than your genetics. So it's more fair to individuals and their choices.

I am very suspicious of genetic explanations for lower IQ scores in african americans. This is because it is black males who do poorly on IQ tests. Black females perform much the same as whites of similar educational and economic background. I don't see how it would be an evolutionary advantage for the Y chromosome to develop the ability to make black men less intelligent than black women.

Well, a culture that values education above all is likely to perform better on IQ tests than one that values physical strength or wealth.

I make no judgements as to which is superior, but that's an obvious fact.

And I quote...


Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.

Just to put things in perspective I'll mention a few historical facts.

Irish people were long considered to have lower intelligence than English people.
Jewish people in the U.S. used to score lower than average on I.Q. tests. Now they score above average.
Basketball used to be a Jewish dominated sport and Jewish people were thought to have a natural genetic advantage at it.

And I quote...

Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data.

Oh, and why not?

No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict

Impossible to validate. That's an assertion that isn't backed up with facts. We would have to compare structurally identical IQ tests of all cultural backgrounds from before and after these events to truly gauge that.

This is interesting because I just read the following:

Testing for Racial Differences in the Mental Ability of Young Children: Roland G. Fryer, Steven D. Levitt NBER Working Paper No. 12066 Issued in March 2006: Abstract: On tests of intelligence, Blacks systematically score worse than Whites, whereas Asians frequently outperform Whites. Some have argued that genetic differences across races account for the gap. Using a newly available nationally representative data set that includes a test of mental function for children aged eight to twelve months, we find only minor racial differences in test outcomes (0.06 standard deviation units in the raw data) between Blacks and Whites that disappear with the inclusion of a limited set of controls. The only statistically significant racial difference is that Asian children score slightly worse than those of other races. To the extent that there are any genetically-driven racial differences in intelligence, these gaps must either emerge after the age of one, or operate along dimensions not captured by this early test of mental cognition...

Quoted for emphasis, since the usual suspects seem to be ignoring any actual 'evidence' that proves their spurious racist position untenable.

But you have to admit it's a bit easier to change culture than your genetics. So it's more fair to individuals and their choices.

My dear fellow, I don't merely admit it, it is the cardinal point of my cultural policy in a multicultural era!

Culture is fair and balanced, Race is neither.

If one is too dim to adopt a more rewarding culture ( or way of life ), one has only oneself to blame if the perks that go with that culture don't fall into one's lap.

In general: your culture is your problem, and don't even dream about making it my problem.

Well, a culture that values education above all is likely to perform better on IQ tests than one that values physical strength or wealth.

I make no judgements as to which is superior, but that's an obvious fact.


*nods*

I was being a bit tacky.

But seriously, I think that a culture that values brawn over brain is a decisive drawback when facing the challenges of Darwinian natural selection.

If you read the article, you'll see it's not only about iq tests...

Which makes the thread title ("Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic") either misleading or irrelevent...

*nods*

I was being a bit tacky.

But seriously, I think that a culture that values brawn over brain is a decisive drawback when facing the challenges of Darwinian natural selection.

Tell that to the Americans. :D

(hehehe :p)

Which makes the thread title ("Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic") either misleading or irrelevent...

It's about iq tests but not only that. You know what only means?

Tell that to the Americans. :D

(hehehe :p)


Oh, and I keep forgetting which culture first had a biological need for Viagra... :P

It's about iq tests but not only that. You know what only means?

Don't attempt to patronise me for injecting a degree of logic and consistency in another one of your racism threads.

Don't attempt to patronise me for injecting a degree of logic and consistency in another one of your racism threads.

Acknowledging differences is racism now? Besides I didnt conduct the scientific tests.

Interesting article...



http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530

I'd say this is borderline trolling.

What is the 'point' you are trying to make?

It isn't customary to just place unedited chunks of text in an 'original post' with no 'direction'.

What is it you want to debate?

Acknowledging differences is racism now? Besides I didnt conduct the scientific tests.

The scientific tests have all kinds of qualifiers. The original research admitted that - since it is KNOWN that diet has a major effect on brain development - it is ENTIRELY possible that differences in IQ scores could be a simple matter of environment.

The original research ALSO said that IQ differences within any given FAMILY will be statistically more 'varied' than the trends supposed across racial barriers.

