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

(+) Yeah! (+)

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

Its a silly argument that is 100% true tho right?

Yes, but it is true for everything, so providing it as an argument here is removing all the context of the statistical reasoning. The null hypothesis is always false.

So like, what does it contribute to the substance of this current discussion?

It literally answers the question. While it doesn't give any insight into the degree to which race's IQs differ OA, it at least proves that they are in fact different barring what I would consider to be a miracle. See a big part of these debates is that some people get on their high horse and think it makes them a good person to say that all races IQs are the same OA, or that the difference is negligible, despite having 0 evidence that suggests that's true. It actually makes them a bad person, and a detriment to the discussion and scientific research/discovery as a whole.

I mean even if we ignore scientific studies and the available data, even discussing it logically leads to the point I made, all races vary to certain degrees in almost every trait that humans have, so why would intelligence be any different? Its like the people who argue that the reason West Africans win certain Olympic events every single year is just because they're trying harder because of their culture or the hardship they face or some other nonsense. Its obviously an inherent advantage they're born with.
---

I'm not surprised by the accounts that are saying yes.
---

nicklebro posted...

Oh yeah of course, but again, the same principle applies. In fact it just gets worse when we are judging a sample of a race rather than just its average IQ score. Its even less likely for all races to have the same % of their population fall into the same IQ ranges. For example, a race has 20% of its population for IQs 80 and below, 70% 81-110, and 10% 100+. (Mind you these are just numbers I pulled out of my ass as an example, they don't actually matter)

No, I think you're not understanding what I'm saying. You're still talking about sample statistics and saying "The samples are different!". That's not the question. The question is whether these samples are being drawn from different distributions or not.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability)
---

why do you make topics like these
---

No, I do not. I believe it all comes down to culture. America is made up of mostly white people, and yet a good deal of them are superstitious nimrods; does that mean white people are inherently stupid, or does it just mean they live in a society that doesnt cultivate critical thinking skills?
---

I don't see any evidence to say, clearly, that there is something intrinsic to certain races that makes them more intelligent than others. All you have are statistics, which have a medley of issues in and of themselves, especially in methodology.
---

Anteaterking posted...

nicklebro posted...

Oh yeah of course, but again, the same principle applies. In fact it just gets worse when we are judging a sample of a race rather than just its average IQ score. Its even less likely for all races to have the same % of their population fall into the same IQ ranges. For example, a race has 20% of its population for IQs 80 and below, 70% 81-110, and 10% 100+. (Mind you these are just numbers I pulled out of my ass as an example, they don't actually matter)

No, I think you're not understanding what I'm saying. You're still talking about sample statistics and saying "The samples are different!". That's not the question. The question is whether these samples are being drawn from different distributions or not.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability)

So you're doubting these studies did a good enough job of getting an accurate cross section of the races? I mean that's a pretty silly assumption to make, and again, the issue I keep bringing up is still prevalent. Forget samples for a minute, if they were able to test every single person of every single race, then the issue I'm referring to would still be there.

I mean you do get what I'm saying right? If you still think its a proper rebuttal, can you explain why you think your argument somehow eliminates the issue I keep bringing up?
---

nicklebro posted...

Anteaterking posted...

nicklebro posted...

Oh yeah of course, but again, the same principle applies. In fact it just gets worse when we are judging a sample of a race rather than just its average IQ score. Its even less likely for all races to have the same % of their population fall into the same IQ ranges. For example, a race has 20% of its population for IQs 80 and below, 70% 81-110, and 10% 100+. (Mind you these are just numbers I pulled out of my ass as an example, they don't actually matter)

No, I think you're not understanding what I'm saying. You're still talking about sample statistics and saying "The samples are different!". That's not the question. The question is whether these samples are being drawn from different distributions or not.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability)

So you're doubting these studies did a good enough job of getting an accurate cross section of the races? I mean that's a pretty silly assumption to make, and again, the issue I keep bringing up is still prevalent. Forget samples for a minute, if they were able to test every single person of every single race, then the issue I'm referring to would still be there.

I mean you do get what I'm saying right? If you still think its a proper rebuttal, can you explain why you think your argument somehow eliminates the issue I keep bringing up?

