Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
I'd hoped that the Stanford Binet Intelligence Quotient had long ago lost its credibility. Intelligence, in a real sense is made up only of potential, hence lack of intelligence in composed of untapped potential. The common Western IQ quotient is a highly selective test predicting success in school curriculums with a strong bias to quantitative and non abstract dicsciplines. It does not test artistic, creative, expressive, conceptual or higher order intellectual capacity and certainly not genius.
It is useful mostly in identifying those who will fit neatly into administrative and scientific bureacracies, with as little originality or dissension as possible. In fact the word 'intellect' is a much more useful term than 'intelligence'. It treats the mind as flexible, open to life long learning, adaptability, enlargement, refinement rather than as a finite and reductive quantity. Any findings that seek to limit and reduce the potential of the intellect is simply junk science.
It is useful mostly in identifying those who will fit neatly into administrative and scientific bureacracies, with as little originality or dissension as possible. In fact the word 'intellect' is a much more useful term than 'intelligence'. It treats the mind as flexible, open to life long learning, adaptability, enlargement, refinement rather than as a finite and reductive quantity. Any findings that seek to limit and reduce the potential of the intellect is simply junk science.
Last edited:
It goes to point out that the genetic difference is talked about. The lack of enzymes has been pointed out in many places (even within our family, the difference is acknowledged, which is why I find gerry's anger a bit odd). interestingly enough, that same lack of enzymes also tends to cause worse hangovers and illness, which leads fewer natives to drink as much as caucasians. While there are a lot of really bad alcoholics, overall consumption based on population is shown lower on a lot of studies.
Alcoholism and related behaviours have many genetic implications. The protein alpha synuclein (SNCA) for instance is a contributor to whether or not an individual will actively 'crave' alcohol. Tests have shown that rats also have a gene which lowers the animals tolerance to alcohol.
It's unfortunate that early attempts at describing differences between human populations were so bigoted in nature. That's a huge wall built up. Then we have the perverted eugenics as practiced by the 1930's German regime. Further fodder for the fire.
It's unfortunate that early attempts at describing differences between human populations were so bigoted in nature. That's a huge wall built up. Then we have the perverted eugenics as practiced by the 1930's German regime. Further fodder for the fire.
The issue ends up very muddied in a search, because intolerance and alcoholism end up crisscrossing and people get the two mixed up constantly. Feel free to pick through google results yourself and read up on the issue.
Everything I've ever read on it places First Nations as having different alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) and aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) levels throughout the population than caucasians do, and asians do, and african americans do. These levels all effect the way your body metabolises alcohol. It's part of the reason many natives are protected from alcoholism by a literal intolerance, but it's also why their bodies react worse, more liver damage etc, if they do become alcoholics.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
Everything I've ever read on it places First Nations as having different alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) and aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) levels throughout the population than caucasians do, and asians do, and african americans do. These levels all effect the way your body metabolises alcohol. It's part of the reason many natives are protected from alcoholism by a literal intolerance, but it's also why their bodies react worse, more liver damage etc, if they do become alcoholics.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
you start by saying it's difficult to do a search, and end by claiming 'everything you've read..' which is it?
I am still waiting for someone to tell me more or less Melanin has influence on the capacity of intellectual and intelligence measurements within a group.
Were we to take two babies of distinct ethnicities (or three or four to complete the study) and raise them from birth in a controlled setting (which is a horror in itself) but provide them with the exact familial upbringing, living in the same community, having the same influences, cultural practices unimpeded and learned by all, they would all develop in the same way as those of their peer group but of the same race. Neither better nor worse -
The same would apply if we studied four children from the same racial ancestry - they would approximate equality in cultural issues only and perhaps meet closely in intellectual capacity and congnitive learning but they would be no different than the four 'experimental' children.
The stereotypical differences arrive at initial learning from parental anecdotal teaching, then peer and school teaching (if they are fortunate to have schooling), then training to survive in their environment by work such as hunting for food, or growing food, or thievery or whatever the setting is, and finally upon reaching adulthood, more tests to measure their equality or differences and/or variety of issues.
