Black people 'less intelligent' scientist claims

reply to post by Threegirls

The study you linked talks largely about the effect of intelligence on behavior. It states that it is genetic and that environment only affects it in childhood and these effects dissipate with time.

The study also speaks of the genetics of intelligence... of which I see you read.

Genetics vary from person to person even within racial, societal groups.

Yes, this is true.

There are people of greater or lesser intelligence in all groups.

This is also true.

Whether environment affects genetics is not addressed,

Environment, classically, has a "Selection" effect on genetics, in that genetic advantages typically are passed on (reproduction) and genetic detriments are not passed on (no reproduction)

Generally speaking, of course.... greater advantages increase the odds of reproduction, and greater disadvantages decrease the odds of reproduction.

The study does not attempt to address the topic of what effects that environment has on genetics, because that is not the subject OF the study.

For that, you would need to look up a field of study known as "Evolution"

en.wikipedia.org...

it should be for the contexts of social improvement based on intelligence.

Please elaborate on your meaning, because as it stands, your statement has no meaning.

your argument therefore is that intelligence is genetically determined and dictates your behavior.

This is an oversimplification of the facts, and also a falsehood at the end of your statement.

Your genetics determine your Intelligence, but not necessarily your level of education, knowledge, or experience.

Your genetics contribute SOME to your behaviour, (in very general ways), but do not dictate the totality of your behaviour.

Environment actually has a rather large role on your behaviour, unlike intelligence which is mostly genetic.

This means that those with less intelligence should be provided with the best possible environment to ensure that social standards are maintained.

What social standards are you talking about, and what do you mean by "Social Standards" anyways?

It sounds an awful lot like you are espousing marxism, actually....

And anyways... don't you think that EVERYONE should have the best possible environment? as opposed to just the stupid people?

Sounds to me like you want to penalize people for being smart, and reward people for being stupid.

My point is that those who do not have higher intelligence do not necessarily indulge in harmful behavior,

No, not necessarily... Why do you bring this up? I never claimed that a lack of intelligence was necessarily linked to bad behaviour...

Are you trying to insinuate something?

they often have other qualities

We all do.

which are not addressed (in the study)

The study was about INTELLIGENCE, not anything else.

Are you attempting to insinuate something?

because they can not be measured (unlike a brain size and observable actions) which also moderate behavior largely nurtured by environment.

The study was not attempting to measure anything *EXCEPT* intelligence.

What are you attempting to insinuate?

The study although interesting does not have all of the answers to intelligence

This sentence has no meaning.

There are no "Answers" to intelligence, because intelligence is not a "Question"

Did you have any questions?

There was a book called "The Bell Curve" that pretty much summed this whole issue up.

reply to post by biggilo

Well according to my aunt who has her own clinic on Harley Street and sees clients on behalf of The Priory Clinic it isn't. But i respect the fact you disagree with this.

Well, according to:

Philip. L Ackerman, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
John B Carrol, University of North Carolina
Norman R Ellis, University of Alabamma
Randall W Engle, University of South Carolina
Grover C Gilmore, Case Western Reserve University
Robert L Greene, Case Western Reserve University
Daryl B Greenfield, University of Miami
Richard J Haier, University of California, Irvine
Lloyd G Humphreys, University of Illinois, Urbana
Earl B Hunt, University of Washington
Arthur R Jensen, University of California, Berkley
Patrick C Kyllonen, Brooks Air Force Base
John C Loehlin, University of Texas, Austin
Robert B McCall, University of Pittsburgh
Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Elezibeth J Short, Case Western Reserve University
Robert J Sternberg, Yale University
Lee A Thompson, Case Western University
Philip A Vernon, University of Western Ontario
Richard K Wagner, Florida State University
Keith F Widamin, University of California, Riverside
Lee Willerman, University of Texas, Austin

It *IS*.

But i respect the fact you disagree with this....

reply to post by crimvelvet


Were you addressing me for any specific reason?

This has been studied and verified over and over again. There really is no debate over this, Blacks are less inteligent, and Whites are less intelligent than Asians.

On the contrary, what you gain in brains, you loose somewhere else, and that somewhere is in physicality. Blacks are clearly the most physically fit race, where Asians are th least.

So it is not about who is better, it is about what characteristics one appreciates.

And last but not least, there are idiots in all groups, and geniuses. There are athletes, and there are sticks&fatties. We are talking about averages here. And let's not forget about the size of.. well people bodies, and their various body parts

edit:

and no, this is not a cultural thing. Its not a regional thing. Its simply genetics.

reply to post by varikonniemi

Blacks are clearly the most physically fit race, where Asians are th least.

As your sentence is phrased, it is incorrect.

You do know that the nations with the greatest life expectancy are all Asian nations, right?

For your sentence to be correct, you would have to rephrase it with a different phrase than "Physically Fit", because that is clearly not the case.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Brain size was one of the methods used to determine intelligence. It is not just brain size but brain to body ratio which indicates intelligence so to compare brain size only is useless for the purpose and should be ignored.

The comment about marxism and disparate environments I will ignore due to the obvious misunderstanding.

My point about environmental effects on genetics is that nutrition, environment etc affect genetics of the parents which will affect the offspring both in utero and throughout life. If those with less genetic intelligence at birth are provided with the best nutrition etc, this may affect their genetics and thus their offspring, this is nurture not nature (evolution).

Originally posted by varikonniemi
This has been studied and verified over and over again. There really is no debate over this, Blacks are less inteligent, and Whites are less intelligent than Asians.