The original research also admitted that American IQ tests have not only 'cultural' bias towards a certain market - but also language bias and systemic or vocational bias.

So - digging around until you find an article that seems to match your racial prejudice, and then presenting it without discussion, and with no consideration to the 'factors'.... yes, that's racism.

The scientific tests have all kinds of qualifiers. The original research admitted that - since it is KNOWN that diet has a major effect on brain development - it is ENTIRELY possible that differences in IQ scores could be a simple matter of environment.

The original research ALSO said that IQ differences within any given FAMILY will be statistically more 'varied' than the trends supposed across racial barriers.

The original research also admitted that American IQ tests have not only 'cultural' bias towards a certain market - but also language bias and systemic or vocational bias.

So - digging around until you find an article that seems to match your racial prejudice, and then presenting it without discussion, and with no consideration to the 'factors'.... yes, that's racism.


And what would my racial prejudice be? Whites are superior? Then assuming you are correct, why do you think I'd post a study saying east asians score higher? My aim was to share an interesting scientific finding.
About your diet claims, you should read the article carefully before speculating...
And I quote:

"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

Interesting article...



http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530
Given that those racial classifications don't actually have much of anything to do with genetic relatedness, I think those results pretty conclusively demonstrate that "racial" differences in IQ scores are probably NOT genetic.

IMHO, IQ Tests measure only the ability to take IQ tests. :p
I agree that IQ is not a complete measure of intelligence. The idea of intelligence is the ability to perform useful mental tasks. While IQ tests measure most aspects of that ability, they fail to account for the ability to learn complitcated and abstract concepts over a period of several months. Since this is precisely what is involved in schooling, this aspect of intelligence is probably the most useful of all.

Secondly, the definition of intelligence was constructed by Europeans. It might be expected that we would score favorably in such a test. The fact that another group scores more favorably does not eliminate the inherent bias of the measurement.

Furthermore, these tests clearly show that the closer to birth you measure intelligence, the closer the races score in such measurements. This is probably caused by the fact that a child close to birth has been less exposed to cultural influences. In various tests of three year olds and interacial adoptions, they attempted to hold the cultural influences constant accross all races. Claiming that you can hold these influences completely constant is simply ridiculous. Therefore, they are wrong in ascerting that a completely cultural hypothesis of racial differences in intelligence is inconsistant with their data.

That said, I think whites still might score higher than blacks on an intelligence test that completely and accurately measures the ability to perform useful mental tasks. I don't adhere to the hypothesis that whites are more intelligent, and therefore became politically and socially dominant. We became politically and socially dominant, and that caused us to become effectively more intelligent. By our dominance, we naturally established a society in which the most useful mental abilities were those which we could best perform.

Finally, claiming that our superior intelligence (which is probably very slight without cultural influences and nonexistant if you also account for the fact that white society effectively defined which aspects of intelligence are most useful) makes us a superior race is ridiculous. While intelligence may be amont the most important traits in any developed society, it is not the only one. Let's not forget that blacks are generally more athletic. Obviously, physical traits are becoming drasticaly less important as we develope better technology, but there are other traits in which blacks show superiority as well. They also tend to have fewer emotional problems, especially considering their more difficult financial conditions. You rarely see a black man go around molesting little children or killing people sociopathically. (I know, Michael Jackson. But he only started molesting little boys after he became white.) When black men commit crimes, they do so for sensible reasons like money, power, or revenge. If you were to construct an EQ (Emotional Quotient), I bet blacks would easily outperform whites.

In conclusion, any sense of superiority in the white race is completely misplaced.

The scientific tests have all kinds of qualifiers. The original research admitted that - since it is KNOWN that diet has a major effect on brain development - it is ENTIRELY possible that differences in IQ scores could be a simple matter of environment.
.....
fish makes you smarter, asians eat many fish, fisheating asians are smart. And dolphins, of course.

fisharticle (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4631006.stm)

The OP lives somewhere inland, apparently.

Interesting article...



http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530
I'm sorry but... bullshit.