What if, on a retest, the scores are different and one race scores higher than another?
---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

What if, on a retest, the scores are different and one race scores higher than another?

What if? Well that would likely indicate a faulty test. But I don't really want to play the what if game, its not an actual argument and doesn't forward the discussion at all.
---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

nicklebro posted...

Anteaterking posted...

nicklebro posted...

Oh yeah of course, but again, the same principle applies. In fact it just gets worse when we are judging a sample of a race rather than just its average IQ score. Its even less likely for all races to have the same % of their population fall into the same IQ ranges. For example, a race has 20% of its population for IQs 80 and below, 70% 81-110, and 10% 100+. (Mind you these are just numbers I pulled out of my ass as an example, they don't actually matter)

No, I think you're not understanding what I'm saying. You're still talking about sample statistics and saying "The samples are different!". That's not the question. The question is whether these samples are being drawn from different distributions or not.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability)

So you're doubting these studies did a good enough job of getting an accurate cross section of the races? I mean that's a pretty silly assumption to make, and again, the issue I keep bringing up is still prevalent. Forget samples for a minute, if they were able to test every single person of every single race, then the issue I'm referring to would still be there.

I mean you do get what I'm saying right? If you still think its a proper rebuttal, can you explain why you think your argument somehow eliminates the issue I keep bringing up?

What if, on a retest, the scores are different and one race scores higher than another?

Multiple people have done these studies and they deliver similar overall results. If someone did a legitimate study that came back with drastically different results, I am sure it would be a big deal.
---

nicklebro posted...

It literally answers the question

In a completely noninformative silly way, while not acknowledging that it is a noninformative silly answer.

It's like a doctor telling a patient with pain in their arm to stop moving it. Yes, it certainly is a way to stop the pain, but it wasn't the answer anyone was looking for.
---

nicklebro posted...

So you're doubting these studies did a good enough job of getting an accurate cross section of the races?

No.
nicklebro posted...

Forget samples for a minute, if they were able to test every single person of every single race

I'm claiming that we should treat that as a sample from an unknown distribution.

nicklebro posted...

I mean you do get what I'm saying right?

I get that you don't still don't really understand the coin flipping example I gave.
---

Culture and environment play a big role in how a person gets raised, which in a sense also plays a role in education and what opportunities are open for you.

Anyways this is a stupid topic that needs to get locked up.
---

nicklebro posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

What if, on a retest, the scores are different and one race scores higher than another?

What if? Well that would likely indicate a faulty test. But I don't really want to play the what if game, its not an actual argument and doesn't forward the discussion at all.

I mean you've begun the "what if" game, I'm just pointing out hypothetical flaws in your hypothetical situation.
---

There are absolutely differences in average IQ when comparing across racial lines. Enough studies have been done that I feel comfortable with the idea that this is the case.

However, I'm not sure what TC means by "natural". Even if it could be determined that specific genes are causing the disparate IQ scores among races, there is no way to determine what the "natural" state of any group is, since there is always some degree of cultural/environmental feedback that could be in play as well. And that's true of both individuals and their wider cultural systems.

Then you get into the issue of whether IQ actually measures intelligence, since intelligence itself isn't easy to define. Given that IQ is strongly correlated with lifetime success, I believe it is definitely measuring something very important, though.
---

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

It literally answers the question

In a completely noninformative silly way, while not acknowledging that it is a noninformative silly answer.

It's like a doctor telling a patient with pain in their arm to stop moving it. Yes, it certainly is a way to stop the pain, but it wasn't the answer anyone was looking for.

A noninformative way? It tells you that not all races have the same IQ OA. Since that is established, you can then move onto what degree do races IQ scores differ OA? So its actually an integral starting point to the larger discussion. Yeah it doesn't settle the entire topic, but no one said it did. Without acknowledging this point, some people might still argue that race is irrelevant to IQ. And I'd say that's a belief you need to quash quickly because virtue signalers and SJWs are quick to say things like that and defend them to the death because like I said, they think it makes them a good person.

Anyways, its clear you were wrong to laugh at me, and your admission that I'm right is obviously the closest I'll get to an apology with you. So lets move on, ok? Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? Any knowledge on the average IQ score of certain races? any studies you have to contribute? Or do you wanna just give your opinion and maybe some speculation? I'm eager to hear what you think and why you think it.
---

snake1989 posted...

Given that IQ is strongly correlated with lifetime success, I believe it is definitely measuring something very important, though.

Important to note that if you remove the influence of SES and education, the predictive validity of IQ drops pretty darn low.
---

Anteaterking posted...

nicklebro posted...

So you're doubting these studies did a good enough job of getting an accurate cross section of the races?

No.
nicklebro posted...

Forget samples for a minute, if they were able to test every single person of every single race

I'm claiming that we should treat that as a sample from an unknown distribution.

nicklebro posted...

I mean you do get what I'm saying right?

I get that you don't still don't really understand the coin flipping example I gave.

Ok man, I don't know what else to say to get you to give more info, so do you wanna just make your point? I mean you claim we should treat that as a sample from an unknown distribution but not explaining why, cuz your coin flipping example does not compare the actual test were discussing. So can you just hurry up and make your point? I don't want to keep guessing as to what you're trying to get at, or why the argument I brought up doesn't prove what I said it proves.

Blue_Dream87 posted...

I mean you've begun the "what if" game, I'm just pointing out hypothetical flaws in your hypothetical situation.

But you didn't even come close to doing that. If you can test something and then run the exact same test on the exact same subjects, then it either means the test is faulty, or science as we know is a sham. You didn't actually make a point at all. Because... Why in the world would that happen? Why would people have higher or lower IQs the second time around? Again, the only answers are that the IQ test is faulty, or science as we know it is a sham.
---

nicklebro posted...

A noninformative way? It tells you that not all races have the same IQ

Yes, it differs the same way every single population parameter differs between any given subgroup...

That doesn't address any part of the actual question here, because it's simply a statistical oddity of inference re: population values. It's, in fact, the main flaw of NHST.

As far as actual differences due to race, it's neigh impossible to tangle apart, but given the gigantic environmental impact on IQ, and the gigantic environmental differences between races, it seems silly to jump to the conclusion that measured differences are innate, especially with no real theoretical reasoning.
---

COVxy posted...

it seems silly to jump to the conclusion that measured differences are innate, especially with no real theoretical reasoning.

Howsabout because almost every other human trait also varies by race? If you go by Occam's Razor, its pretty clear that the likelihood that race plays a factor in intelligence OA is overwhelming. Like I said, if all races had the exact same intelligence, it'd appear to be an act of god unless we could find some kind of scientific reasoning for that, of which I can't even imagine would look like.

I mean we see different levels of intelligence in different kinds of dogs don't we? Does that not suggest to you that intelligence is at least influenced by genes?

I thought you agreed that different races would indeed have different levels of intelligence OA. Why are you now turning back on that?

Or are you just stating that no one should even have a belief either way since it isn't established scientific fact? Cuz that's what you usually fall back on when you figure out after a while that I'm right.
---

nicklebro posted...

Howsabout because almost every other human trait also varies by race?

I mean, that provides no theoretical impetus, and is a questionable claim to begin with.

nicklebro posted...

Like I said, if all races had the exact same intelligence, it'd appear to be an act of god unless we could find some kind of scientific reasoning for that, of which I can't even imagine would look like.

But like, is the argument that one race having an average intelligence at the population level of 99.999999 and another having an average intelligence at the population level of 100.000000 really some sort of difference you want to talk about? I mean, sure, they are different, but meaninglessly different.

nicklebro posted...

I mean we see different levels of intelligence in different kinds of dogs don't we?

How, exactly, do you think we are "measuring" intelligence in dogs, and how is it comparable to IQ testing?
---

nicklebro posted...

Ok man, I don't know what else to say to get you to give more info, so do you wanna just make your point? I mean you claim we should treat that as a sample from an unknown distribution but not explaining why, cuz your coin flipping example does not compare the actual test were discussing. So can you just hurry up and make your point? I don't want to keep guessing as to what you're trying to get at, or why the argument I brought up doesn't prove what I said it proves

If you truly believed that race A was smarter than race B, that means you would expect that new members of race A should have a statistically significant intelligence than new members of race B. In other words, we're imagining that we're pulling people of race A from an unknown distribution (let's just make it a normal distribution) with mean m_a and standard deviataion sig_a.

