Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?

...and how do you compensate for bias in the measurement tool?

Redress said:

Define race, and how do you measure mental and physical competence?

Click to expand...

I don't know that it has to be defined. Or even measured. Are all races capable of the same achievements as others? My answer is yes.

donsutherland1 said:

The differences are insignificant, as one would reasonably expect given extremely minor gene pool variations. Different races are not remotely the same thing as different species.

Click to expand...

There is so much wrong with this statement. What is the metric that you're using to reach the conclusion that the differences are insignificant? That's nothing more that a ideological declaration because you've given no reasoning to support that conclusion. The same criticism applies to your classification of "gene pool variations" being minor. Minor by what standard when the presence or absence of one gene variant can be the difference between suffering a debilitating disease and leading a normal life? Then there is the tautological nature of your opening argument, that's like saying, "the feather doesn't weigh much, as one would expect given the low weight of a feather."

Then you invoke the red herring of noting that races are not the same as species. This has nothing to do with anything. You seem to imply that differences only matter when they exist across cross-species boundaries. Why draw such a distinction? There is a world of difference between the Xhosa and Ashkenazi Jews when it comes to Tay-Sachs disease and clearly these two population groups are not from different species.

All non-Africans are the product of Neandthal and some Denisovan introgression. That's pretty damn significant in terms of genetic diversity.

On the intelligence issue you raise, I am not aware of even a single credible study that shows a statistically significant difference.

Click to expand...

You need to read the literature more carefully:

Manc Skipper said:

...and how do you compensate for bias in the measurement tool?

Click to expand...

Stop stealing my planned arguments dammit!

By the way, has any one here read Guns, Germs and Steel? While it is not without flaws, it puts forward an interesting theory on why certain civilizations advanced faster than others.

RiverDad said:

Then you invoke the red herring of noting that races are not the same as species. This has nothing to do with anything.

Click to expand...

That fact doesn't have anything to do with evolution? Interesting.

Please explain.

1Perry said:

Are all races capable of the same achievements as others? My answer is yes.

Click to expand...

so an eskimo can train and run a marathon as fast as a kenyan?

Manc Skipper said:

...and how do you compensate for bias in the measurement tool?

Click to expand...

oh yeah, any time any group does worse than some other group the blame always goes to bias in the measurement tool.

RiverDad said:

There is so much wrong with this statement. What is the metric that you're using to reach the conclusion that the differences are insignificant? That's nothing more that a ideological declaration because you've given no reasoning to support that conclusion. The same criticism applies to your classification of "gene pool variations" being minor. Minor by what standard when the presence or absence of one gene variant can be the difference between suffering a debilitating disease and leading a normal life? Then there is the tautological nature of your opening argument, that's like saying, "the feather doesn't weigh much, as one would expect given the low weight of a feather."

Then you invoke the red herring of noting that races are not the same as species. This has nothing to do with anything. You seem to imply that differences only matter when they exist across cross-species boundaries. Why draw such a distinction? There is a world of difference between the Xhosa and Ashkenazi Jews when it comes to Tay-Sachs disease and clearly these two population groups are not from different species.

All non-Africans are the product of Neandthal and some Denisovan introgression. That's pretty damn significant in terms of genetic diversity.



You need to read the literature more carefully:

Jensen (1998b, pp. 369–379) summarized 17 independent data sets of nearly 45,000 Blacks and 245,000 Whites derived from 149 psychometric tests and found that the g loadings consistently predicted the magnitude of the mean Black–White group difference (r = .62, p < .05). This was borne out even among 3-year-olds administered eight subtests of the Stanford–Binet in which the rank correlation between g loadings and the mean Black–White group differences was .71 (p < .05; Peoples et al., 1995).​

Click to expand...

You realize that at best the paper you present is controversial, at worst it is seen as faulty?

OscarB63 said:

so an eskimo can train and run a marathon as fast as a kenyan?

Click to expand...

Yes, if that is what they desired to happen. No, not just any old eskimo is going to run as fast as a Kenyan but it's not important to them so they do not train to run fast. It's been argued in the past that blacks couldn't play QB or golf. Someone is always going to be the fastest. If it was the desire of Eskimo kids to run the 100, sooner or later a few of them (not all Kenyan's run fast) would be competitive.

There isn't much desire to run the 100 in Eskimo culture.

Wake said:

Discussion in another thread gave rise to this poll.

Simply, do you think evolution, with it's supposed changing of humans, left mental and physical competence equal among all races? I ask because I haven't been given much if any empirical proof or valuable evidence for either side. I, for one, am highly suspicious of the notion that evolution left all races equally intelligent. So I'm left to question each side.

Do the Chinese have an overall higher intelligence than, say, Aboriginees of Australia? Looking at history, I can see that certain races advanced far faster than other races. All humans can almost be treated like a bacteria, with different strains of the same virus, what with the way we've spread.

