Current Events > Do you believe some races are naturally more intelligent than others?

(+) Yeah! (+)

ManBeast462 posted...

You can make a correlation of course but its mostly culture.

Like coal miner white culture or black culture.

You see people get mad when its brought up why some cultures advanced and others didnt.

For sure, look at most Asian cultures for example. Jewish culture is another one actually. Did you know that Jews, despite making up just .2% of the population, account for 22.5% of all nobel prizes? Isn't that crazy?
---

nicklebro posted...

Taharqa_ posted...
In the case of dog breeds that means little because of human intervention and closed breeding for hundreds of generations to isolate for certain behaviors as well as physical traits. This compared to Homo Sapiens that have been moving around mixing with population after population for tens of thousands of years, there is no genetic isolation with humans comparable to dog breeds.

Why would that be relevant? In fact if anything you're proving my point. If breeding for certain behaviors led to certain breeds being more intelligent than other, than that doesn't just indicate intelligence has a genetic factor, it proves it.

Closed gene pool and bred specifically for certain traits for hundreds of generations with some going back thousands of years, of course you will see marked physical and behavioral deviations at that point from the original animal the wolf and within Canis familiaris itself. It's pointless to even try to draw a comparison to what we did with dogs to humans, a species that has never had that kind of genetic isolation on a macro scale like that.
---

Taharqa_ posted...

Closed gene pool and bred specifically for certain traits for hundreds of generations with some going back thousands of years, of course you will see marked physical and behavioral deviations at that point from the original animal the wolf and within Canis familiaris itself. It's pointless to even try to draw a comparison to what we did with dogs to humans, a species that has never had that kind of genetic isolation on a macro scale like that.

The one and only reason I brought up dog breeds was to show that intelligence has genetic variance. You say "of course" and so do I. Idk what you think you're trying to refute, Idk if you just didn't read the topic and just jumped in at the end, but if your post leads to the conclusion that you can increase the average intelligence of a breed of dog by targeted breeding, then all you're doing is agreeing with me.

Ask yourself, has breeding dogs to be more intelligent made them more intelligent? If yes, then you're just agreeing with me. Ok?
---

You have to be careful what you say, because culture isn't really a defining characteristic of intelligence. It's all about access to education that determines intelligence. I can't think of any culture that doesn't value education.

ThanksUglyGod posted...

I can't think of any culture that doesn't value education.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpBJxuhltXo" data-time="
---

nicklebro posted...

The one and only reason I brought up dog breeds was to show that intelligence has genetic variance. You say "of course" and so do I. Idk what you think you're trying to refute, Idk if you just didn't read the topic and just jumped in at the end, but if your post leads to the conclusion that you can increase the average intelligence of a breed of dog by targeted breeding, then all you're doing is agreeing with me.

Ask yourself, has breeding dogs to be more intelligent made them more intelligent? If yes, then you're just agreeing with me. Ok?

This may, again, be intuitive to you, but it is not actually logical.

A genetic basis for the expression of one phenotype given one circumstance does not imply the same or even a genetic basis for the expression of that phenotype in a difference circumstance.

"logical" doesn't just mean "sounds about right to me!"
---

COVxy posted...

This may, again, be intuitive to you, but it is not actually logical.

A genetic basis for the expression of one phenotype given one circumstance does not imply the same or even a genetic basis for the expression of that phenotype in a difference circumstance.

"logical" doesn't just mean "sounds about right to me!"

But a genetic basis for the expression of multiple phenotypes at least sets the precedent that a specific phenotype may have a genetic basis. Not to mention that's not the only reason to believe that intelligence has a genetic component, its just one of a few reasons I've said that this is what I believe. Again, every single one of you critiques has been arguing against the strawman that I'm implying this is a proven fact when that's obviously not what I'm saying.

And yeah, logical means there's a rational line of reasoning behind a belief. You may say its illogical, but really you've been proven to want to say negative things about every single one of my posts that you run into. I mean really you should at least be agreeing with the obvious parts so that your motivation isn't so obvious.

Were you ever going to make your own argument like I challenged you to? I bet not, because discovering the truth is not what you're interested in. My posts are the only thing that interest you.
---

I'd assume the people that voted yes are trolling but knowing this place, they might just really believe that.
---

Nope. I'm sure intelligence is genetic to an extent, but more of a case by case basis on the extremes

A majority of it is definitely affected by environment, but again there are always exceptions

Besides, measuring intelligent is pretty speculative anyway.

nicklebro posted...

No one said it was perfect, but it is a standardized test done by a scientist.

But it's not a test to determine what you say it is. It doesn't test innate intelligence, which is pretty much impossible to measure. Dogs are also not a 1:1 comparison with humans. Also, importantly, breeds are not the same thing as races.

nicklebro posted...

Am I seriously getting this much flack for the belief that some dog breeds are just inherently more intelligent than others?

No, you are getting flack for saying that the study is relevant to the topic at hand.

nicklebro posted...

From now on if you don't make an actual point and are just challenging me for the sake of contrarianism, I'm not gonna pay you much mind.

I did make a point. Just because you can't answer it, doesn't mean I'm being a contrarian.

No. It's inaccurate to claim otherwise. Genetics play a role in everybody's inherent aptitudes, but in geological terms humanity is far too young to have massive divergences to the point we're that different from each other. If various races had difficulty cross-breeding, that's where this argument may start to have merit to the point it would be worthy of investigation. As it stands, culture and geography play the largest role in which people will be more advanced technologically, etc. We are kind of doing this to ourselves right now though, changing which people are bound to be smarter that is. Countries where the dumbest people are allowed to live and procreate will see their whole population eventually degrade because of a lack of natural selection removing those that would otherwise die.

Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" if you're interested in this stuff.
---

CIA_Agent posted...