The Flynn effect: The Flynn effect is the continued year-on-year rise of IQ test scores, an effect seen in most parts of the world, although at greatly varying rates. It is named after New Zealand political scientist James R. Flynn, its discoverer, by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in The Bell Curve. The average rate of rise seems to be around three IQ points per decade. Attempted explanations have included improved nutrition, a trend towards smaller families, better education, greater environmental complexity, and heterosis (Mingroni, 2004).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

The IQ differences are due to differences in environement: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/rev1082346.pdf

The Flynn effect in Africa:Data for this project were collected during two large studies in Embu, Kenya, in 1984 and 1998. Results strongly support a Flynn effect over this 14-year periodhttp://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1467-9280.02434/abs/

Poverty and Brain Development in Early Childhood

Researchers have gathered new evidence on the importance of the first years of life for children's emotional and intellectual development (...) This window of optimal brain development is from the prenatal period to the first years of a child's life. While all children are potentially vulnerable to a number of risk factors which can impede brain development during this sensitive period, a disproportionate number of children in poverty are actually exposed to such risk factors.http://www.nccp.org/pub_pbd99.html

The National Assesement of Educational Progress shows a significant narrowing of the gap between blacks and non-Hispanic whites on reading and mathematics tests between 1971 and 1986http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815746091/html/182.html#pagetop

In Kenia, average IQ scores increased by 11 points over the 14 year period of 1984-1998 (almost three times the rate of increase in industrialized countries); the factors positivelly associated with IQ gains appeared to be parental literacy, shrinking family size and improoved childhood nutrition and healthhttp://www.siue.edu/~garjone/JonesSchne.pdf

A large (21,260 children) and probably the most recent (1998) study found that the Black-White gap for young children in reading and math scores was much smaller than in earlier studies, and that all of the remaining difference could be explained by a few environmental factors.[13] One possible explanation is that the Flynn effect started earlier for Whites but has now stopped, while continuing for Blacks. (...) Some reports indicate that the Black–White gap is smaller in the UK than in the U.S.[14] Other examples are Jews who score much lower in developing nations and Koreans who score much lower in Japan. (...) The difference between the neighboring white Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland is as large as the differences between Whites and Blacks in the U.S.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28Average_gaps_among_races%29

The conclusion of all the articles above (most of them published in peer reviewed journals) is that the IQ differences observed between races are not genetic, but environemental.

I'm sorry but... bullshit.
*snipped for length*
Shut up! None of what you cited can be used to support our continued exploitation of people who look different than we do, and therefore you have clearly just made it all up because you are some hippy librul PC member of the Thought Police. People who deny that blacks are inferior are clearly racist against whites. Shut up, shut up, stop oppressing the white man!!!

Shut up! None of what you cited can be used to support our continued exploitation of people who look different than we do, and therefore you have clearly just made it all up because you are some hippy librul PC member of the Thought Police. People who deny that blacks are inferior are clearly racist against whites. Shut up, shut up, stop oppressing the white man!!!You're forgetting about our deep desire to be dominated by cute asian girls.. <_<

Asians FTW! (Chinese here)
Having said that, I would have to agree with the sentiments of the people who said this study was utter crap.

Whether or not there are genetic differences, it's still much wiser for an employee to judge individual candidates by testing their abilities than by their race.

And what would my racial prejudice be? Whites are superior? Then assuming you are correct, why do you think I'd post a study saying east asians score higher? My aim was to share an interesting scientific finding.
About your diet claims, you should read the article carefully before speculating...
And I quote:

Two things - first, of all the conditions that article describes, I notice it mentions diet nowhere... nor exposure to potentially harmful chemicals (like lead or mercury, especially).

What they did was took a sample of 'adults', and tried to balance out the 'genetic' element, by enforcing some kind of 'balance' on maternal data... and then they try to find evidence based on THAT incomplete dataset.

Second thing - I've seen the same basic article, almost word-for-word, on three or four 'white supremacy' sites. You'll note that the article you link to, does NOT contain the original findings or data - but it DOES say that peer-review opposed, rather than supported, the validity of this study on a 3:1 basis.

Having said that, I would have to agree with the sentiments of the people who said this study was utter crap.We've only seen a summary of it. It's mostly the face-value interpretation of what little is given that's crap. The actual study might be better balanced.