Do you think evolution, with it's "magical" ability to cause people to vary from physical features and skin color, change everthing save mental competence? If mental competence wasn't touched in the slightest so that all races are equally intelligent, do you think physical prowess was also untouched in the slightest? What other things do you think political correctn---ehm, evolution, decide to leave equal?

Please support your claims with evidence otherwise this'll just be a repeat of the other thread.

EDIT: "Ye" is "yes". Confound you, Computer.

Click to expand...

I am going to take your example here.

I assume you chose the Chinese because they are a developing civilization and appear to be quite intelligent, and I also assume you chose the Aboriginees of Australia because they appear to do nothing but play with rocks or something like that (no heavy thinking).

If you take a chinese newborn and take him to live with the Aboriginees and you take a baby from Austrailia and raise him in China, what will the outcome be?

I think intelligence is fostered and groomed from day one, and if you are in a society like China, where you need a strong brain to survive, the child will come out smarter and able to solve problems.

If all you teach the child to do is gather food and fight, I don't think he will do very well with a spelling test.

Redress said:

You realize that at best the paper you present is controversial, at worst it is seen as faulty?

Click to expand...

The American Psychological Association devoted an entire issue of that journal to this question and brought together the most prominent researchers for this "battle of hypotheses" and let them go at each other. Read the paper, read the criticisms and read the responses to the criticisms.

Your calorie-free pronouncement doesn't convey any information. Who cares if YOU think it is faulty? Your assertion of this opinion carries as much weight as someone saying that the moon is made of cheese.

1Perry said:

Yes, if that is what they desired to happen. No, not just any old eskimo is going to run as fast as a Kenyan but it's not important to them so they do not train to run fast. It's been argued in the past that blacks couldn't play QB or golf. Someone is always going to be the fastest. If it was the desire of Eskimo kids to run the 100, sooner or later a few of them (not all Kenyan's run fast) would be competitive.

There isn't much desire to run the 100 in Eskimo culture.

Click to expand...

Dammit, some one stole my answer again. I was working up to a Cool Runnings answer. I am going to use it anyway, cuz I like it.

Why do Norway, Sweden, Canada and theSoviets tend to excell at winter athletics, while Jamaica doesn't(see the Cool Runnings reference?)? Is it genetic, or is it simply because the culture of one area emphasizes those sprots for obvious reasons, while Jaimaca, also for obvious reasons, doesn't?

OscarB63 said:

so an eskimo can train and run a marathon as fast as a kenyan?

Click to expand...

If the body shape and physical conditioning is the same, why wouldn't the eskimo run the same time as the Kenyen?

Are people from Africa created differently genetically? Maybe it is because they run from the time they are very young and it keep their bodies in great condition.

Why would you ask the question like it is not possible?

RiverDad said:

The American Psychological Association devoted an entire issue of that journal to this question and brought together the most prominent researchers for this "battle of hypotheses" and let them go at each other. Read the paper, read the criticisms and read the responses to the criticisms.

Your calorie-free pronouncement doesn't convey any information. Who cares if YOU think it is faulty? Your assertion of this opinion carries as much weight as someone saying that the moon is made of cheese.

Click to expand...

Reading comprehension check: I did not say I thought it was faulty(I do not have the knowledge to judge it). I said that it was controversial, and considered by many to be faulty. This is something your post did not mention nor address. Presenting something controversial among experts on the topic as fact is somewhat dishonest, though I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked if you where aware of the problem.

Redress said:

Dammit, some one stole my answer again. I was working up to a Cool Runnings answer. I am going to use it anyway, cuz I like it.

Why do Norway, Sweden, Canada and theSoviets tend to excell at winter athletics, while Jamaica doesn't(see the Cool Runnings reference?)? Is it genetic, or is it simply because the culture of one area emphasizes those sprots for obvious reasons, while Jaimaca, also for obvious reasons, doesn't?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Culture is the defining factor, not evolution. Placed in a different culture and Usain Bolt might be a great ski jumper.

1Perry said:

Yes, if that is what they desired to happen. No, not just any old eskimo is going to run as fast as a Kenyan but it's not important to them so they do not train to run fast. It's been argued in the past that blacks couldn't play QB or golf. Someone is always going to be the fastest. If it was the desire of Eskimo kids to run the 100, sooner or later a few of them (not all Kenyan's run fast) would be competitive.

There isn't much desire to run the 100 in Eskimo culture.

Click to expand...

sorry, but a short thick eskimo just isn't as physically adept at running as a skinny kenyan, no matter how much they train.

can a 4' 6" pygmy train themselves to dunk a basketball?

to deny that there are, in fact, differences in people that mere training/education/whatever cannot overcome is ridiculous

not everyone can be a pro athlete or a brain surgeon.

Mason66 said:

If the body shape and physical conditioning is the same, why wouldn't the eskimo run the same time as the Kenyen?

Click to expand...

which is exactly the point. body shape is not and will never be the same, no matter how much training the eskimo does.

Are people from Africa created differently genetically? Maybe it is because they run from the time they are very young and it keep their bodies in great condition.