Then the question is, do we have statistically significant evidence that m_a>m_b? Well that's based on your Bayesian prior, etc. but the conclusion that it's extremely unlikely that m_a=m_b requires significantly more evidence than you have.

If I flipped a coin ten times and got seven heads, do I conclude that it's weighted or not? Well my Bayesian prior is that there's say a 0.1% chance it's weighted. The chance that I get at least 7 in a run of 10 is ~17%. The chance that I get at least 7 heads in a run of 10 when the coin is weighted 70/30 is 65%. So what is the chance the coin is weighted?

Well, now my prior is updated. But the Bayesian formula says it only goes up to 0.3%. Why? Because it's not a strong enough result to significantly impact my prior.

If all races were drawn from a distribution with the same mean intelligence, you would still expect that your population averages would be different. You make the size of those populations big enough and you could expect that the chance of the population averages being the same to be negligible. But they were all still being drawn from the same distribution.

Why do statisticians pretend they have a sample even when they have the same population? Because that's what gives it predictive power about new elements.
---

No, and intelligence isn't quantifiable anyway.

COVxy posted...

I mean, that provides no theoretical impetus, and is a questionable claim to begin with.

Why not? I mean it doesn't prove it, but to me it says that its more logical to assume that a trait varies by race than doesn't, because that's the norm.

COVxy posted...

But like, is the argument that one race having an average intelligence at the population level of 99.999999 and another having an average intelligence at the population level of 100.000000 really some sort of difference you want to talk about? I mean, sure, they are different, but meaninglessly different.

Yes, so you're getting that after we acknowledge the point I made, we can then move on to the degree to which they vary. See we couldn't move onto that unless we established that they do in fact vary. I mean you can say that its a pointless, unneeded argument, but obviously that'd be wrong because you laughed at me when I first made it. It wasn't until I proved that its almost guaranteed to be right that you then started to nitpick it, rather than laugh it off as something incorrect.

COVxy posted...

How, exactly, do you think we are "measuring" intelligence in dogs, and how is it comparable to IQ testing?

I have no idea how were measuring intelligence in dogs, I'm merely trusting the many times I've read about certain kinds of dogs being more intelligent than others. Regardless of how were testing it, IQ tests and whatever tests those are are both aimed at testing intelligence, and while not perfect, are more than accurate enough for people to be satisfied with them in general.

You always ask these kinda questions without actually making a point, so I'm always stuck answering a million things and then if there's something Idk you just harp on that till I have to leave. So instead of this 50 questions nonsense can you make an actual argument instead? That way you actually have to plant your flag somewhere and don't just get prod my argument looking for weak spots. I mean I've let you get away with that before because I thought that it'd prove my point when you ran out of questions, but that was assuming you'd admit I'm right after I'd proved my point well enough, and you obviously never do that.
---

CIA_Agent posted...

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

Pretty much. Though it's only a technicality and not exactly relevant. You'll find the averages actually are different amongst races but they're not very far off and you've still got tons of overlap.

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

CIA_Agent posted...

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

Pretty much. Though it's only a technicality and not exactly relevant. You'll find the averages actually are different amongst races but they're not very far off and you've still got tons of overlap.

But that is completely meaningless and not what the TC is implying anyway, since culture and race are not always divisible. The TC is talking about the natural aptitude of races towards 'intelligence', which is different than saying the percentage of each race who are 'intelligent'.

Nope. The smartest people in the world are people of a bunch of different races.

Also, I live in NYC and I've met absolute idiots from all races.
---

COVxy posted...

snake1989 posted...

Given that IQ is strongly correlated with lifetime success, I believe it is definitely measuring something very important, though.

Important to note that if you remove the influence of SES and education, the predictive validity of IQ drops pretty darn low.

While true, the challenge I see with this is untangling parental IQ, which does seem to be heritable, from the fact that parental IQ can also be correlated with the SES and educational opportunities the child will have.

It seems to me that the benefits of IQ can be passed on to children in two ways, both genetically and environmentally, but that already having it genetically increases the likelihood of simultaneously receiving it environmentally, whereas the opposite may not be true.
---

nicklebro posted...

Why not? I mean it doesn't prove it, but to me it says that its more logical to assume that a trait varies by race than doesn't, because that's the norm.

Because dependence of two traits has no implication for their dependence on a 3rd?

