Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 35
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
Another thing to note
Like I said above on my brain size hypothesis, I'll add more. The comparisons on brain size and neuron numbers among races is meaningless because it doesn't compare people of the same IQ within races. I understand the 40-50% correlation of brain size and IQ, but it still says nothing when it comes to comparing people of different races with the same IQ. Much of the comparison comes from comparing, oh say Asians with an IQ of 106 to whites of an IQ of several points lower to sub-saharn africans of up 20 points lower. And honestly, Africans are NOT mentally retarded. Khoisan don't have IQs of 50 either, and niether do australian aborigines. Such people would never be able to survive in the harsh desert environments they've been living in for tens of thousands of years. People with IQs in the 50's can't even dress themselves properly without help from someone else and it's plain intellectual dishonesty that Lynn and the like would say such.
If such a test were done using MRI comparisons it might very well close the debate on race and intelligence.
- An IQ of 50 is still pretty high compared to other mammals, and doesn't in the least bit stop one from dressing without assistance. Also, keep in mind that conditions such as dyslexia, which do not make someone a retard, will influence IQ scores. There have been rumors that dyslexia is more common amongst Africans. Speech and social interaction, like the ability to process sound and vision, are somewhat hardwired in the human brain and don't necessarily influence IQ tests. Being a retard or having a low IQ doesn't mean you can't seperate the sound of a dishwasher with that of a truck driving by. Basically put, having an IQ of 50 doesn't make one a retard. Besides, humans are quite tough compared to other mammals, it's not just intelligence that allows us to live in harsh conditions. If you don't believe me I suggest you go watch Steve Irwin taking down a 10 foot crocodile barehanded. --Zero g 12:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
.......Uh, wow. No. You're forgetting that IQ measures HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, nothing compared to regular animals. Look at this range chart:
An IQ 69 and below IS retarded, and people with IQs of 50 and slightly above would have problems managing simple tasks. You honestly believe bushmen and australian aborigines are retarded? People with IQs like that couldn't funcition in harsh desert climates, which is what these two groups have been doing for thousands of years. If the average african IQ is 70 then that means nearly all africans are borderline retarded. And please cite where you've heard that dyslexia is epedemic in Africa, because I find it hard to believe something like that would affect an entire contintent. Africans aren't that smart as of now but no, they are certainly not retarded.
This topic needs to be met with honesty, not with vicious lies like africans being mentally retarded. Y
- Possibly the article needs to go into detail about IQ and retardedness, though that might fit better in the IQ article. Your link disproves your claims btw. --Zero g 23:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly being able to survive in "harsh desert climates" requires any sort of minimum IQ when all sorts of animals can do it (not comparing bushmen to animals btw, just noting that IQ is not required to survive). Among bushmen and australian aborigines it is quite possible that a combination of genetics along with poor environment (because of their harsh desert climate) result in an average IQ is that much lower than it is among others. Considering that all published research supports the claim that the IQ of thsoe groups is that much lower, I would not classify those statements as vicious lies. Bring verifiable evidence showing otherwise. AmitDeshwar 03:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think the problem, AmitDeshwar, is that the same thing goes for colder climates. I haven't heard any claims that penguins have particularly high IQs either. And the argument made by racialists in this area (Rushton in particular), is that because it was harder to survive in colder climates they had to develop high IQs....again, it is a wonder that penguins don't run mensa by that measure. In any case, asserting that published research finds specific groups with lower scores on specific tests is one thing - asserting that the cause is because of some genetic flaw is where we jump from observation to baseless conclusion, I think.
- That being said, I'm not sure what this section is even here for...we don't seem to be discussing the article, but rather the article's topic. I'll move to the archive. --JereKrischel 04:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
One of the Pioneer Fund's books, Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary analysis, points to how Inuits have larger brains than east asians, although extremely slightly, and have abnormally high IQ's for a hunter-gatherer populations, especially how their IQs remained relatively the same since even the 1930's. This supposedly lends credit to the idea that colder climates equals a bigger brain.
.........However, Rushton and the like ignore one crucial factor: Their diet. Inuits eat almost entirely fish, and it's a proven fact that a steady diet of fish can raise a person's IQ. I'll give you an idea of how much fish they eat.
Inuits, oddly, have darker skin than east asians, despite living in such cold climates. You'd almost expect them to have nordic skintones, eye coloration, and hair color. However, what makes their skin so dark? The vitamin D from the fish they eat. Not only that, but young Inuit children have very pale skin, with prominent, rosy red cheeks. Of course the darker skin color is partly genetic, but this gene once again comes from their high consumption of fish. The darker skin that comes with age is mostly due to both these genes and the vitamin D. Another thing to note about how much fish they eat are people who are half-white and half-inuit- outside of skeletal and facial features, their skin tone shows barely any evidence of Inuit admixture. Thus, the Pioneer Fund's assessment is dubious and has barely any credibility to claim victory for colder climates.
- Do you have any reliable source backing your claim that "it is a proven fact that a steady diet of fish can raise a person's IQ"? Actually I would like to see references for all your claims, such as the fact that their skin is dark due to Vitamin D, and not just the fact that being constantly outdoors could darken their skin, especially due to the amplifying affects of snow. Also please remember to sign your comments :) AmitDeshwar 07:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- ...and even if the anon user was able to convince you, it's still original research. Please don't engage in debates that try to debate the veracity of explanations or viewpoints. The only way to work on this page is to point to published material in notable publications and opine that this POV or that is underrepresented. Wikipedia is a primary source, not a conference. We do not engage in scholarly peer review. Arbor 08:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed with Arbor, but I'll nevertheless put in my twopence' worth: considering that at the latitude the Inuit live, the night lasts months at a time and that even in the height of summer, the temperature doesn't go high enough (except for a very few days) to dwell outside in anything less than full clothing, I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that whatever complexion the Inuit have is not due to exposure of the skin to the sun. There, I shaddup.--Ramdrake 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I understand no original research, but this is the talk section, and it's not affecting the main article.
On the human skin color article, I quote:
"Jablonski and Chaplin note that when human indigenous peoples have migrated, they have carried with them a sufficient gene pool so that within a thousand years, the skin of their descendants living today has turned dark or turned white to adapt to fit the formula given above--with the notable exception of dark-skinned peoples moving north, such as to populate the seacoast of Greenland, to live where they have a year-round supply of food rich in vitamin D, such as fish, so that there was no necessity for their skin to turn white to let enough UV under their skin to synthesize the vitamin D that humans need for healthy bones."
Oh, and here's my example of fish raising IQ: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002852.html Research comes from Environmental Health Perspectives, a well-known and credible scientific journal.
Second of all, if the UV ray reflection would cause their skin to darken so much, wouldn't we expect the same of europeans who lived in the ice age? Oh, but europeans farther north have nordic skin tone. Another point to make about your UV ray theory is that the albedo caused by the sun shining on the snow would have to be extremely bright to affect skin color at all, and to even get that bright would easily blind a person. And yes, I know about signing my comments, but I've never gotten around to registering, so sorry about that.