Click to expand...

or maybe their big booties sticking out in back give them an advantage and better balance for running

1Perry said:

Absolutely. Culture is the defining factor, not evolution. Placed in a different culture and Usain Bolt might be a great ski jumper.

Click to expand...

I wish I knew who that was.

RiverDad said:

There is so much wrong with this statement. What is the metric that you're using to reach the conclusion that the differences are insignificant?

Click to expand...

I said "insignificant" not "identical." That distinction is crucial. The Human Genome Project showed 99.9% similarity. The differences among humans, however one wants to group them, are insignificant. Furthermore, you completely misunderstood the analogy that references races (or any other grouping of humans) and species. Intra-species differences are very small compared to inter-species ones.

You need to read the literature more carefully:

Click to expand...

I said "credible" studies. I'm aware of the existence of discredited and, in the Jensen case, poorly-designed ones. There are no meaningful differences.

OscarB63 said:

sorry, but a short thick eskimo just isn't as physically adept at running as a skinny kenyan, no matter how much they train.

can a 4' 6" pygmy train themselves to dunk a basketball?

to deny that there are, in fact, differences in people that mere training/education/whatever cannot overcome is ridiculous

not everyone can be a pro athlete or a brain surgeon.

Click to expand...

How much of the difference is from environment? If you spend all your time outdoors in physical activity, you will look significantly different than if you spend your time inside trying to stay warm(gross oversimplification). How much genetic difference between the two groups, I have no clue however.

OscarB63 said:

sorry, but a short thick eskimo just isn't as physically adept at running as a skinny kenyan, no matter how much they train.

Click to expand...

Of course not. A tall thin Eskimo could though. You don't think there are any short thick Kenyan's?

can a 4' 6" pygmy train themselves to dunk a basketball?

Click to expand...

No more so than a 4' 6" black man.

to deny that there are, in fact, differences in people that mere training/education/whatever cannot overcome is ridiculous

not everyone can be a pro athlete or a brain surgeon.

Click to expand...

Of course not. But people from any race can be. You are argueing individuals. That is not the question.

Redress said:

You realize that at best the paper you present is controversial, at worst it is seen as faulty?

Click to expand...

It is faulty. Its sampling methodology was inherently flawed. It lacks the rigor from which to draw firm conclusions.

Redress said:

Reading comprehension check: I did not say I thought it was faulty(I do not have the knowledge to judge it). I said that it was controversial, and considered by many to be faulty.

Click to expand...

It's good that you're diagnosing yourself as having a reading comprehension disorder for you kindly save us all the trouble of having broach that subject with you. Now that you've broken the ice and shown that you're comfortable with discussing your disability, let me point to another mistake you've made in the quoted post:




You made the above statement. You didn't indicate that you were conveying other people's opinions. So it seems that in addition to your reading comprehension problems you also have a short-term memory problem which inhibits your ability to recall what you wrote only minutes ago.

To the substance of your evidence-free assertion, the APA published journal gave equal access to the critics, so if there was any fault with the paper then that fault would have been fully addressed by the critics, preeminent scholars in the field.

Your tactic is widely recognized as "poisoning the well" - you lay a turd into the thread by declaring that a paper is controversial and possibly faulty and just leave that turd there to stink up the debate. You don't make an argument as to why YOU, or OTHERS, believe the paper is controversial and WHY some think it MAY be faulty. There would be value in discussing WHY that might be the case but simply dropping a turd like you did serves no purpose other than to poison the debate.

Presenting something controversial among experts on the topic as fact is somewhat dishonest, though I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked if you where aware of the problem.

Click to expand...

YOU say the paper is controversial. Why should I be bound by your evidence-free assertion? The paper was peer-reviewed and the journal brought together top scholars in the field, people with very impressive publication records. These people all know there fields very well. There is no controversy here.

RiverDad said:

The American Psychological Association devoted an entire issue of that journal to this question and brought together the most prominent researchers for this "battle of hypotheses" and let them go at each other. Read the paper, read the criticisms and read the responses to the criticisms.

Your calorie-free pronouncement doesn't convey any information.

Click to expand...

Noting the existence of flaws in the paper is not a "calorie-free pronouncement." Given the paper's sampling flaws, the paper's conclusions are "calorie-free" to use that term. Poor samples lead to conclusions that are not representative of the populations the samples purport to represent. The paper's conclusion remains little more than a hypothesis.

Wake said:

The question isn't:

"What is the relative intelligence between races?"

You're a bit more clever than others here so I'll give you bonus points.

The real question is:

Did evolution leave all races with equal physical and mental competency?"

My question's a bit more general than your more specific question.

Click to expand...

Let's see. All races evolved to stand upright, using two legs. All races have two arms, eight fingers and two opposable thumbs. All races share identical internal organs, have eyes with which to see and ears with which to hear. All races have developed the capacity for language and oral communication. So I'd say, yep. All races have developed equally competent physical and mental capacity.

There y'go.