http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece

While the comments in the article are clearly leaning toward racism some of his quotes hold a sense of truth.


Their are obvious genetic differences in the human race as a whole and who can say these differences don't have an affect on intelligence? They have been shown to affect things like potential for disease or cancer as well as more obvious things like skin color. To consider that people seperated by a continent (africa or even America) for a couple hundred thousand years wouldnt develop in different ways is like saying only animals evolve to adaptation.



Lets take an example, if one strain of humans from a newly found continent in the pacific ocean had a gene that doubled muscle strength per pound would we consider them stronger than the humans from the other continents? Yes. Now you're saying well, no gene has ever been found that verify's someone to be more intelligent or a gene that would imply less intelligence but does that mean possibility doesnt exist?



And please, don't accuse me of being racist because I absolutely am not as I have lived for 10 or more years in the same house with several black folks who i considered family and I personally don't believe anyone is inferior whether there are or are not genes that indicate such.
_________________
I don't think anyone has unlimited time, and that seems like a particularly strange conclusion to draw from about 20 minutes worth of posting on a message board. Hassan-i-Suckah

quote:

---

Originally posted by SarX
While the comments in the article are clearly leaning toward racism some of his quotes hold a sense of truth.


Their are obvious genetic differences in the human race as a whole and who can say these differences don't have an affect on intelligence? They have been shown to affect things like potential for disease or cancer as well as more obvious things like skin color. To consider that people seperated by a continent (africa or even America) for a couple hundred thousand years wouldnt develop in different ways is like saying only animals evolve to adaptation.



Lets take an example, if one strain of humans from a newly found continent in the pacific ocean had a gene that doubled muscle strength per pound would we consider them stronger than the humans from the other continents? Yes. Now you're saying well, no gene has ever been found that verify's someone to be more intelligent or a gene that would imply less intelligence but does that mean possibility doesnt exist?



And please, don't accuse me of being racist because I absolutely am not as I have lived for 10 or more years in the same house with several black folks who i considered family and I personally don't believe anyone is inferior whether there are or are not genes that indicate such.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.

---

Also, even if it was true, it wouldn't explain away the problems in Africa, because intelligence is distributed along a bell curve and there will always be people at the higher end of that curve that could make good leaders.

And finally, there's no evidence at all, so he should be keeping his mouth shut unless he does some actual research.
_________________
i zero bagged your mother

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fast Luck
hassan-i-asher: majorin in takin pictures
dreamin bout wayne from catalina wine mixers
listen little friend stay outta the deep end
cuz you're less street than vampire weekend

---

Looks like I read an older article on this issue on thursday from cnn, this source is http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21375778/


I'm not sure if the guys is racist or not, but I do think he might be a little senile and a little insensitive to a very sensitive media.

Taken from Source -

The Sunday Times did not publish the full interview with Watson.

Watson has long been on record as saying there is a genetic basis for intelligence — something undisputed by other scientists. But experts deny there is any such thing as race on a genetic level.





Now, the point I was trying to make earlier is that if a gene for greater cognitive reserve was found to be predominant in Asians and you setup a reading test between a caucasian, an asian, a black person and a latino person who would have a genetic basis to read at a greater level? (This is barring education and phsyical disabilities)

Of course cognitive reserve is only one factor to the measure of intelligence
but if in addition to that - more genes were found to increase the quota on several different levels - would we not consider this part of the human race to be more intelligent that the part that does not? Would that imply intellectual superiority? Like a gene for doubled muscle mass would imply physical superiority? Yes. The real question is, does any part of the human race contain an amount of genes in it that would advance it in intelligence over any other part and if this turns out to be accurate through future gene mapping then how will it impact society?
_________________
I don't think anyone has unlimited time, and that seems like a particularly strange conclusion to draw from about 20 minutes worth of posting on a message board. Hassan-i-Suckah

Yeah, I dig what you're trying to say...It's just impossible to say it without sounding racist.

It's a funny thing, people regardless of race are super defensive about their intelligence and intellectual capacity, far more so than their physical ability. Maybe it's because it's so obvious and easily quantifiable who is physically stronger, while mentally is much more complex. But most people seem to be extremely reluctant to admit intellectual inferiority, whereas admitting someone is stronger, faster etc than them is no problem.

Noone has a problem admitting that africans have a higher proportion of fast twitch muscle fibres, because it's so easily quantifiable. By the same token the genes which affect intelligence may well be expressed more in asians/caucasians than in africans. I mean we have mapped the human genome but we still don't know what over 50% of the genes actually code for so noone can say for sure either way yet.

It's such a delicate topic though that you can't avoid drawing an emotional response, and that means that noone is arguing with their head.

By the way I'm not taking any sides because there's no evidence as of yet, and evaluating intelligence is a really grey area anyway, but I'm just saying this old crackhead could be right (but he's gone about it the wrong way).

First of all, by definition humanity is not split into "races", we're different ethnicities. Also, a quantitative measure of intelligence based on these ethnicities is impossible due to the fact that people have grown up in different societies.
For instance, designing an IQ test for an African person and one for an American, they would be totally different, but you may find that both people still have the same IQ. Until a particular gene is found that is linked directly to intelligence, making any comments on a particular ethnic groups intelligence is impossible.

McTommo - thanks for the excellent reponse. I'm glad all that typing din't go for naught.


Kith - go back and re-read my post please. I never classified any branch of humanity as a different race.


"For instance, designing an IQ test for an African person and one for an American, they would be totally different, but you may find that both people still have the same IQ"


That din't make any sense to me, sorry. A general IQ test would work for both people. Who's to say the "American" isn't a black doctor and the "African" isnt a great white hunter from the Cape of Good Hope?

