Who has the Highest Intelligence by Sex/Race?

Should that group control each nation of the world? Some think proportional representation is the best world policy.

Really now :shk:

Smart people happen regardless of race, sex or creed. Period. No one group or groups have or will have a monopoly on that

I concur FredT. Otherwise God would not be God.

my thoughts exactly, why don't we seperate them by Hair colors, or Trekkies and non-trekkies. Trying to make general statements like above will only cause more racist and more sexist.

I hear those Italian, English, Scottish, Irish, French, Portuguese white males are REALLY smart.

Self promotion. Sorry.

In my own personal experience I have noticed that ALL races and sexes contain at least some smart people. I could argue that white people statistically are smarter then the rest of the races though as far as having the most smart people. I ONLY say that because I live in the US, and to me, the US is the nicest country to live in. From what I know of India, China, Africa, and South America, they have alot more poverty, uneducation, and lower standard of living. Living in the US we all have educations, a nice country, and for the most part do alright in maintaining a sane, clean, country to live in. I cant say that for anywhere else in the world. Sure Europe is nice (which is mostly white), but not as good as the US. Europe and the US being the nicest places as a whole on the planet.

Sorry if that is coming off as racist. Africa is a joke to the planet. So is Asia. So is the MIddle East. I cant see them having any collective intelligence among their populations. Maybe in small numbers, but as a whole I look at them as screwed up. At least for my lifetime.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

The nerds shall inherit the earth

Sadly the smartest people dont always make the best leaders. If brain power alone made great leaders we would be building statues of Richard Nixon. President Nixon had one of the highest IQ of any US President.

As far as sex or race superiority. Is funny but as far as I know, we don't even know how we learn things. Does having a high IQ means that I will have a great amount of knowledge in any particular subject?

I like my leaders to be knowledgeable in their respectives areas. I read somewhere that in the next 30 years we will understand better the way we learn things, making people stay focus for longer periods of time would be relatively easy. Maybe that is how the Elite will stay on top.

Maybe we need wise leaders, instead of smart ones.

Well, this is a rather loaded question. I personally believe that all sexes/races should be able to achieve similar/equal levels of intelligence, given equal opportunity to do so. However, having said that, there are a few facts that are kind of interesting on this point.

-The majority of nobel prize winners, especially in the science categories, have been white men. This isn't necessarily because they are smarter (though as a white man I do wish I could have had some kind of innate extra brains, instead of studying so hard!) but probably because white people globally tend to have more money, and can more easily afford post-secondary education, which is essentially a must to get a nobel prize in science.

-William Shockley, a nobel-prize winning physicist who co-invented the transistor, did some studies on this very subject. He found that black people in the United States had lower IQs than the rest of the population. (I forget by how much, but I think he said about 10-15 pts) He wasn't sure whether it was due to race, or (as I believe) because they were disadvantaged for other non-physiological reasons, like increased odds of growing up in poverty. Before he was able to work further on his studies, people accused him of having a racist agenda in his work, and promoting eugenics, and he never studied further to learn why he had observed this trend.

There's also some of the other stereotypes we see all around us, like Asians being good at math/science, males being better than females at math/science, females being better than males at language/history/the arts, etc. Again, I don't believe any of this stuff actually means one group of people is smarter, but I do think it means culture is shaping things like how much education a particular segment of society gets, what kind of education they get, what fields they might study, and that sort of thing.

For example, one of the reasons Asians are perceived as being good at math & science is because it is so heavily emphasized in their culture, compared to other subjects. Countries like China, Japan, and Korea are about a year or two ahead in their math programs over Canada, i.e. a grade 4 student in China is doing math that a grade 5-6 student does in Canada.

Anyway, I think any perceived differences in intelligence are probably not due to any kind of superior physiology, but are due to cultural, economical, and similar reasons. I could be wrong, though, but I hope not... I'd like to think that we all have the same potential.

Smart Drugs and Down’s Syndrome: Part 1
Smart Drugs and
Down’s Syndrome

by Steven Wm. Fowkes and Ward Dean, M.D.

If you listen to scientists who specialize in academic research into Down’s syndrome, or to the Down’s Syndrome Association, there is basically nothing a parent can do to prevent the profound mental deficits and impaired growth of a Down’s child. But if you listen to Dixie Lawrence, a devoted adoptive mother of one Down’s child, or to Dr. Jack Warner, a California pediatrician with a ten-year history of treating Down’s children, there is plenty that parents can do. In fact, this small group of motivated parents and dedicated practitioners has succeeded in doing what the authorities have decreed to be impossible — the normalization of Down’s children’s growth rates and mental abilities. Down’s children treated with this new smart-nutrient and/or smart-drug treatment program are now being mainstreamed into public schools on a routine basis. Their growth rates are equivalent to those of normal children, and the IQs of those children started on the program early in life are comparable to normal children. One 5-year old Down’s girl even has a documented IQ of 140!

Smart Drugs and Down's Syndrome

Comment: Now the philosophical question is about IQ, if a Down's Syndrome Kid at five years age reaches 140, then what would an ordinary otherwise median 100 IQ kid do? Say sample the average earlier siblings and relatives for IQ, and nurture the younger ones with smart drugs or smart nutrients? Well in the above cited case, since Down's syndrome is supposedly genetic, environmental factors appear with a compelling argument. It is not necessarily nature alone, but a wide margin of difference for the better in nurturing. Now IQs 130 and above qualify for MENSA, a genius level. If the otherwise least smart ethnic group in such a study is no less than 130, then who cares about dredging the diminishing further edge of the bell shaped curve for other ethnic groups? Other statistically significant results comparable in any way to the results of Down's syndrome kids would be favorable as well.

But then again think about the Miracle in Wisconsin and why our apathetic brain dead politicians only know how to take bribes from the huge pharmaceutical companies for Ritilin, with a "New Freedom," styled Orwellian plans, programs and projects. There would also be have deeply offended junk food peddlers trashing their election chances. So instead of taking care of the future, our kids, they feed already fat pigzillas with mega dollars. If ignorance was bliss, only a fool would want to be wise.

Meanwhile guess who is footing the bill? Yup you guessed it a future population earning less because it is "not smart enough." Hey do you really want to make things change, then tell these people something like "we might lose a future war," because of these disastrous policies preferring ignorance. Unfortunately the only things that matter to these people are the next quarterly profits statement, and the next election.

I am making a strong case for the difference in nuture, and in such a view the reason for positive action. Because of the wide significance of Down's syndrome kids getting the right nurturing, my argument is that differences in the nature, or ethnicity are far less statistically significant than in the absence of such a strong argument. My criticism politically is that such a thing as a positive development for Down's syndrome kids, as well as for erasing prejudements on the basis of race or gender, should not be ignored as a solid basis for solutions.

I see no reason to delimit further conversations here. There is no donneybrook here, only a voice favoring reason. This is probably my last edit.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by SkipShipman]

I don't see the education or the media connection, but I do see how this thread could quickly turn into nothing more than a slugfest with beer bottles and chairs flying through the air.

Being the prudent man that I am, this potential MOAB is hereby locked down tighter than Dick's hat band.