You may think it's "logical", but it's not actually based on anything but intuition.

nicklebro posted...

Yes, so you're getting that after we acknowledge the point I made, we can then move on to the degree to which they vary. See we couldn't move onto that unless we established that they do in fact vary. I mean you can say that its a pointless, unneeded argument, but obviously that'd be wrong because you laughed at me when I first made it. It wasn't until I proved that its almost guaranteed to be right that you then started to nitpick it, rather than laugh it off as something incorrect.

I laughed at it because I knew it was 1 of 2 things:
1. Incorrect.
2. A meaningless technicality to make a point without providing the context that it doesn't actually make the point at all.

nicklebro posted...

I have no idea how were measuring intelligence in dogs, I'm merely trusting the many times I've read about certain kinds of dogs being more intelligent than others. Regardless of how were testing it, IQ tests and whatever tests those are are both aimed at testing intelligence, and while not perfect, are more than accurate enough for people to be satisfied with them in general.

Not really, nobody is measuring intelligence in dogs lol.
---

Anteaterking posted...

If you truly believed that race A was smarter than race B, that means you would expect that new members of race A should have a statistically significant intelligence than new members of race B. In other words, we're imagining that we're pulling people of race A from an unknown distribution (let's just make it a normal distribution) with mean m_a and standard deviataion sig_a.

Then the question is, do we have statistically significant evidence that m_a>m_b? Well that's based on your Bayesian prior, etc. but the conclusion that it's extremely unlikely that m_a=m_b requires significantly more evidence than you have.

If I flipped a coin ten times and got seven heads, do I conclude that it's weighted or not? Well my Bayesian prior is that there's say a 0.1% chance it's weighted. The chance that I get at least 7 in a run of 10 is ~17%. The chance that I get at least 7 heads in a run of 10 when the coin is weighted 70/30 is 65%. So what is the chance the coin is weighted?

Well, now my prior is updated. But the Bayesian formula says it only goes up to 0.3%. Why? Because it's not a strong enough result to significantly impact my prior.

If all races were drawn from a distribution with the same mean intelligence, you would still expect that your population averages would be different. You make the size of those populations big enough and you could expect that the chance of the population averages being the same to be negligible. But they were all still being drawn from the same distribution.

Why do statisticians pretend they have a sample even when they have the same population? Because that's what gives it predictive power about new elements.

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"

Anteaterking posted...

but the conclusion that it's extremely unlikely that m_a=m_b requires significantly more evidence than you have.

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?
---

COVxy posted...

Because dependence of two traits has no implication for their dependence on a 3rd?

You may think it's "logical", but it's not actually based on anything but intuition.

Yeah, its logical. Its based on intuition. I said its a reason to believe, not proof to cause you to know. This is again something you always nitpick, as if something has to be proven fact for you to factor it into a belief you have. Again, a belief, not something you consider to be objectively reality.

COVxy posted...

I laughed at it because I knew it was 1 of 2 things:
1. Incorrect.
2. A meaningless technicality to make a point without providing the context that it doesn't actually make the point at all.

Well I guess that means this part deserves its own "Lol"

COVxy posted...

Not really, nobody is measuring intelligence in dogs lol.

Nobody is? Or no grants have been given to scientists to study intelligence in dogs? Cuz I can tell you from personal experience that there are people measuring intelligence in dogs.

I mean since this is just a belief, I'm using my own personal experiences in my reasoning. And I've seen enough of different kinds of breeds to tell which ones are on the higher end of the spectrum and which are on the lower end. See I don't need to be able to tell exactly what the rankings of dog breeds are in relation to intelligence, I just need to see some breeds being consistently more intelligent than other breeds. And while its obviously not enough to get you to stop nitpicking at it, its enough evidence for me to conclude that different dog breeds do have varying levels of intelligence.
---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence

This says there was a standardized test for dog intelligence in 1976, I mean its obviously probably less accurate than IQ tests are, but it is at least measuring the cognitive abilities of different breeds and showed that some breeds are more intelligent than others.
---

Comparing breeds of dogs isn't the same as comparing races of humans. Breed does not equal race. That's ignorant as fuck.
---

DarkProto05 posted...

Comparing breeds of dogs isn't the same as comparing races of humans. Breed does not equal race. That's ignorant as fuck.

Breed doesn't have to equal race. Its showing that there's a genetic component to intelligence. And in that regard its a perfect example to use.
---

nicklebro posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence

This says there was a standardized test for dog intelligence in 1976, I mean its obviously probably less accurate than IQ tests are, but it is at least measuring the cognitive abilities of different breeds and showed that some breeds are more intelligent than others.

Even if the premise wasn't ridiculous, all the results are actually based off of grown people/dogs, which is absolutely not the same as innate, born intelligence. There are a number of really, really important environmental factors that can influence how someone develops because, after all, people do not grow up in a vacuum.

Dash_Harber posted...

nicklebro posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence

This says there was a standardized test for dog intelligence in 1976, I mean its obviously probably less accurate than IQ tests are, but it is at least measuring the cognitive abilities of different breeds and showed that some breeds are more intelligent than others.

Even if the premise wasn't ridiculous, all the results are actually based off of grown people/dogs, which is absolutely not the same as innate, born intelligence. There are a number of really, really important environmental factors that can influence how someone develops because, after all, people do not grow up in a vacuum.

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

Am I seriously getting this much flack for the belief that some dog breeds are just inherently more intelligent than others? Have you guys ever seen a dog before? See its this kinda irrelevant nitpicking that I hate when other people are just allowed to take potshots at my posts instead of having to actually make a declaration themselves.

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.
---

nicklebro posted...

DarkProto05 posted...

Comparing breeds of dogs isn't the same as comparing races of humans. Breed does not equal race. That's ignorant as fuck.

Breed doesn't have to equal race. Its showing that there's a genetic component to intelligence. And in that regard its a perfect example to use.

You have got to be joking.
---

DarkProto05 posted...

nicklebro posted...

DarkProto05 posted...

Comparing breeds of dogs isn't the same as comparing races of humans. Breed does not equal race. That's ignorant as fuck.

Breed doesn't have to equal race. Its showing that there's a genetic component to intelligence. And in that regard its a perfect example to use.

You have got to be joking.

nope
---

Yikes at all those yes votes.
---

CIA_Agent posted...

BWLurker posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

CIA_Agent posted...

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

Please explain.

That's madfoot. He's an actual white supremacist and constantly loses accounts for being racist trash

Wrong.

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

CIA_Agent posted...

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

Please explain.

All research on the subject indicates that there is a genetic component to IQ which differs between races.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Race_and_intelligence

My phone is acting up. Can you summarize it for me?
---

Depends on the starting stats
---

nicklebro posted...

DarkProto05 posted...

nicklebro posted...

DarkProto05 posted...

Comparing breeds of dogs isn't the same as comparing races of humans. Breed does not equal race. That's ignorant as fuck.

Breed doesn't have to equal race. Its showing that there's a genetic component to intelligence. And in that regard its a perfect example to use.

You have got to be joking.

nope

Comparing intelligence of different dog breeds is like comparing intelligence of different homo genus. Like Sapiens, Erectus, Neanderthal, etc. It is not like comparing intelligence of races because all races are homo sapien. Don't be ignorant dude.
---

DarkProto05 posted...

Comparing intelligence of different dog breeds is like comparing intelligence of different homo genus. Like Sapiens, Erectus, Neanderthal, etc. It is not like comparing intelligence of races because all races are homo sapien. Don't be ignorant dude.

Does it show that intelligence has a genetic quality?
---

nicklebro posted...

Yeah, its logical.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
---

nicklebro posted...

DarkProto05 posted...

Comparing intelligence of different dog breeds is like comparing intelligence of different homo genus. Like Sapiens, Erectus, Neanderthal, etc. It is not like comparing intelligence of races because all races are homo sapien. Don't be ignorant dude.

Does it show that intelligence has a genetic quality?

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.
---

Goats posted...

edgy CE going to be edgy CE arbok

Speaking of edgy, Arbok backwards is Cobra, but with a K instead of a C. Makes you wonder about Muk, doesn't it? :thinking emoji:
---

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

Yeah, its logical.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

I just looked it up, it does.

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.
---

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.
---

LedZeppelin posted...

Squall28 posted...

As an average, certain races are better at certain things. Yes.

hmmmmm
---