Does anybody else around here remember back when there were players like Paratoga on this site? Back then, we had us a really healthy crop of racists, who were always ready to give us the straight pipeline to Stormfront and such.

*sigh*

Like hunting fish in a barrel, it was. I miss those days.

Here come the Slavs......

I'm not last place!
But I'm way above the Asian average and I'm White.

i hear ya my IQ is 119 and im a white american

Does anybody else around here remember back when there were players like Paratoga on this site? Back then, we had us a really healthy crop of racists, who were always ready to give us the straight pipeline to Stormfront and such.

*sigh*

Like hunting fish in a barrel, it was. I miss those days.
Sounds awesome. But quality trolls seem do quite nicely, though. I can only imagine the real thing.

We've only seen a summary of it. It's mostly the face-value interpretation of what little is given that's crap. The actual study might be better balanced.

Unlikely - the article says that peer-review opposed it 3:1.

Unlikely - the article says that peer-review opposed it 3:1.Yes, I saw after I posted, that you posted that a minute earlier :P

Sounds awesome. But quality trolls seem do quite nicely, though. I can only imagine the real thing.
They was loverly trolls, they was. All cute and perky and full of white pride.

They had article after article of "proof" that the white man was superior, though their citations led to empty cyberspace more often than not.

They had pictures of pretty white people to hold up next to pictures of dirty black people, as further proof that white people are nice and black people are icky old aminals.

They'd be ever so polite as they explained to us how white people are just better than everybody else, so sorry, it's genetic. They'd explain how it's not really the black man's fault that he's a worthless beast, he was just born that way. It's not the latina's fault that she's a slutty piece of trash, she's just genetically worthless. They were very sensitive, our racists trolls were.

But the white pride trolls were so lovely and charming that they became hunted nearly to the point of extinction. Everybody wanted to mount a stuffed troll's head on their sig. In pursuit of these trophies, we lost our way, and our reckless troll hunting soon drove off the scattered remnants of the once-proud herd of NS racist trolls.

Yes, I saw after I posted, that you posted that a minute earlier :P

Sorry... it's a figure that just can't be cited too often. :)

They was loverly trolls, they was....[....snip....] But the white pride trolls were so lovely and charming that they became hunted nearly to the point of extinction. Everybody wanted to mount a stuffed troll's head on their sig. In pursuit of these trophies, we lost our way, and our reckless troll hunting soon drove off the scattered remnants of the once-proud herd of NS racist trolls.

Sounds like how the West was Won. Or the Holocaust even. What an evil past! What a burden to bear!

My condolences.

I'm sorry but... bullshit.


*applauds* :)

Sounds like how the West was Won. Or the Holocaust even. What an evil past! What a burden to bear!

My condolences.
Those of us who are NS General "Old Timers" bear this stain upon our souls. Some of us did not directly participate in the masacre of the White Pride Trolls, but we stood aside and did nothing. Now, we live in a world that is virtually devoid of these sophisticated and entertaining creatures.

Never forget, my children. Never forget.

*sniff*

See what we mean when we say that you can't let go of the war?Actually, I'm referring to what I read in the Neo-Nazi regions on NS. I'm sure they'd piss their pants if they found out that the Asian culture they admire almost as much as their own actually outstrips what they think is their own.

I think it has less to do with genetics and more to do with how the child is raised. I know plenty of east asians, and nearly all their parents are "grade-nazis". For many in my experience, not getting A's and B's means the child will get punished (and often even B's are bad), so of course this means constant studying.

I'm not saying all Asian parents are this way, but a vast majority seem to be (my high school is around 65-70% asian, and most of that is east asian).

Another point of interest:

If you compare the IQ scores of middle class white boys with the scores of poor white boys, you will find a much more significant difference than you do between the scores of middle class white boys and middle class black boys.

Think about that.

If whiteness is linked to the "High IQ Gene," then how come poor white boys are not expressing this gene? How come middle class black boys are expressing it?

I think this pretty clearly proves that money is a mutagen. Close proximity to money will mutate DNA, such that even a black person could end up expressing the genetic intelligence that is more commonly found in white people.

Now, we live in a world that is virtually devoid of these sophisticated and entertaining creatures.

Never forget, my children. Never forget.

*sniff*

Dry your tears, there is a nature reservation dedicated to their preservation over on Stormfront. Their majestic herds still roam the wide open spaces there.

Dry your tears, there is a nature reservation dedicated to their preservation over on Stormfront. Their majestic herds still roam the wide open spaces there.Yes, but that's like a wildlife preserve with park rangers to prevent poaching...:(

Yes, but that's like a wildlife preserve with park rangers to prevent poaching...:(

Yeah, but if you can get away with it, you can pick up some great conversation pieces. *points to stuffed nazi-head on his wall*

Interesting article...



http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530
So what if they are? Treating people as individuals and being open minded enough to not judge them until you get to know them is a moral duty regardless of genetics.

So what if they are? Treating people as individuals and being open minded enough to not judge them until you get to know them is a moral duty regardless of genetics.
No, no, you're missing the point.

It's true that, normally, if we figured out that a particular population is at high risk for a genetic disorder then we would try to find ways to help them and support them and encourage them to succeed despite their challenges. In those cases, we certainly wouldn't use individuals' genetic handicaps as a justification for mistreating them or stripping them of equal rights under the law.

But this is totally not like that. See, if black people can be proven to be genetically stupid, then that means we are genetically allowed to treat them like crap. Or something. At any rate, it means we are better than them, and therefore it's ok for us to have better stuff and more rights.

I think it has less to do with genetics and more to do with how the child is raised. I know plenty of east asians, and nearly all their parents are "grade-nazis". For many in my experience, not getting A's and B's means the child will get punished (and often even B's are bad), so of course this means constant studying.

I'm not saying all Asian parents are this way, but a vast majority seem to be (my high school is around 65-70% asian, and most of that is east asian).

Conversly, many ghetto-blacks are raised in a culture that penalizes academics. Anyone who gets good grades is an "Uncle Tom" or "acting white". I suspect that has something to do with their poor performance on tests.

IMHO, IQ Tests measure only the ability to take IQ tests. :p

True enough. But hey it's an excuse to be racist!

Amazing how much people can ignore when looking for something to support racism.

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060411_bad_IQ.html

1. Let's see first your article blatantly lies. Scientists KNOW that brain size and intelligence are not related, yet your article conveniently forgets this link.

Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

For myth-busters like myself, though, the study rules out the notion that smarter people have bigger brains. Brain sizes in the Nature report had nothing to do with IQ test performance.

Yet simple logic renders the "big brain equals big smarts" argument silly. Women have smaller brains than men, on average. And smaller people, particularly dwarfs, often have smaller brains. Unless you are prepared to defend the stance that women and short people are dumber, case closed.

There have been geniuses with tiny brains and idiots with huge ones. The average brain size is about three pounds, or 1,400 grams. The brain of the French writer Anatole France was only 2.24 pounds, well below average. Lord Byron's brain was nearly twice this amount, over four pounds.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=neurosci.box.1833
The implications of this analogy for the brain are straightforward. Any program that seeks to relate brain weight, cranial capacity, or some other measure of overall brain size to individual performance ignores the reality of the brain's functional diversity. Thus, quite apart from the political or ethical probity of attempts to measure "intelligence" by brain size, by the yardstick of modern neuroscience (or simple common sense), this approach will inevitably generate more heat than light. A more rational approach to the issue, which has become feasible in the last few years, is to relate the size of measurable regions of known function (the primary visual cortex, for example) to the corresponding functions (visual performance), as well as to cellular features such as synaptic density and dendritic arborization. These correlations have greater promise for functional validity, and less pretense of judgment and discrimination.

Note here that that it is clear that density and size of certain areas of the brain are far more telling than overall brainsize which is not directly related to performance. This doctor compares it to suggesting that a larger person is more likely to be better at sports - it creates an association that has not validity except in very small contexts.

2. Next I searched for the actual studies so that I could examine the science. Here is the APA website. There is no link to the journal entry this editorial and spurious article claims.
http://www.apa.org/journals/law/

If you're going to try and spread nonsense, do a little better. No one is fooled by this ridiculous article.

How about you link to an actual study that is available online instead of some editorial article's spurious claims.

Acknowledging differences is racism now? Besides I didnt conduct the scientific tests.

Apparently, neither did they. The studies did not survive peer review.