ThanksUglyGod posted...

I can't think of any culture that doesn't value education.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpBJxuhltXo" data-time="

what you trying say?
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Genetics play a role in everybody's inherent aptitudes, but in geological terms humanity is far too young to have massive divergences to the point we're that different from each other.

This is a great point. Also, it's important to remember that races are not set in stone, nor do they have a constant chronology. Most races are mixes of several groups, and it is incredibly rare that a trait be shared among an entire 'race' that isn't something like skin color.

There are noticeable average IQ differences between races. IQ is a good way to measure intelligence. Almost all psychometric experts and people who literally study this for a living agree on this. "IQ doesn't mean anything!" people usually have no idea what they're talking about or are arguing purely on emotion.

The only debate is how much of it is due to genetics vs environment and how much of it is malleable. I remember reading that kids from the poorest places in Africa go up by about 10 IQ points just by having good nutrition and living in a western envoirnment.

Dash_Harber posted...

But it's not a test to determine what you say it is. It doesn't test innate intelligence, which is pretty much impossible to measure. Dogs are also not a 1:1 comparison with humans. Also, importantly, breeds are not the same thing as races.

I didn't say it tested innate intelligence. Its an intelligence test and then you can look at the results across the different breeds and draw a conclusion. And again, this doesn't need to be perfect because I'm not arguing about the precision of the test, I'm drawing a conclusion based on a low density trends.
It doesn't matter if dogs are not 1:1 comparison, it doesn't matter if breeds are not races. The sole piece of information I'm drawing from these studies is that different breeds have varying levels of intelligence. And then I have to add that the fact that this tangent has taken over this thread is ridiculous. It isn't a integral part of my argument, even if you were to disprove it, my argument is not weakened and none of you have yet to actually make an argument.
---

nicklebro posted...

I didn't say it tested innate intelligence.

But that is literally what the topic is about, so it has nothing to do with it.

Do you believe some races are naturally more intelligent than others?

nicklebro posted...

It doesn't matter if dogs are not 1:1 comparison

It actually does, a lot.

nicklebro posted...

it doesn't matter if breeds are not races.

Again, it a actually does.

nicklebro posted...

The sole piece of information I'm drawing from these studies is that different breeds have varying levels of intelligence. And then I have to add that the fact that this tangent has taken over this thread is ridiculous. It isn't a integral part of my argument, even if you were to disprove it, my argument is not weakened and none of you have yet to actually make an argument

It is widely disproven here, so just admit you were wrong about it, and move on, then.

no, because I'm not a fucking racist
---

I haven't read this thread... But I'm shocked it hasn't been closed yet

Dash_Harber posted...

nicklebro posted...

I didn't say it tested innate intelligence.

But that is literally what the topic is about, so it has nothing to do with it.

Do you believe some races are naturally more intelligent than others?

nicklebro posted...

It doesn't matter if dogs are not 1:1 comparison

It actually does, a lot.

nicklebro posted...

it doesn't matter if breeds are not races.

Again, it a actually does.

nicklebro posted...

The sole piece of information I'm drawing from these studies is that different breeds have varying levels of intelligence. And then I have to add that the fact that this tangent has taken over this thread is ridiculous. It isn't a integral part of my argument, even if you were to disprove it, my argument is not weakened and none of you have yet to actually make an argument

It is widely disproven here, so just admit you were wrong about it, and move on, then.

Ok well I'm not gonna go back forth saying "no, you're wrong" so we can agree to disagree. Good debating with you, bye now.
---

On average looking at whole populations yes.

But that says nothing about individuals. There are going to be outliers in every subset
---

Duwstai posted...

On average looking at whole populations yes.

But that says nothing about individuals. There are going to be outliers in every subset

Black science man, for example. I don't recall his name... Oh right, Tyson.


---

Duwstai posted...

On average looking at whole populations yes.

But that says nothing about individuals. There are going to be outliers in every subset

exactly
---

kayoticdreamz posted...

I haven't read this thread... But I'm shocked it hasn't been closed yet

Because the discussion isn't one about racism, just genetics and intelligence.
---

I don't think people realize that our confidence in IQ as a measure of intelligence is more "best we've got" than "complete definition and rubric."

nicklebro posted...

Idk what I'm not getting man, it still seems like you're saying that the tests did not get an accurate cross section of the population for the test results to be valid. And Idk what you meant by "statistically significant intelligence"

Sorry, I rewrote part of that sentence but didn't make the rest agree. "should have higher intelligence (with statistical significance)". You're still obviously not getting it. And that's fine, it's not Stats 101.

But I'll repeat again. Your population should be treated as a sample coming from a distribution, not as a summary of the data.

nicklebro posted...

This however, is absolutely false. Ask any scientist or any statistician or anyone with any degree of logical thinking and they'll tell you that the likelhood that m_a=m_b is incredibly small. As in act of god small. For that many variables to all come together and equal each other is crazy to believe.

I mean do you believe that?

I have a PhD in Mathematics. I am a scientist/statistician and I'm advising you to look up "hypothesis testing" if you think that statisticians believe that the chance of two latent means being the same is act of god small. Again you don't seem to understand that things with the EXACT SAME DISTRIBUTION will have samples with different sample means and sample distributions.

You're trying to make an argument akin to "We both pick a random real number between 0 and 1, the chance that we pick the same number is 0", but that's not at all what I'm arguing against and not at all how statisticians treat this sort of thing.

And as @COVxy was saying, at best your argument is a dumb continuous random variable argument and at worst you just don't understand anything about statistics outside of calculating simple statistics of a sample.
---

I have no idea.
---

Naturally? No.

Not surprised by the results tho lol
---

CIA_Agent posted...

On average, yes. It's a mathematical certainty.

---

Not naturally, no
---

On average? Absolutely.
---

Yes