It has nothing to do with brain development - the brains are the same - but what is fed into the brain.
By three generations - they are indistinguishable, having eraced all the basic differences from their learning process.
Didn't they use these arguments against women ages ago?
Were we to take two babies of distinct ethnicities (or three or four to complete the study) and raise them from birth in a controlled setting (which is a horror in itself) but provide them with the exact familial upbringing, living in the same community, having the same influences, cultural practices unimpeded and learned by all, they would all develop in the same way as those of their peer group but of the same race. Neither better nor worse -
The same would apply if we studied four children from the same racial ancestry - they would approximate equality in cultural issues only and perhaps meet closely in intellectual capacity and congnitive learning but they would be no different than the four 'experimental' children.
The stereotypical differences arrive at initial learning from parental anecdotal teaching, then peer and school teaching (if they are fortunate to have schooling), then training to survive in their environment by work such as hunting for food, or growing food, or thievery or whatever the setting is, and finally upon reaching adulthood, more tests to measure their equality or differences and/or variety of issues.
It has nothing to do with brain development - the brains are the same - but what is fed into the brain.
By three generations - they are indistinguishable, having eraced all the basic differences from their learning process.
Didn't they use these arguments against women ages ago?
I've seen a couple newpaper articles in my day... alas, they don't all turn up on google. I do a lot of reading on a day to day basis. news papers, research articles. I read a lot about most issues which touch my family personally. If I read an article which says my family are less able to hold their alcohol, and thus less likely to become alcoholics, I'm going to sit up and notice, especially given the generalizations that First Nations are such raging alcoholics.
Come on, she said 'muddied' and 'everything she ever read on it', meaning she feels she has picked through the crap for what she deems worthy. That seems to be what it is. Karrie is more than capable of separating the sh|t from shinola.
but you have to admit, that's a theory, as we can't put that into practice any more reliably than we can put into practice a side by side intellectual comparison.
And it's not about melanin being the difference... it's about geographic and cultural separation. If that separation was drastic enough to create different skin, different bone structures, facial features... then why be afraid to find out what all the genetic differences are?
I don't know if his supposition regarding evolution occurring differently due to geographical separation would even be right, but it seems to me that being unwilling to look into it because that geographic separation also created melanin differences, is unfortunate.
And it's not about melanin being the difference... it's about geographic and cultural separation. If that separation was drastic enough to create different skin, different bone structures, facial features... then why be afraid to find out what all the genetic differences are?
I don't know if his supposition regarding evolution occurring differently due to geographical separation would even be right, but it seems to me that being unwilling to look into it because that geographic separation also created melanin differences, is unfortunate.
As long as people continue to be the yardsticks they measure others by, that "stupid gene" will always be dominant.
Wolf
Wolf
Last edited:
Did you follow the authors references? Did you perform a search yourself? Or did you dismiss it because it came from a student in chem 101?
Not I. I'm an undergrad and I know how pull references together. What bias do you have against a student? It's a different story if you have a bone to pick with the references.
Read a history book world civilization did not begin in china . I'm not going to even make an argument to the rest of the thread because I don't see the point . This kind of wish full thinking science goes on all around us theories even dumber then this one (The trinity is in fact a symbol of some obscure math relating to particle vibration ) The common thread is people believing something and seeing evidence for their theory everywhere. The issue is the actual quantifying of intelligence . What is it and how to we define it . Key questions needing to be answered are left blank and what's worse is there is no evidence to support such a bigoted position . The sad thing is many people the world over have no problem believing in their own born superiority and don't need any evidence to be convinced of this . I don't hate him , I marvel at how a man can be so intelligent and yet a complete moron.
Also What exactly is a race ? As recently as 2005 a study was conducted and a white gene was found , this gene believed to have orginated from a mutation and we are yet unable to account for why it caught on and spread so sucessfully (In other words what did the first white people gain by being white?) keep in mind the newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being. In other words there are more genetic diversions within any single race group then there are between that race group and another . Where do we draw the line between who is what race ?
Race is more of a political and social construct than a biological diving line many of you seem to forget this , like i said there are loads of people quick to buy into their own born greatness.
Last edited:
