Title says it all.


cheers

Title says it all.


cheers

Indeed it does

Define culture please.

is this your homework assignment?

Why not put your view, or something to start the discussion off instead of just a question.

Define intelligence.

Equal in what way?

What does the term 'intelligently equal' mean?

I'm afraid we expect a little more intellectual rigour than you're currently offering.

Ok, well you need to define the type of intelligence you mean. Do you mean academic, emotional, etc.etc?

It makes a big difference to the question. Or are you just asking about the whole caboodle rolled into one and an average? If you are it's a bit of a non starter to be honest.

Title says it all.


cheers
Is that it ???????

" Are all cultures intelligently equal. "

Do you mean are some cultures more likely to produce more in pure material terms ? is this how you want posters responding to define intelligence or are we supposed to be looking at the bigger picture of how each 'culture' serves the societys that have built them in terms of social cohesion , spiritual well being and other factors that cant be measured that easy .

sorry i feel im getting a hammering here.

i was just refering to general intelect like reasoning, debating anything really.

One could ask 'Are all trolls intelligently equal' :suspect: :D

sorry i feel im getting a hammering here.

i was just refering to general intelect like reasoning, debating anything really.

No you aren't this is friendly :D .

Its just you can't post something thats potentially "explosive" Iyswim with such little guidance.

Are you refering to the comments made by that lecturer from Leeds Uni the other month?

What's your opinion? The title sounds suspicously like an essay title, although a misworded one if it is, presumably supposed to say;

Are all cultures equally intelligent?

sorry i feel im getting a hammering here.

i was just refering to general intelect like reasoning, debating anything really.

Well I don't think there is a general intellect, just different types. But I think I kind of understand the question but the question is wrong. Of course we are equal, we are all human.

I think you would first need to debate the word intelligence.

What/where does the word derive from? and no doubt there is debate over that.

Are all cultures equally intelligent ? on a whole, of course not!

here (http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521544785&ss=exc) is a good starting point for your question.

Are all cultures equally intelligent ? on a whole, of course not!

thats what i wanted to hear. explain yourself please.

thats what i wanted to hear. explain yourself please.


I wonder if Poppins is referring to the inhabitants of Easter Island all those years ago, not a particularly clever in one sense. :hihi:

well if your talking about intelligence as whole than I would say no, of course cultures are not equally intelligent! when you say cultures do you mean races?

well if your talking about intelligence as whole than I would say no, of course cultures are not equally intelligent! when you say cultures do you mean races?

Why? Are you relating intelligence to academic abilities?

yes they are in their own way. intelligence is a subjective thing though

Exactly...

"...start with the term intelligence itself. It is clear from the way the word is used that we think of it partly, at least, as quantitative. People are described as being ‘more’ or ‘less’ intelligent. Dictionaries are the arbiters of what words are supposed to mean. In this case the Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives a wealth of material which focuses on the notion of ‘understanding’. Thus it speaks of intelligence as: ‘the faculty of understanding’ and, more helpfully, as ‘quickness of mental apprehension’. The quantifiability of intelligence, in common usage, is attested in ‘understanding as a quality admitting of degree’. So far so good but none of this helps us very much in constructing a scale of measurement. Some would argue that, in spite of the way we use the word, intelligence cannot be measured at all. According to them the project falls at the first fence because it is futile to try to measure the immeasurable."

Can I throw in an education hand grenade? :)

Do you actually have an opinion on this eagle eyes, or are you just fishing for other peoples?

Can I throw in an education hand grenade? :)

please do!

Do you actually have an opinion on this eagle eyes, or are you just fishing for other peoples?

fishing for other peopls if you dont mind please


cheers

No one's ever managed to agree on a measurement for intelligence and they may well never do.

Need to break it down into e.g. academic success, emotional intelligence, suppose you could use IQ as quantitative proxy, though there's too much variation between different IQ tests to really make that reliable even as a comparative measure of success in performing IQ tests.

Education improves many of the traits people would normally bundle in with intelligence, as does practising any particular skill e.g. spatial awareness, mental calculation, semantic ability - none of these things are fixed in my opinion, humans are made to adapt to become better at what they do a lot, so what you may really be asking is do members of one culture tend to learn more and become better educated than those of another? It's also linked to the effort put into self-development, I suppose.

That given, there may well be cultures which don't, culturally, have as much focus on developing intelligence-traits as others but value other characteristics. Other cultures will be unable to afford or ever get to know about certain aspects of education.

Alternatively, are you asking whether different races tend to have different innate abilities? That's a touchy subject, though the answer is essentially yes, in trend at least. But individual intelligence comes from a combination of self-motivation (which is set genetically and environmentally) and complex interactions between genes and environment for each other aspect of intelligence. Intelligence generally isn't developed as a whole, for instance a top class footballer may have very good visualisation and spatial skills but be poor with words and numbers. So, it's not a discrete concept at any rate and shouldn't really be viewed as such.

Intelligence, as defined by the IQ factor is individual. The ability to reason at a certain level doesn't depend on race or environment. How that intelligence is applied is what's important. Consider a highly cultural and technical people like the Germans being brainwashed by a WW1 corporal into passive submission. What happened to intelligence there?

In my opinion, No. Certain cultures are geared to predetermined limitations of which they will never exceed - they are happy to stagnate in a perpetual mire of adequacy never going forward and occassionaly slipping back:Zimbabwean, Maori and Indonesian culture . Other cultures are predisposed to excell, Chinese, American, British, Korean and Japanese cultures have a kind of 'no limit' attitude where the only constraint on what can be accomplished is the extent of the individuals imagination.

IMO people are the intelligent ones and the truly great thrive whatever their social circumstance, culture is merely a system of belief where the individuals desire to suceed is either nurtured or repressed.

Intelligence, as defined by the IQ factor is individual. The ability to reason at a certain level doesn't depend on race or environment. How that intelligence is applied is what's important. Consider a highly cultural and technical people like the Germans being brainwashed by a WW1 corporal into passive submission. What happened to intelligence there?

Nah, it isn't. You can learn to do IQ tests. I was bored the other day and did a few, and I got better scores the more I did - first one was 135 and third one was 142. Started to realise what sort of format the questions came in and what they were looking for after a bit.

Intelligence generally isn't developed as a whole, for instance a top class footballer may have very good visualisation and spatial skills but be poor with words and numbers. So, it's not a discrete concept at any rate and shouldn't really be viewed as such.thats not always true. a study a few years ago in footballers showed they tended to be very good at certain aspects of mathemaics.

sorry to nitpick!

i think that we also need to determine if intelligence is the ability to adapt and survive within their environment. which would make some of the most academically backward societies the most intelligent.

for instance the average aborigine wouldn't be able to tell you a whole lot about science but the average scientist wouldn't last more than a few days in the outback

Title says it all.

Personally, i think that it is impossible to quantify intelligence related to culture, when there is nowhere near a level playing field, from which to start to measure it.

what is more interesting to me eagle eyes, is the reason behind the question in the first place? :)

I thought that we'd establish that the reason for the question was some sort of essay homework set in a sociology class or something like that.

knowledge is just about the worst measure of intelligence you could choose those, so knowing something or nothing about science is completely irrelevant to intelligence.

Or rather completely irrelevant to potential intelligence?

I'm of the opinion intelligence is something you learn and develop, but some people will be able to take it further and faster than others.

thats not always true. a study a few years ago in footballers showed they tended to be very good at certain aspects of mathemaics.

sorry to nitpick!

I stand corrected :)

i think that we also need to determine if intelligence is the ability to adapt and survive within their environment. which would make some of the most academically backward societies the most intelligent.

for instance the average aborigine wouldn't be able to tell you a whole lot about science but the average scientist wouldn't last more than a few days in the outback
That's down to acquired knowledge, not intelligence.

The scientist could soon learn which root bulbs give water, and how to trap a lizard. The aborigine would never have the capacity for education that the scientist had.

That's down to acquired knowledge, not intelligence.

The scientist could soon learn which root bulbs give water, and how to trap a lizard. The aborigine would never have the capacity for education that the scientist had.how do you know?

besides intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge

how do you know?

besides intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge
I give up trying to explain to the do-gooder PC brigade that some races are thick as a plank and others have varied gifts between their ears.

There have been various studies showing some races to be brighter than others, and some to be - on average - up to 40 points below Western Europeans. It's proven, and nomatter how much the liberals and those who cry 'racism' at every opportuniy dig their heads in the sand when presented with evidence, it's a simple fact of life.
That's why many countries never evolved a written language, or mathematics, or pushed technology beyond the stone age. And no, I'm not going to Google to find the references - last time did that I was (as ever) banned for the heresy of explaining that we're not all equal.

I give up trying to explain to the do-gooder PC brigade that some races are thick as a plank and others have varied gifts between their ears.

There have been various studies showing some races to be brighter than others, and some to be - on average - up to 40 points below Western Europeans. It's proven, and nomatter how much the liberals and those who cry 'racism' at every opportuniy dig their heads in the sand when presented with evidence, it's a simple fact of life.
That's why many countries never evolved a written language, or mathematics, or pushed technology beyond the stone age. And no, I'm not going to Google to find the references - last time did that I was (as ever) banned for the heresy of explaining that we're not all equal.the point i'm making is that intelligence isn't necessarily academic intelligence. its the ability to apply the knowledge you have to the best possible advantage for yourself.

some cultures don't have a writing system because its not all that necessary. that doesn't make them 'thick'. if you live in a hostile environment then you're chief motivation is surviving not writing stuff down.

not only aren't the various races equally as smart there are massive physical differences as well

Yes, there are differences and the academic differences are explained by culture and education, but some of the races I've lived among and worked with are just a rung or two on the ladder above our more distant cousins.

Language in itself a struggle, and barely able to understand tools. Don't think glorifying and romantic images of the finely honed jungle craft skills of every African nation - in some countries comon sense hasn't evolved yet.

There's a reason for that - it's because their environment makes it very easy to survive, so there hasn't been the same appication of evolution over the last few hundred thousand years, and they haven't had to become smarter to survive.

intelligence can be detrimental to survival in some cases. It can be clearly seen amongst the bee population (a good example, I'm sure others exist).

If it's correct that there can be on average a 40 point difference (I presume you mean IQ points), then it's almost certainly down to the IQ test being a very biased measure of intelligence which is predisposed to favour a few aspects of intelligence which probably happen to correspond with those that western europeans have some advantage in.
I've never seen the 40 point figure before though, I was under the impression that variation was on average by population no more than around 10 points either way.

Coming back to reality, it’s possible for an uneducated person to make millions and a well-educated person to be a poor man. It all depends on being in the right place and the right time, and seizing an opportunity that one person notices but another does not.

To give an instance, if I remember it rightly. Can’t remember the English millionaire’s name, but just after the war he spotted an opportunity in Libya after seeing all the implements of war — tanks, planes, guns etc. going to waste in the desert. He met the right people at the right time and earned himself a contract to remove them, and ship them back to England as scrap!

I give up trying to explain to the do-gooder PC brigade that some races are thick as a plank and others have varied gifts between their ears.

Bartfarst, I have tried very hard to keep an open mind with you. I have read everyone elses constant derisory comments about you, referring to you as a 'troll' and so forth, with some indignation. But I now too, give up on you. I know that you have lived in Africa and was willing to listen to what you had to say. But I am now going to stop listening, like every other person that I respect on this forum has already done.

I think that what you spout on a regular basis is unutterably offensive. I have often stated that I believe in the freedom of speech BUT NOT WHEN IT IMPINGES ON THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER. I think that you should be banished from the forum, as I feel that the poison that you produce is very destructive and should be stopped. Zero tolerance.

Whether 'intellectual differences' exist or not between cultures is irrelevant. It is why certain people, like yourself, seem so intent on highlighting any perceived differences, that should be the area of focus.

Bartfarst, I have tried very hard to keep an open mind with you. I have read everyone elses constant derisory comments about you, referring to you as a 'troll' and so forth, with some indignation. But I now too, give up on you. I know that you have lived in Africa and was willing to listen to what you had to say. But I am now going to stop listening, like every other person that I respect on this forum has already done.

I think that what you spout on a regular basis is unutterably offensive. I have often stated that I believe in the freedom of speech BUT NOT WHEN IT IMPINGES ON THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER. I think that you should be banished from the forum, as I feel that the poison that you produce is very destructive and should be stopped. Zero tolerance.

Whether 'intellectual differences' exist or not between cultures is irrelevant. It is why certain people, like yourself, seem so intent on highlighting any perceived differences, that should be the area of focus.
Fantastic, so what you're saying is that I'm right, but I shouldn't be allowed to say it because you don't like the truth?????

And, please, do explain to me how my posting of a view on the differences between local evolutions 'impinges on the rights of another'.

Quite how am I impinging? - I'm fascinated to hear!

intelligence can be detrimental to survival in some cases. It can be clearly seen amongst the bee population (a good example, I'm sure others exist).

If it's correct that there can be on average a 40 point difference (I presume you mean IQ points), then it's almost certainly down to the IQ test being a very biased measure of intelligence which is predisposed to favour a few aspects of intelligence which probably happen to correspond with those that western europeans have some advantage in.
I've never seen the 40 point figure before though, I was under the impression that variation was on average by population no more than around 10 points either way.
I don't think the tests were just the book versions that we see - remember that the people conducting these surveys aren't imbeciles either.
The latest survey I read, published in the broadsheets a few months ago and based on the UK 100 point average, showed us ahead of the French (98 ), behind the Germans (104 ), and the Koreans (108 ). Various other countries came in all over the place, but the African nations were 'way down' with the world dunces being the Zimbabweans (at 61 ). No surprise - that is why the stone age continues in such nations.

Eynseck surveyed the USA some years ago and found that the average black American was 15 point behind the average white American - you can't explain that on different national cultures, and he took people from comparative socio-economic groups to ensure that he had a fair comparison.

I don't think the tests were just the book versions that we see - remember that the people conducting these surveys aren't imbeciles either.
The latest survey I read, published in the broadsheets a few months ago and based on the UK 100 point average, showed us ahead of the French (98 ), behind the Germans (104 ), and the Koreans (108 ). Various other countries came in all over the place, but the African nations were 'way down' with the world dunces being the Zimbabweans (at 61 ). No surprise - that is why the stone age continues in such nations.

Eynseck surveyed the USA some years ago and found that the average black American was 15 point behind the average white American - you can't explain that on different national cultures, and he took people from comparative socio-economic groups to ensure that he had a fair comparison.for what its worth i don't particularly disagree with you. however peterw makes a valid point as well, academically smart and IQ isn't a measure of overall intelligence. perfect example would be muhammed ali - who failed the army physical originally because his iq was measured in the low 70's (i think) - i would hardly call him stupid though

Of course all cultures can't be equally intelligent as far as books and $h>> goes but then again simple villagers in the far regions of the amazon may not know about the theory of relativity but i'm sure they'd know great fishing techniques!!!

So intelligence isn't always down to grades????:loopy: :help:

I
Eynseck surveyed the USA some years ago and found that the average black American was 15 point behind the average white American - you can't explain that on different national cultures, and he took people from comparative socio-economic groups to ensure that he had a fair comparison.

Perhaps you'd like to discuss this with the likes of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice............

Of course all cultures can't be equally intelligent as far as books and $h>> goes but then again simple villagers in the far regions of the amazon may not know about the theory of relativity but i'm sure they'd know great fishing techniques!!!

So intelligence isn't always down to grades????:loopy: :help:my point exactly

sorry i feel im getting a hammering here.

i was just refering to general intelect like reasoning, debating anything really.


LOL I think ol' eagle eye cherry as hammered us all here without realising it :hihi: great stufff loving it :hihi: :hihi:

for what its worth i don't particularly disagree with you. however peterw makes a valid point as well, academically smart and IQ isn't a measure of overall intelligence. perfect example would be muhammed ali - who failed the army physical originally because his iq was measured in the low 70's (i think) - i would hardly call him stupid though
Are you joking????????? Have you ever listened to Ali in an interview? He's a dimwit. he may be able to sing rhyming tunes that would be the pride of a nursery, but listen to the man in a serious interview and you'd see that he's got less between his ears than a sheep.

Perhaps you'd like to discuss this with the likes of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice............
And perhaps somebody would explain to Longcol the meaning of the word 'average'.

Of course all cultures can't be equally intelligent as far as books and $h>> goes but then again simple villagers in the far regions of the amazon may not know about the theory of relativity but i'm sure they'd know great fishing techniques!!!

So intelligence isn't always down to grades????:loopy: :help:
Do you claim that learning to fish requires as much grey matter as obtaining a physics degree?

Interesting point you have there.

Do you claim that learning to fish requires as much grey matter as obtaining a physics degree?

Interesting point you have there.

No i'm claiming that a physics degree is only any use in a capitalist system that funds a suburbanite who follows the laws of the land.

Whereas the Swiss Family Robinson may not be able to view MTV but will probably live a shorter more interesting, fun but often more brutal life than a grade A student.

The moral is that there are more levels of intelligence than meets the eye :huh:

And perhaps somebody would explain to Longcol the meaning of the word 'average'.

And perhaps they'd explain that if black Americans had started with the same advantages as white Americans there would be no difference in "IQ" ?

And perhaps they'd explain that if black Americans had started with the same advantages as white Americans there would be no difference in "IQ" ?

In a non-ratial way I feel this statement is wrong. Unfortunately by evolution European/Western Europeans grey matter have devolped that bit more than African blacks but they've had the disadvantage of a lower adverage muscle devolpment. So that evens things out - the law of evolution.

Evolution is unfortunately non-PC but it isn't safe from 1984!!!

Do you claim that learning to fish requires as much grey matter as obtaining a physics degree?

Interesting point you have there.

There is an immense difference between intelligence and intellect in my opinion. I've met some truly brilliant scholars in their fields who are so utterly clueless in the 'everyday' field it borders on the comical (can't wire a plug correctly, that type of stuff). I have also met people who aren't exactly booksmart, but can work at their trades b****y hard, and well, and then more than likely go and change yon boffin's plug.

I agree that the intellect required for a physics degree is at a higher level than knowing how to catch a fish, but when stuck in the Amazon starving, do you want your native friend to know the arc seconds in the swish of the tail of the fish (a segment of the full circle from the base of the tail to it's end), the water temperature to ascertain its absolute density, and the mass of the fish, not to mention its depth in the water, to attempt to ascertain its true velocity (assuming it's swimming in a straight line) ........

..... or to eat the thing and get to safety with your companion? Assuming you're not veggie of course ;-)

And as diplayed above, I'm no physics expert ;-)

"Horses for courses" is what I'm saying I suppose.

I don't think the tests were just the book versions that we see - remember that the people conducting these surveys aren't imbeciles either.
The latest survey I read, published in the broadsheets a few months ago and based on the UK 100 point average, showed us ahead of the French (98 ), behind the Germans (104 ), and the Koreans (108 ). Various other countries came in all over the place, but the African nations were 'way down' with the world dunces being the Zimbabweans (at 61 ). No surprise - that is why the stone age continues in such nations.

Eynseck surveyed the USA some years ago and found that the average black American was 15 point behind the average white American - you can't explain that on different national cultures, and he took people from comparative socio-economic groups to ensure that he had a fair comparison.

It's highly likely that the measure of intelligence was biased towards one measure or another.
It was probably knowledge biased to start with, which might explain why white americans (who on average get better schooling) did better. They just know more.
Knowledge of course is nothing to do with intelligence.

As to the examples about degrees and fishing. The comparison is meaningless. Intelligence is not a measure of what level you have studied too. One measure might be what level you could study too, or how quickly and well you could learn something.
The fact that I don't have a physics degree doesn't mean that I couldn't have one, and the fact that I can't fish doesn't mean that I couldn't learn how.

did a university professor Andrew Fraser not say recently that black people were intelligently inferior to white people :huh:

seems he did (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4490)

I have not read the srticle yet, but sounds a little if not a lot silly to suggest something like that.:loopy:

seems he did (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4490)

I have not read the srticle yet, but sounds a little if not a lot silly to suggest something like that.:loopy:
But why is it silly?

I cannot understand why people just stick their head in the sand when the matter of comparative racial intellect is raised.

We are all different. Different races have different traits, strengths and weaknesses. There are different muscle distributions, bone structures and susceptibilities to types of diseases and genetic defects. These are all clear, unambiguous and totally accepted even by the most vociferous of blinkered sandal-wearing do-gooders.

The same applies to intellect. The Orientals tend to be a bit hotter at maths than Europeans, which takes their average above ours. The nations vary widely even within Europe, and the African nations drag far, far behind.

Do not assume that the people who conduct these studies know less than you do about how to measure somebody’s brainpower – I suspect they, as professionally qualified psychologists and human scientists, know a little more about it than the average Forum armchair expert.

But why is it silly?

I cannot understand why people just stick their head in the sand when the matter of comparative racial intellect is raised.

We are all different. Different races have different traits, strengths and weaknesses. There are different muscle distributions, bone structures and susceptibilities to types of diseases and genetic defects. These are all clear, unambiguous and totally accepted even by the most vociferous of blinkered sandal-wearing do-gooders.

The same applies to intellect. The Orientals tend to be a bit hotter at maths than Europeans, which takes their average above ours. The nations vary widely even within Europe, and the African nations drag far, far behind.

Do not assume that the people who conduct these studies know less than you do about how to measure somebody’s brainpower – I suspect they, as professionally qualified psychologists and human scientists, know a little more about it than the average Forum armchair expert.


lol, Bartfarst I do love you. There is NO measure of someones whole brainpower, and as I have already posted; the question of intelligence is very much debated, especially the definition. Wasn't the OP about intelligence, not intellect?

Can I now chuck in a western superiority hand grenade? :)

Can I now chuck in a western superiority hand grenade? :)

Go on Tony, I'm still waiting for the education grenade.

Ooops, sorry I thought that had already gone off :)

The western superiority hand grenade... Are some of us looking at this with a western superiority complex? Would we have a different view if we lived (say) a nomadic tundra lifestyle that was self sustaining and perhaps even required no monies or typical western values. Woudl we look at us and think "how stupid?"

Ooops, sorry I thought that had already gone off :)

The western superiority hand grenade... Are some of us looking at this with a western superiority complex? Would we have a different view if we lived (say) a nomadic tundra lifestyle that was self sustaining and perhaps even required no monies or typical western values. Woudl we look at us and think "how stupid?"

BA BOOOOOM!!!

:banana: :banana:

I cannot understand why people just stick their head in the sand when the matter of comparative racial intellect is raised.

Because discussing such subjects tends to bring out people who believe that certain races are inherently superior to others and use spurious out of context facts and opinions-stated-as-facts to try and back them up. all the time claiming that they are not racist.

We are all different. Different races have different traits, strengths and weaknesses. There are different muscle distributions, bone structures and susceptibilities to types of diseases and genetic defects. These are all clear, unambiguous and

possibly true, but then please quote your sources instead of adding on totally accepted even by the most vociferous of blinkered sandal-wearing do-gooders. which won't endear anyone to your cause. you may not be intending to wind people up with this, but you will (but not me).

The same applies to intellect.

No it doesn't, it's not the same as intelligence, as other posters have pointed out.
The Orientals tend to be a bit hotter at maths than Europeans, which takes their average above ours. The nations vary widely even within Europe, and the African nations drag far, far behind.
This has far more to do with education than cultures or differences in races.

Do not assume that the people who conduct these studies know less than you do about how to measure somebody’s brainpower – I suspect they, as professionally qualified psychologists and human scientists, know a little more about it than the average Forum armchair expert.

I also do not assume that they are free from their own prejudices either. many of these IQ 'tests' have been demonstrated to be highly biased towards western cultures' knowledge and education systems. We westerners can be shown to be equally unintelligent and ignorant by other tests.

There will be no accurate intelligence test until a way of measuring open-mindedness is devised . That is, a test designed to see how easily people's minds can be changed when faced with evidence contrary to their own beliefs/opinions.

Mentally editing out everything which does not agree with a view already held, and only really seeing that which bolsters an already held belief leads to highly predictable opinions from a large number of people on a wide variety of subjects, including many with high IQs, and they're the worst types, because they come up with the most eloquent arguments to support their narrow minded and predictable views.

There are people who strive to impress how well-educated/intelligent they are, yet are utterly predictable in what opinion they will have on any given subject. Is being so predictable really a sign of intelligence? I think what it actually shows is a chronic inability to evaluate information in an impartial manner. Maybe we can't get an accurate picture of intelligence whilst it is defined along such narrow lines.

Nah, it isn't. You can learn to do IQ tests. I was bored the other day and did a few, and I got better scores the more I did - first one was 135 and third one was 142. Started to realise what sort of format the questions came in and what they were looking for after a bit.
I remember doing a lot of IQ/psychometric testing when I was looking for jobs as a graduate. I think that you can increase your 'IQ' by a small factor after repetitive testing, and then it plateaus. (Or I was lead to believe as such.) Until of course, you educate yourself further and push that personal boundary by expanding your mind.

To answer the thread title. No, I don't think so. I think it's one of those things that u cannot measure very directly, and fairly. It would always be subjective, and undefinable without limitations.

its interesting that someone like mr fast can write such blinkered drivel in such an eloquent fashion.

it almost stands as a metaphor which kind of undermines his stance. how ironic.

apparent intellect does not always indicate intelligence:)

Bartfast, which race would you consider to be the most inteligent then ?

Bartfarst, I have tried very hard to keep an open mind with you. I have read everyone elses constant derisory comments about you, referring to you as a 'troll' and so forth, ....

In Bartfarsts' defence, Solomon, I have to disagree with your observations.

A troll is some one who says something inflammatory with the sole purpose of getting a reaction.

Bartfarst just speaks his mind, which sometimes stirs up reactions, I don't believe that is his intended goal, communicating his viewpoint is.

Bartfast, which race would you consider to be the most inteligent then ?

The race of his own origin, possibly? No, surely that would be too much of a coincidence.

Nah, it isn't. You can learn to do IQ tests. I was bored the other day and did a few, and I got better scores the more I did - first one was 135 and third one was 142. Started to realise what sort of format the questions came in and what they were looking for after a bit.Perhaps my use of the statement IQ was incorrect,and I stand corrected though I had no intention of using the IQ test as an example. But there are differing levels of intellect in people, and the test is a way of trying to define a number.. Maybe Chief Sitting Bull had a high IQ when he massacred General Custer,though he didn't know how to read, while Custer exhibited a very low one and died for it. Maybe it was Cihef Crazy Horse. That's how high my IQ is

don't you think its ALL down to your upbringing and whether you actually want to learn

don't you think its ALL down to your upbringing and whether you actually want to learn

Not really. What about intrinsic knowledge?

Not really. What about intrinsic knowledge?
Iagree, whatever that means?:hihi:

Apologies for the delay in response. I will answer your questions now.....

Fantastic, so what you're saying is that I'm right, but I shouldn't be allowed to say it because you don't like the truth?????

Not at all. I think you talk utter nonsense, all the time, in a pompous, arrogant and self-righteous way. So you met some stupid black people when you were living in Africa...so what? I have met many stupid white people, mostly related to poverty, poor role models, geography and poor access to resources. Your stupidity in this respect is breathtaking.

And, please, do explain to me how my posting of a view on the differences between local evolutions 'impinges on the rights of another'.
Quite how am I impinging? - I'm fascinated to hear!

I quote from the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world".

Your disrespect for races other than your own (and god only knows what that might be...maybe you are in fact an alien) is obscene. Everyone is entitled to respect. That is the basic human right on which you are impinging.

Iagree, whatever that means?:hihi:

Don't ask me, I just made it up!

Knowledge that is handed down in your DNA, if you like. Think native american indians.

believe it or not this thread was inspired by me.

believe it or not this thread was inspired by me.

Oh the irony of the polarities. Ask a dumb question get a wealth of debate.

2 stupid questions in 2 days, Topman you are making habit of this.

believe it or not this thread was inspired by me.

I'm reminded of a reeves and mortimer catchphrase

"of course, this was all my idea"

Wilf

I wonder where timo is...:hihi:

I agree that people of different races probably have different intellectual capabilities and different strengths and weaknesses.

I dont think being clever = behaving in a clever way.

And I'm suspicious of such arguments being used to explain why Southern states are economically disadvantaged to Northern states, because I think theres a lot more to it than that.

Oh the irony of the polarities. Ask a dumb question get a wealth of debate.

2 stupid questions in 2 days, Topman you are making habit of this.

look here mate im a genius and the reason being yes cultures differ in intelect but im from the janitors planet so off course im gonna have more brains


also which 2 questions? care to give examples?

Are you joking????????? Have you ever listened to Ali in an interview? He's a dimwit. he may be able to sing rhyming tunes that would be the pride of a nursery, but listen to the man in a serious interview and you'd see that he's got less between his ears than a sheep.he was smart enough to be world champion 3 times. lets see you do that

he was smart enough to change and amend his religious beliefs as he grew older and his view of the world changed.

he was smart enough to see that the vietnam war was wrong way before most of the USA

he was smart enough to be the greatest before he was the greatest

he was smart enough to to outhink outmanouver and outsmart his opponents

he was smart enough to use psychology to win fights

he was smart enough to realise the power of the media


sadly he wasn't smart enough to quit and sadly he has parkinsons. even the greatest are fallible

Do you claim that learning to fish requires as much grey matter as obtaining a physics degree?

Interesting point you have there.i do wish you'd actually listen to what people say. (even though its written down and you can't listen!)

intelligence isn't just about intellect

The western superiority hand grenade... Are some of us looking at this with a western superiority complex? Would we have a different view if we lived (say) a nomadic tundra lifestyle that was self sustaining and perhaps even required no monies or typical western values. Woudl we look at us and think "how stupid?"

Quite possibly that is exactly what many Ethiopeans were thinking prior to the mid eighties.

In Bartfarsts' defence, Solomon, I have to disagree with your observations.

A troll is some one who says something inflammatory with the sole purpose of getting a reaction.

Bartfarst just speaks his mind, which sometimes stirs up reactions, I don't believe that is his intended goal, communicating his viewpoint is.
Yes, he does pick his subjects. I have no qualm on the subjects that he picks to discuss. Though, I do have a qualm about the way he portrays his views which demean others at the same time.

If for the sake of discussion, then why the need to get personal all of the time ? What is the point ? Any topic can be discussed on a very superficial, or analytical way. Regardless of individual beliefs.

