PeakOil is You
Race Differences in Intelligence by Professor Richard Lynn
Re: Race Differences in Intelligence by Professor Richard Ly
by Eddie_lomax » Sat 17 Jun 2006, 19:38:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deafskeptic', 'T')he test on iq and races is invalid due because from a evolutionary biological pov, human races as we know them do not exist. Furthmore, race as a biological pov has been rejected by biologist since the 40s. It is a powerful social construst though.
Totally disagree. Its PC to ignore race, but its common sense really, afterall races are evolutionary responses to the enviroments each group of humans evolved in. Taking two extremes black people give birth to lower weight babies on average then white people, something to do with a ratio of width in the pelvis region - wider widths limit max speed of running too - hence giving on average faster black people to white in running abilities.
This makes perfect sense from an enviromental perspective - in colder climates it is advantageous to let a baby develop further before giving birth - in hot climates the other way.
How tools and technology effect evolution is a complete unknown to me though, I guess the rapid change must give benefits to some racial groups on average simply because they're all have slightly different average strengths and weaknesses, "on average" is the key phrase here.
In short each race moves toward being best suited to its enviroment from whatever starting point they had, which overtime would make all races superior to each other - in their own enviroment (ignoring technology).
The PC brigade don't seem to believe this, which to me means that they therefore cannot believe in evolution either for humans....odd.
- Eddie_lomax
- Peat
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Sun 04 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: UK (Kent)
Re: Race Differences in Intelligence by Professor Richard Ly
by Carlhole » Sat 17 Jun 2006, 20:36:18
A better discussion would center on the question:
Just how intelligent could human beings become on average? Certainly the extremes would indicate that there is alot of potential for the general population. I'm talking about the occasional child-genius we've all heard about who began university at eleven, is finishing up a masters in physics at 16 and who is planning to study nanophotonics for a PhD dissertation whose IQ is estimated at upwards of 200.
These people commonly show off a mix of incredible skills and can demonstrate off-the-charts musical or artistic virtuosity just as readily as a mastery of more left-brained disciplines in math and sciences. Contrary to popular wisdom, these people are not monsters.
Ordinary folks seem both fascinated by and fearful of the extremely intelligent. In any remarks made about them, ordinary people will always make some remark about how the intellectually gifted are crazier than loons, emotionally stunted, and somehow not quite as human as the rest of us. However, I've always thought it would be a better world in general if average IQ were much higher (say, 150 or 165 as opposed to 100 on the standard IQ scale). People would lead much richer lives, society and culture would be much richer, and all that.
One point made by the authors of "The Bell Curve" was that even if you were to raise average biological IQ levels within a population by even 10 points, the frequency and variety of unusually gifted individuals within that population would increase dramatically and the overall society would benefit tremendously. This would happen, the authors say, even without any additional inputs from the "nurture" side of the "nurture-nature" question, such as increasing general literacy and educational levels.
This was perhaps known to the Nazis, who went so far as to institute their forced Eugenics program in Germany - but breeding people in this fashion is far too slow, indeterminate and too infringing on human rights and freedoms to ever work out practically.
Sooner or later, geneticists will figure out how to add and delete lines of genetic code as if the whole genome were a Microsoft Word document. Since life is so competitive and high IQ offers such tremendous advantages including (quality and depth of life experience), there would be alot of pressure for enhanced IQ of offspring, just like alot of pressure for the elimination of family inheritied defects like flat-footedness, sickle cell, Tay Sachs, etc.
In this sense, then, we are ALL members of a huge, stupid race.
Just how intelligent could human beings become on average? Certainly the extremes would indicate that there is alot of potential for the general population. I'm talking about the occasional child-genius we've all heard about who began university at eleven, is finishing up a masters in physics at 16 and who is planning to study nanophotonics for a PhD dissertation whose IQ is estimated at upwards of 200.
These people commonly show off a mix of incredible skills and can demonstrate off-the-charts musical or artistic virtuosity just as readily as a mastery of more left-brained disciplines in math and sciences. Contrary to popular wisdom, these people are not monsters.
Ordinary folks seem both fascinated by and fearful of the extremely intelligent. In any remarks made about them, ordinary people will always make some remark about how the intellectually gifted are crazier than loons, emotionally stunted, and somehow not quite as human as the rest of us. However, I've always thought it would be a better world in general if average IQ were much higher (say, 150 or 165 as opposed to 100 on the standard IQ scale). People would lead much richer lives, society and culture would be much richer, and all that.
One point made by the authors of "The Bell Curve" was that even if you were to raise average biological IQ levels within a population by even 10 points, the frequency and variety of unusually gifted individuals within that population would increase dramatically and the overall society would benefit tremendously. This would happen, the authors say, even without any additional inputs from the "nurture" side of the "nurture-nature" question, such as increasing general literacy and educational levels.
This was perhaps known to the Nazis, who went so far as to institute their forced Eugenics program in Germany - but breeding people in this fashion is far too slow, indeterminate and too infringing on human rights and freedoms to ever work out practically.
Sooner or later, geneticists will figure out how to add and delete lines of genetic code as if the whole genome were a Microsoft Word document. Since life is so competitive and high IQ offers such tremendous advantages including (quality and depth of life experience), there would be alot of pressure for enhanced IQ of offspring, just like alot of pressure for the elimination of family inheritied defects like flat-footedness, sickle cell, Tay Sachs, etc.
In this sense, then, we are ALL members of a huge, stupid race.
- Carlhole
Re: Race Differences in Intelligence by Professor Richard Ly
by PenultimateManStanding » Sat 17 Jun 2006, 21:05:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')Sooner or later, geneticists will figure out how to add and delete lines of genetic code as if the whole genome were a Microsoft Word document. Since life is so competitive and high IQ offers such tremendous advantages including (quality and depth of life experience), there would be alot of pressure for enhanced IQ of offspring, just like alot of pressure for the elimination of family inheritied defects like flat-footedness, sickle cell, Tay Sachs, etc.
hmm, interesting idea, sort of like Huxley's Brave New World. And some are deliberately bred for cow-like indifference and the ability to do boring routine work. And some are bred for Warrior mentality. You know, it would almost seem inevitable if it weren't for things like overshoot, PO, and especially the Tainter ideas of diminishing returns for investment in complexity.')Sooner or later, geneticists will figure out how to add and delete lines of genetic code as if the whole genome were a Microsoft Word document. Since life is so competitive and high IQ offers such tremendous advantages including (quality and depth of life experience), there would be alot of pressure for enhanced IQ of offspring, just like alot of pressure for the elimination of family inheritied defects like flat-footedness, sickle cell, Tay Sachs, etc.
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
Re: Race Differences in Intelligence by Professor Richard Ly
by Carlhole » Sat 17 Jun 2006, 21:13:41
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'A')nd some are deliberately bred for cow-like indifference and the ability to do boring routine work. And some are bred for Warrior mentality. You know, it would almost seem inevitable if it weren't for things like overshoot, PO, and especially the Tainter ideas of diminishing returns for investment in complexity.
You miss my point: A society of highly intelligent people would not want or need to sully their world and environment with the deliberate-breeding of a "cow-like" race.
Intractable problems such as how to do work vanish before the onslaught of an extreme intelligence.
As for overshoot, well so be it if the world's population has has grown too large for existing resources. Then a general pruning-back would appear to be the order of the day. But that simply means that the real estate on planet earth has gotten more valuable. Who will be allowed to move in permanently?
I would think that it would be the highly intelligent. Life's too short for dummies.
- Carlhole
Intelligence is often a non-factor.
