"Thy're far above average"

[Argus]

Dear Renegade,

Your argument may make sense if only the elite of the Aisian world emmigrated to North America.

Not exactly, I am saying that the 'work ethic' is brought over, the mindset that striving to be in the top 5% is what is brought, (or ingrained) not the physical 'top 5%'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure if "work ethic" is the entirety of it. While I agree that Asian parents push their kids much harder, and as a result Asian kids are doing homework while White kids are playing nintendo, there is also the entire concept of family to consider. Quaint as that might be.

Asian parents are heavily involved in every aspect of their kids lives, and Asian kids are brought up with strictly defined and conservative rules of respect and obedience. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you see a ton of Black single mothers, you see almost no Asian single mothers. Shame is still a very large part of Asian culture, and kids would be ashamed to bring home a poor mark from school, ashamed to be caught doing something wrong, and severely shamed if they wound up getting pregnant. Asian kids date far less than white or black kids, do it later, and under more supervision. Asian girls are far more likely to marry, as opposed to moving in with a guy, and to marry someone their parents have approved of. By contrast, the majority of Black children are brought up in single parent (mother) families, and supervision, from what I understand, is not what would generally be described as close.

[Black Dog]

I'm not sure if "work ethic" is the entirety of it. While I agree that Asian parents push their kids much harder, and as a result Asian kids are doing homework while White kids are playing nintendo, there is also the entire concept of family to consider. Quaint as that might be.

etc.

That in itself is largely a byproduct of economic factors, no?

[Guest eureka]

The differences are probably entirely from cultural influences. I recall long ago, for one example, the average IP of Scottish boys was measured at 102 while for girls it was 100.

Nothing but upbringing and the biases of the test accounts for it. There several facets of IQ even in the accepted "intelligences." Tests are designed to measure only a couple of them. Usually just verbal and numerical intelligence.

[Melanie_]

It is actually more complicated: I believe people of east african decent dominate the long distance running events and people of west african decent dominate the short distance running events. Clearly there is a genetic factor at work just like there is a genetic factor in intelligence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Training conditions have a lot to do with it as well, regardless of race or country of origin; Kenya's high altitude creates training conditions that serve the athletes well when they compete in lower altitudes - increased stamina, lung capacity, etc.

Parental choice is of course a huge factor; if Walter Gretzky hadn't put skates on young Wayne when he was two years old, would he have developed the "natural talent" that he did? Its all about practice and developing muscle memory that looks instinctual. Are white Canadian boys naturally better hockey players, or is it part of our culture to lace up those skates early on and dream of the big leagues? I wonder if people in other countries think it is genetic here.

[Renegade]

It is surprising to me the extent to which people will put blinders on, and despite the evidence, won't consider that race and genetics play a factor in intellectual achievement.

It is clear that there are on average differences in physical attributes between races. These differences manifest themselves as skills which corelate to performance in a particular activity (eg sport). It should surprise no-one that at the extremes of performance (eg elite athletes) one racial group, which is geneticly advantaged in that skill, would dominate over other groups.

It is similarly true for mental attributes. Even if we discount biases in testing such as with IQ, other tests show differnces between races. Testing of decision-times of 9-year old children found that Asian kids to have the fastest times, followed by Whites, and then Blacks. The study found that movement times (time to execute the decision) was substantially higher in Blacks, than Whites and Asians.

If the evidence suggest that mental skills may be different between races, doesn't that make it plausable, even probable that there are differences in average IQ between races? Since IQ does corelate to academic achievement, I think it helps explain the overrepresentation of certain races in the academic elite. As I've said before, I don't think it is the only factor, undoubtly parental attitude, peer pressure, and selective population filtering all play a part.

Does this mean that we have cause to discriminate based upon race? Absolutely not!!!!! As Spar pointed out the variations between members of a racial group far outweigh the average differences between races, so generalizations applied to a race cannot be applied to individual members and to draw a conclusion that Race A is "better" than Race B would be a complete distortion.

[feloniusteabag]

Dear Argus,

, there is also the entire concept of family to consider. Quaint as that might be.

I must whole-heartedly agree. The 'death of the family unit' is probably the single greatest (or worsThat in itself is largely a byproduct of economic factors, no?t) event of our times. As Black Dog points out,

while many fete 'greed' as the best engine (or fuel) to drive the economy, it also demands the sacrifice of all other things. Every day, the notion that individual greed and gain it the single most important thing, and worship of Mammon has usurped family, morality and 'God'.

[Riverwind]

Does this mean that we have cause to discriminate based upon race? Absolutely not!!!!! As Spar pointed out the variations between members of a racial group far outweigh the average differences between races, so generalizations applied to a race cannot be applied to individual members and to draw a conclusion that Race A is "better" than Race B would be a complete distortion.