I've never seen a biased IQ test.
_________________
I don't think anyone has unlimited time, and that seems like a particularly strange conclusion to draw from about 20 minutes worth of posting on a message board. Hassan-i-Suckah

I was talking to McTommo about the difference between race and ethnicity.
As for the differences in IQ tests, there are differences. You need to develop an IQ test based on a certain region or ethnic group. The reason for this is that western culture has grown up with different symbols, language, and structure in their languages.
A few years ago I was big into doing IQ tests and such, and I joined these guys (http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/) briefly and read about the differences in IQ tests on their site. I'm not sure if it's there anymore, but the gist of the article was that most differences in IQ are due to environmental (ie: symbols, languages, growth, culture) differences when growing up. That is to say that kids from different regions of the world could be given the same IQ test and some would do excellent, others fail, even though they may all have the same IQ.

I wouldn't have mentioned it, except that I thought it was interesting and something I never knew as well.

quick edit: An example of this I jsut remembered was the symbol questions you see on IQ tests. Imagine circles, squares, and rectangles and you want to try and pattern them. I remember the article said that some native cultures in Australia couldn't recognize the symbols and would fail horribly on these types of IQ tests; however, when they were given the same type of question with symbols more common to their culture, they did fine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kith-Kanin
I was talking to McTommo about the difference between race and ethnicity.
As for the differences in IQ tests, there are differences. You need to develop an IQ test based on a certain region or ethnic group. The reason for this is that western culture has grown up with different symbols, language, and structure in their languages.
A few years ago I was big into doing IQ tests and such, and I joined these guys (http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/) briefly and read about the differences in IQ tests on their site. I'm not sure if it's there anymore, but the gist of the article was that most differences in IQ are due to environmental (ie: symbols, languages, growth, culture) differences when growing up. That is to say that kids from different regions of the world could be given the same IQ test and some would do excellent, others fail, even though they may all have the same IQ.

I wouldn't have mentioned it, except that I thought it was interesting and something I never knew as well.

quick edit: An example of this I jsut remembered was the symbol questions you see on IQ tests. Imagine circles, squares, and rectangles and you want to try and pattern them. I remember the article said that some native cultures in Australia couldn't recognize the symbols and would fail horribly on these types of IQ tests; however, when they were given the same type of question with symbols more common to their culture, they did fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kith-Kanin
I was talking to McTommo about the difference between race and ethnicity.
As for the differences in IQ tests, there are differences. You need to develop an IQ test based on a certain region or ethnic group. The reason for this is that western culture has grown up with different symbols, language, and structure in their languages.
A few years ago I was big into doing IQ tests and such, and I joined these guys (http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/) briefly and read about the differences in IQ tests on their site. I'm not sure if it's there anymore, but the gist of the article was that most differences in IQ are due to environmental (ie: symbols, languages, growth, culture) differences when growing up. That is to say that kids from different regions of the world could be given the same IQ test and some would do excellent, others fail, even though they may all have the same IQ.

I wouldn't have mentioned it, except that I thought it was interesting and something I never knew as well.

quick edit: An example of this I jsut remembered was the symbol questions you see on IQ tests. Imagine circles, squares, and rectangles and you want to try and pattern them. I remember the article said that some native cultures in Australia couldn't recognize the symbols and would fail horribly on these types of IQ tests; however, when they were given the same type of question with symbols more common to their culture, they did fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by McTommo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kith-Kanin
I was talking to McTommo about the difference between race and ethnicity.
As for the differences in IQ tests, there are differences. You need to develop an IQ test based on a certain region or ethnic group. The reason for this is that western culture has grown up with different symbols, language, and structure in their languages.
A few years ago I was big into doing IQ tests and such, and I joined these guys (http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/) briefly and read about the differences in IQ tests on their site. I'm not sure if it's there anymore, but the gist of the article was that most differences in IQ are due to environmental (ie: symbols, languages, growth, culture) differences when growing up. That is to say that kids from different regions of the world could be given the same IQ test and some would do excellent, others fail, even though they may all have the same IQ.

I wouldn't have mentioned it, except that I thought it was interesting and something I never knew as well.

quick edit: An example of this I jsut remembered was the symbol questions you see on IQ tests. Imagine circles, squares, and rectangles and you want to try and pattern them. I remember the article said that some native cultures in Australia couldn't recognize the symbols and would fail horribly on these types of IQ tests; however, when they were given the same type of question with symbols more common to their culture, they did fine.

---

I'll be honest, I don't know a lot about race vs ethnicity or how you classify them or anything like that. I just remember that while studying pharmacogenetics a very important area was the genetic differences between races (the lecturers called them races). One example is that the expression of the liver enzyme CYP450 2D6 is markedly different in asians compared to caucasians, and that needs to be taken into consideration when giving asian populations drugs. Although no doubt there are genetic differences within the group labelled 'asians', on the whole they are far more similar to each other than they are to caucasian populations.

Basically my logic is - there are genetic differences between races (or ethnicities, or whatever, my apologies if I keep making the same mistake), and scientists believe there is a genetic basis for intelligence - put 2 and 2 together and you see what I was saying.

I may be missing something obvious though, I'm not trying to claim supreme knowledge. And the whole intelligence testing as a reliable predictor of intelligence is another issue entirely.

---

This whole discussion is rather moot, being that there is no definitive way of genetically defining race/ethnicity/whatever you want to call it (i.e. you can not define what genes make up an Asian, Caucasian, etc). Therefore, even if we could isolate gene(s) related to intelligence, I'm not sure how you could genetically show that the proportion was higher based on "race".