Interesting article...



http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530
According to this article, us white people should all be slaves to the asians so they can breed more in order to make the human race more intellectually advanced.

And what would my racial prejudice be? Whites are superior? Then assuming you are correct, why do you think I'd post a study saying east asians score higher? My aim was to share an interesting scientific finding.
About your diet claims, you should read the article carefully before speculating...
And I quote:

Where does it say they normalized for the diet of the parents and prenatal diet? I don't see that in what you bolded. Sounds like you're making assumptions because you want them to be true. Could you link to the original study, please?

Interesting article...



http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530

IQ tests are nonsense, and racial theories based on IQ tests are further nonsense.

Ends.

IQ tests are nonsense, and racial theories based on IQ tests are further nonsense.

Ends.
Oh, I got one: RACE is nonsense!!! (just ask any biologist)

85? Bull!

There is no human races... well, there is only one, "Homo Sapiens Sapiens".

There is no human races... well, there is only one, "Homo Sapiens Sapiens".
So how's the weather over there?

It's funny, because you can be a member of the smartest "race" and still be an utter dumbass as an individual.

It's funny, because you can be a member of the smartest "race" and still be an utter dumbass as an individual.
or vice versa.

Oh, I got one: RACE is nonsense!!! (just ask any biologist)

Oh yeah, i forgot that one.

Oh yeah, i forgot that one.

That's because you're not east asian.

That's because you're not east asian.

god, i may as well kill myself now.

What the hell is "East Asian" anyway?

god, i may as well kill myself now.

Maybe you are east asian after all.

What the hell is "East Asian" anyway?

It's the new term for oriental ( I think). Oriental being racist.

Maybe you are east asian after all.



It's the new term for oriental ( I think). Oriental being racist.

Why not just call them chinese, japanese, indian, pakistani, you know? Lumping them all together seems somewhat...well, racist to me.

Why not just call them chinese, japanese, indian, pakistani, you know? Lumping them all together seems somewhat...well, racist to me.

Which is of course what you should do if you know where an individual is from.

I think it is more for cases where you want to address the people from an entire region. A bit like calling people west of the caucus and north of the med, europeans.

Or maybe it's just the antonym for occidental.

I don't know really.

Almost all greatest achievements in science, military and culture were made by White Race. Where is no doubt that it is greatest race.

Almost all greatest achievements in science, military and culture were made by White Race. Where is no doubt that it is greatest race.
The Arabs, Chinese, and Indians were flourishing while our ancestors were swinging from trees in Europe.

They made great achievements way before the Europeans.

Almost all greatest achievements in science, military and culture were made by White Race. Where is no doubt that it is greatest race.

non-whites invented the concept of zero. without the concept of zero there would be no binary. without binary you wouldn't be online posting your dribble.

So, yeah.

Interesting. It seems that the "white race" isn't the "master race" after all.

Also:

we are the master race, asians don't want none

Hmm... average 85 for my race, eh? Well, oh well. Luckily my family is known for their high IQ scores. 147 for me and 156 for my father.

*steps over the corpse of Ny Nordland's racist drivel*

*congratulates the many that killed the beast*

Hmm... average 85 for my race, eh? Well, oh well. Luckily my family is known for their high IQ scores. 147 for me and 156 for my father.

Ha. I didn't even notice that. 85 is practically to the point of not being permitted in public school. And it's the claimed average for black people. Ridiculous. This gets more absurd by the moment.

IMHO, IQ Tests measure only the ability to take IQ tests. :p

You just say that because you're no good at them. :p

I agree with Eut though, and those things always accuse me of being a genius. It's just that I'm particularly good at those types of things. I do really well on IQ tests, I did pretty well on the SAT's, but you give me a stinkin' English Lit test, and I'm strugglin' to pass. Symbolism and interpretation, just say what you mean! I guess IQ isn't everything.

Here's a point:

The information in the article, although it includes information from tests actually given in Asia, seems to be focussed on populations in the US (the comments about how bussing should have increased scores if it were cultural :rolleyes: and such tell you where they were really focussing).