Wrong. People of African descent are on average less intelligent* than people of European descent, who in turn are on average less intelligent than some populations of Asian descent.

*as measured by IQ tests

I use to have a black cat. He was very intelligent.
I used to have a white cat, he was very intelligent.
I used to have a ginger cat, he was very intelligent

They all ate chowmein.

What does that say?

reply to post by Threegirls

Brain size was one of the methods used to determine intelligence.

And IQ tests and other methods were used as well.

It is not just brain size but brain to body ratio which indicates intelligence so to compare brain size only is useless for the purpose and should be ignored.

This is not correct, actually it is an indicator of intelligence, and has clear correlation to intelligence beyond statistical anomaly, and thus, cannot be ignored.

The comment about marxism and disparate environments I will ignore due to the obvious misunderstanding.

Fair enough.

My point about genetics is that nutrition, environment etc affect genetics of the parents which will affect the offspring both in utero and throughout life.

This is wrong.

So Wrong.

Your genetics cannot change by your nutrition, or environment.

Please read up on Genetics, and Deoxyribonucleic Acid.

en.wikipedia.org...

If those with less genetic intelligence at birth are provided with the best nutrition etc, this may affect their genetics and thus their offspring, this is nurture not nature (evolution).

This is also wrong, for the same reason as above.

What you eat does not alter your genetics.

Period.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by varikonniemi
This has been studied and verified over and over again. There really is no debate over this, Blacks are less inteligent, and Whites are less intelligent than Asians.

Wrong. People of African descent are on average less intelligent* than people of European descent, who in turn are on average less intelligent than some populations of Asian descent.

*as measured by IQ tests

*I clearly stated that i am talking about averages. What part of that was too hard to understand.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


English is not my first language, so excuse me if i was not clear. Physically fit was intended to reflect on your physical abilities, strength, stamina and so on. Not how long your body can hold together. And i am not so sure the life expectancy is down to genetics, but rather the food we eat in different cultures.

Anyway, this deserves a topic of its own, not to be debated here and derail this thread.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
This is wrong.

So Wrong.

Your genetics cannot change by your nutrition, or environment.

Please read up on Genetics, and Deoxyribonucleic Acid.

Actually they can. It's called epigenetics. The genomic sequence remains the same, but different bases get methylated, which can affect transcription, translation, and dozens of other things.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


The link you provided supports my position. I do have a good understanding of genetics, particularly involved in reproduction.

Acquired characteristics is not the same thing as the process I described.

My theory points out that genes play there part but environment plays a part in genes and genetic inheritance, thus having a major affect on intelligence.

reply to post by MrAnonUK


We were all once white and hairy?

reply to post by rhinoceros

Edrick
Your genetics cannot change by your nutrition, or environment.

Actually they can. It's called epigenetics. *The genomic sequence remains the same*

Oh, thank you very much for agreeing with me.

epigenetics is the study of intracellular changes, such as the differentiation of different types of cells (muscle, bone, nerve, etc) from the parent "Stem" cells (or undifferentiated Cells) and mainly occurs during cell division.

Furthermore, the methylation cannot change the underlying genetic structure, or it's expression, which is what determines intelligence.

The study of epigenetics mainly revolves around non genetic cellular changes, and has nothing to do with whether nutrition can alter your genetic code.

It Can't

reply to post by Threegirls

The link you provided supports my position.

No, the link I provided does NOT support your position.

I do have a good understanding of genetics, particularly involved in reproduction.

It doesn't look that way.

Acquired characteristics is not the same thing as the process I described.

You described a process that doesn't happen.

My theory points out that genes play there part but environment plays a part in genes and genetic inheritance, thus having a major affect on intelligence.

And this is just plain WRONG, unless you are talking about how your environment shapes who reproduces, because that it the only way (besides mutation) that your environment changes the genetics of a population.

But it doesn't change YOUR genetics....



What you are talking about is Lamarckism, and that has been discredited now for at least 7 decades.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Furthermore, the methylation cannot change the underlying genetic structure, or it's expression, which is what determines intelligence.

The study of epigenetics mainly revolves around non genetic cellular changes, and has nothing to do with whether nutrition can alter your genetic code.

It Can't

The base sequences of your genes don't do anything alone. It's equally important how they're expressed (e.g. when, for how long, what version (copy/splicing), in what order), and methylation can and does affect this. So, what you said there: "methylation can't change expression" is a lie.

reply to post by Seasick

If I may, I would like to add one more point that I feel is salient to this topic/discussion. Once again, I speak of the black culture in America (USA) as it is that which I am the most familiar with.....

Thank you for putting into words a complex situation as seen from the inside. For those in power to remain in power they must have a "you & he fight" and for that they ABSOLUTELY must have poverty. Without poverty they can not keep the liberals and conservatives at each others throats.

reply to post by rhinoceros

The base sequences of your genes don't do anything alone. It's equally important how they're expressed (e.g. when, for how long, what version (copy/splicing), in what order), and methylation can and does affect this. So, what you said there: "methylation can't change expression" is a lie.

No, it wasn't a lie... it was a mistake on my part... methylation DOES alter the genetic expression.

However, And this is the important part....

Methylation STILL does not change your genetic structure.

It can alter how the genes that you have are EXPRESSED, but that does not change what genes ARE expressed.

The expression that methylation controls is What type of cell that specific cell turns into, because the genetic material has ALL types of cells inside it... thus, Methylation tells the cell to turn into muscle, or bone, or whatever.... at a given stage of development.

It's not going to change Bone to Brain, or muscle to nerve.