The trouble is most people can't comphrend complicated concepts like that. If you say tha race X is on average smarter than race Y then 80% of the people will conclude that every individual from race X is smarter than every individual than race Y. It is true that bigots will say that anyways, however, there is a big difference between having those stats discussed by a few people on the fringe and having it opennly discussed by mainstream politicians and commentators.

[Guest eureka]

Blacks do not dominate sports: they dominate certain sports. If sporting abilities are "averaged" out, then there will likely be found the same level of overall abilities.

For intelligence, I do not accept that there is any significant difference between the races. Genetics says that there is about a 15% difference in genetics between two individuals. Yet, there is only a 6% difference between any two races. Further, the supporters of the racial superiority of one group over another are not geneticists as far as I remember. They merely study correlations and are metricians in general.

That does not add up to any average difference in intelligence.

The differences in the measures also are not credible. Intelligence is an evolutionary survival mechanism and selection would have seen the extinction of those racial groups that are supposedly inferior.

The explanations are more than likely environmental in the broadest meaning. They include the type of test and the bacground of the testers.

As I recall someone saying of Rushton: "What would be his score if the test were in the language of Black New Yorkers."

[Renegade]

Blacks do not dominate sports: they dominate certain sports. If sporting abilities are "averaged" out, then there will likely be found the same level of overall abilities

I agree. There is no suggestion that Blacks have superior physical skills in all areas. Where a particular physical attribute gives blacks an advantage in a particular sport, they may dominate that sport. Other races may equally well have other skills which give them an advantage in another sport. The point is that all races are not on equal footing when it comes to physical attributes.

For intelligence, I do not accept that there is any significant difference between the races. Genetics says that there is about a 15% difference in genetics between two individuals. Yet, there is only a 6% difference between any two races. Further, the supporters of the racial superiority of one group over another are not geneticists as far as I remember. They merely study correlations and are metricians in general.

That does not add up to any average difference in intelligence.

The differences in the measures also are not credible. Intelligence is an evolutionary survival mechanism and selection would have seen the extinction of those racial groups that are supposedly inferior.

You may not accept that there is a significant difference in intelligence between races, but you do so contrary to both the evidence and common sense. Look at the following scenario:

1. At some point all races had a common set of ancestors.

2. At some point each race branched off and developed different physical characteristics which gave them an evolutionary advantage in their environment.

3. The only way all races would have no differences in intelligence, is if you believe that mental abilities of the races did not evolve and remain static from the time of the evolutionary split or, if by some remarkable coincidence all races evolved their mental abilities to exactly the same point today. Both are extremely unlikely scenarios.

The statement that evolution would "have seen the extinction of those racial groups that are supposedly inferior." is simply wrong. Intelligence is not the only attribute which promotes survival of a species. In some environments physical skills and strength would confer greater survival advantage than intellect. There are many other "intellectually inferior" species than humans, yet the have been just as evolutionary successful as humans.

Some would argue in fact that human intellect is an evolutionary disadvantage because it is human intellect which has led it to develop ways to kill themselves, each other, and the planet as a whole.

You may dispute the tests, the testers, and the test results, which show the differences, but I fail to see based upon what evidience you have drawn the conclusion that races have equal average intelligence.

[Argus]

I'm not sure if "work ethic" is the entirety of it. While I agree that Asian parents push their kids much harder, and as a result Asian kids are doing homework while White kids are playing nintendo, there is also the entire concept of family to consider. Quaint as that might be.

etc.

That in itself is largely a byproduct of economic factors, no?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I don't think so. If you look at Canada, for example, the majority of children in Quebec are born out of wedlock. That is cultural, not economic. Blacks in the US are, on average, poorer than Whites, but they're far richer than say, people in India, where single mothers are virtually unheard of unless they're widows. Besides, until recently single mothers were virtually unheard of in any strata of society, white, black or brown, rich or poor. The dirt poor Irish labourers didn't have a heaping lot of unwed mothers, any more than the masses of Catholic French or the uptight Protestent middle classes.

In any event, Asian children tend to be disciplined, and to feel, for whatever reason, less rebellious towards their parents, their parents demands, and the place in society their parents and family have slotted them into. White children tend to be from less disciplined families where parents spend less time with them and push them less. Blacks - well, we know the unwed motherhood/teenage pregnancy rate among the Black community is considerably higher than any other community. And we know from repeated complaints from teacher groups that they have a hard time getting response and support from families in poorer (ie black) areas

I do not think school marks have anything to do with skin colouring or genetic makeup. I think it is entirely cultural.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

, there is also the entire concept of family to consider. Quaint as that might be.