Now, let's just assume for a second, despite all evidence to the contrary, that any group of human beings currently in existence has ever been genetically isolated enough to become a separate "race". Any such distinctions would be useless in this country, where these groups have never been genetically isolated. Your average "white" person in this country can trace their heritage back to European countries, yes, but can also trace it back to Native Americans. You won't find many "blacks" in this country that don't have at least one "white" ancestor.

And, believe it or not, if so many records hadn't been lost and so many people hadn't just decided to "pass" for white, there probably aren't many "whites" in this country who don't have at least one "black" ancestor.

With that in mind, what exactly can we say we are testing when we arbitrarily look at how dark someone's skin is and say, "You're a member of 'X' race?"

Hmm but has alcohol been took into consideration? Muslims dont drink, Chinese I have read are more likely to be born genetically tea total... Plus I know half of my brain cells have disappeared since I turned 18..
And anyway its been proven as IQ goes up so does depression, which could explain the high suicide rates in china.. So in an evolutionary perspective it does not pay to be too intelligent.. But I am rambling and most of what I am writing is bollocks so please don’t get offended.

With that in mind, what exactly can we say we are testing when we arbitrarily look at how dark someone's skin is and say, "You're a member of 'X' race?"

Our own bigotry...

It seems to me that there are a few hundred sociological factors that need to be included here that we really have no way to measure. Income level, family's historic income level, caste, the desirability of children in a particular culture...

I don't know how someone can get money for this kind of study when they could be doing something useful.

Interesting article...



http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530

Accepting for the sake of argument that the traditionally western classified human races actually exists as biological realities (something that's, at best, very open to question and not yet proven), my question is in regards to the methodology. What exactly was the methodology for classifying the groups? It's not made clear, and even the authour admits racial classification is "fuzzy".

Was it self selection? If this was the case, the study would be invalid, at least as a biological study. Maybe an interesting anthropological study... "Individuals who self-identify as certain ethnic populations show IQ differences" maybe?

If it was dermal melanin concentrations (as at least one of the , the study is seriously misnamed. It would have been better to call it something "Differences in average IQ correlate with dermal melanin concentrations".

If it was some other factor, it's not made clear. The data needs to be clearly and objectively classified for this to be valid.

Having looked over the paper, it appears that a variety of methods of classification were used, all of which were subjective, making the the results dubious at best.*


Some have argued that the cause of Black–White differences in IQ is a pseudo question because “race” and “IQ” are arbitrary social constructions (Tate & Audette, 2001). However, we believe these constructs are meaningful because the empirical findings documented in this article have been confirmed across cultures and methodologies for decades. The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks (Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Although he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximum likelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially supports the traditional racial groups classification. Of course, in referring to population or racial group differences we are discussing averages. Individuals are individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and measures.

By the way, you have the wrong title. The correct title for this paper is "Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability".

PDF link: http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
HTMLised link: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:inz0Uy01dEgJ:www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf+%22Thirty+Years+of+Research+on+Race+Differences+in+Cognitive+Ability,%22+Rushton&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1



*Since I'm fairly sure someone will misunderstand that, I will give a rather simplified example to illustrate. Consider a cola taste test - Pepsi vs Coke. The samples to be tested are unlabeled. One tester allows the subjects to tell him which blind sample is which cola. A second tester tastes the samples himself and says which cola is which. A third tester classes the colas into Coke and Pepsi and Dr. Pepper. And so on, with each different tester classifying colas into their brands using a different method. Do the results have any meaning? Of course not. This is essentially what has been done with the "research data" in this study.

*cough* (http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html)

"There's about a 15 percent genetic variation between any two individuals," according to science writer Deborah Blum. "Less than half of that, about 6 percent, is accounted for by known racial groupings....A randomly selected white person, therefore, can easily be genetically closer to an African than another white"

If you want to find out why Asians are over-represented in California's universities while blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented, you will probably search in vain for a genetic answer. Those who are interested in such things would do better to look at family structure, ethnic traditions, and social conditions.

well i'm glad someone managed to get this onto the first page. i was beginning to lose faith in NS intelligence quotas.

Yup. If you read a bit above, you'll see that east asians score highest (106)(whites are 100).Hmmm... seems like the stereotypes are getting very realistic. I'm Asian and I'm not a supercomputer, I bet these parents down in Vancouver paid thousands to get a computer chip installed in their kids' brain.