I must whole-heartedly agree. The 'death of the family unit' is probably the single greatest (or worsThat in itself is largely a byproduct of economic factors, no?

t) event of our times. As Black Dog points out,

while many fete 'greed' as the best engine (or fuel) to drive the economy, it also demands the sacrifice of all other things. Every day, the notion that individual greed and gain it the single most important thing, and worship of Mammon has usurped family, morality and 'God'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To some extent I agree. Both parents work, long hours, without time for the kids because, well, they need that nice home, and the second car, and maybe the cottage and the trip to Spain next summer, etc. Of course for the poor, they need to both work because rents are high and they can't get by without.

But there has been an economic transformation and a devaluation of labour in this country, and others, in the past generation or so. My grandfather had a non working wife and eight kids. He was not very well-educated. He worked as a messenger in the house of commons, among other jobs. Yet he supported a family of ten on his salary, with no government aid, and while they were poor no one ever went hungry or lacked clothing.

Try doing that today on a modest salary!

One of my uncles was an armoured car guard, again with a non-working wife and three kids. He retired with a paid-off mortage and a nice bank account and pension.

Now contrast today. I know several couples with one kid and dual incomes which reach into or at least close to six figures and they're barely getting by as they try to pay off the mortgage on a tiny townhouse. Why? Is it all devaluation of income, or is there just a lot more stuff we think we need to pay for today that our parents and grandparents never did. My grocery bill is well over $100 per week, but very little of it is actually food. Everything from paper towels to cola to chips and juices to garbage bags and dishwasher soap makes up the bulk of the bill. And the food is often overpriced TV dinners and the like. My grandparents would have bought fresh fruits and vegetables, milk, a little chicken and the makings for pies - and virtually nothing else but toilet paper. Vitamins?! Are you kidding? Aspirin?! You get a headache you just deal with it! Paper towels!? They would have been incredulous at the concept of such waste. As for getting the kids cell phones and $150 tennis shoes, well...

[Guest eureka]

You may not accept that there is a significant difference in intelligence between races, but you do so contrary to both the evidence and common sense. Look at the following scenario:

I do not contradict the evidence. As I said, those who do support a difference are not, generally, geneticists. Geneticists, in general, oppose the idea of racial differences. I prefer the evidence of geneticists to that of statisticians.

As for Common Sense! How does common sense enter into it: that sense has little to do with science. It canonly be a consideration in the interpretation of Common Sense as the lowest common intellectual denominator. And that is about all it is worth here.

I believe strongly that intelligence is the main tool in the success of the human species and that lack of it has been the cause of predecessor branches to die out. Without intelligence of a high order, frail humans would be as one anthropoligist described Australo Pithecus; "Cat Meat." Without our level of intelligence, we would be just something that is perhaps about one quarter way down the food chain.

I do not think, either, that separate geographical location has had any bearing on the evolution of intelligence. I doubt that there has been any change in that attribute since the earlist of our ancestors. There would appear to have been no genetic mutation.

Many things alter with separation. Linguistics has shown that five generations of separation of groups from the same stock would lead to the development of completely different languages. I don't think that any would claim that there would be any intellectual differences other than culturally developed. Should representatives of one of those groups test the other, they would find inferiority since there has nevr been a test fevised that does not reflect cultural biases.

I fail to see any scientific basis for the superiority of one race over another. All that I do see is the very human failing of an asumption of superiority for one's own group: an assumption that may have had more to do with the warfare and mayhem that has afflicted our species than any intelligence level.

[Renegade]

I believe strongly that intelligence is the main tool in the success of the human species and that lack of it has been the cause of predecessor branches to die out. Without intelligence of a high order, frail humans would be as one anthropoligist described Australo Pithecus; "Cat Meat." Without our level of intelligence, we would be just something that is perhaps about one quarter way down the food chain.

I agree that intelligence is one attribute which led to the survival of the human species, however it is not the only one. Imagine a situation where one individual lives in a particualry harsh environment with little vegation and severe climatic conditions. Such an individual would need considerable ingenuity as well as physical skills to survive and thrive. Imagine another individual, who lives in a lush tropical garden where fruit and game is plentiful. Is it inconcieviable that one set of conditions would lead only the most intellectually fit of the species to survive?

I do not think, either, that separate geographical location has had any bearing on the evolution of intelligence. I doubt that there has been any change in that attribute since the earlist of our ancestors. There would appear to have been no genetic mutation.

You seem to accept that there are physical differences between races. Such differences appeared without genitic mutation, so why would it not be possible for mental attributes be the same?

I fail to see any scientific basis for the superiority of one race over another. All that I do see is the very human failing of an asumption of superiority for one's own group: an assumption that may have had more to do with the warfare and mayhem that has afflicted our species than any intelligence level.

It does seem that you are so closed to the possibility that you refuse to look at the evidence. Based upon what do you assume that there is assumption of superiority of one's own group? From what I have read of the people presenting the evidence, it hasn't been the presenter's race which has come out on top.