Bartfast, which race would you consider to be the most inteligent then ?
The biggest recent survey showed it to be the Koreans - with an average of 108 or 109.

Ooops, sorry I thought that had already gone off :)

The western superiority hand grenade... Are some of us looking at this with a western superiority complex? Would we have a different view if we lived (say) a nomadic tundra lifestyle that was self sustaining and perhaps even required no monies or typical western values. Woudl we look at us and think "how stupid?"
Tony, you miss the point. The more intelligent race would develop better shelter, farming, technology and evolve out of the nomadic tundra lifestyle.

Are the koreans a race? :confused:

But why is it silly?

I cannot understand why people just stick their head in the sand when the matter of comparative racial intellect is raised.

We are all different. Different races have different traits, strengths and weaknesses. There are different muscle distributions, bone structures and susceptibilities to types of diseases and genetic defects. These are all clear, unambiguous and totally accepted even by the most vociferous of blinkered sandal-wearing do-gooders.

The same applies to intellect. The Orientals tend to be a bit hotter at maths than Europeans, which takes their average above ours. The nations vary widely even within Europe, and the African nations drag far, far behind.

Do not assume that the people who conduct these studies know less than you do about how to measure somebody’s brainpower – I suspect they, as professionally qualified psychologists and human scientists, know a little more about it than the average Forum armchair expert.

This could, if i did not know better, be a 'lift' from a Victorian novel such as 'Mr Midshipman Easy'
In fact even in those days people such as Charles Dickens were satirising such people. Is it the lawyer in Great Expectations who is a beliver in phrenology? he thinks that the shape of a persons head makes them more or less likely to be a murderer?
To believe that the shape or colour of a persons body changes their brain pattern is nonsensical. This cannot be true, as I believe you have the same characteristics as I have and my intelligence is vastly superior to yours :D

Originally Posted by liquid_pig
don't you think its ALL down to your upbringing and whether you actually want to learn
Not really. What about intrinsic knowledge?
It doesn't work like that. The argument that the tests can't apply to different races is deeply flawed, because tests are developed to apply to the different races - does anybody out there actually think that a doctorate level survey would just put a westernised tick-test in front of an illiterate villager?

Come on people, tests are specially developed. You can accuse me of anything you choose, but can you really believe that the academic institutions, departments full of highly qualified social sicentists and psychologists don't understand this better than we do?

The biggest recent survey showed it to be the Koreans - with an average of 108 or 109.

I think it has been pretty much estabished on this thread that the IQ is not an accurate test of all round intelligece.

This could, if i did not know better, be a 'lift' from a Victorian novel such as 'Mr Midshipman Easy'
In fact even in those days people such as Charles Dickens were satirising such people. Is it the lawyer in Great Expectations who is a beliver in phrenology? he thinks that the shape of a persons head makes them more or less likely to be a murderer?
To believe that the shape or colour of a persons body changes their brain pattern is nonsensical. This cannot be true, as I believe you have the same characteristics as I have and my intelligence is vastly superior to yours :D
I would bow to your claim of superior intelligence but I strongly suspect that my dog could give you a run for your money on a chess board.

Did I say that a person's shape or colour changes their brain pattern? No, I did not. You are either deliberately twisting my words, or plain stupid, but I will assume the former.

I said that the races all have differences. If we have taller races, shorter races, races with different bone structures, muscle distributions, immune systems, why can you not see that other parts of the body vary from race to race? These are the result of varying environmental effects on evolution.

Does it seem so incredibly unbelievable therefore that we might have dissimilar characteristics inside our skulls when every other part of our bodies varies so much from race to race?

When the various races have been subject to wildly different living conditions, climates, threats, and survival needs for thousands of generations, can you really, truly say that you think they will all evolve to be exactly the same???????
If that were the case, we would all be the same colour, size and shape. We are not.

I think it has been pretty much estabished on this thread that the IQ is not an accurate test of all round intelligece.
No, it has been claimed by the posters who disagree with the facts that it is not an accurate test.
Experts the world round do find it to be a useful test - I do not think they will choose to consult the Forum's armchair experts before they next conduct a survey.

Tony, you miss the point. The more intelligent race would develop better shelter, farming, technology and evolve out of the nomadic tundra lifestyle.
I'm not missing the point at all Bartfarst, I'm posing a hypothesis.

Is it inconceivable for a people to consciously decide to retain a (for example) nomadic self sustaining existence with no need for western models?

Are the koreans a race? :confused:

Are they? I didn't think they were...

Are the koreans a race? :confused:
I do believe you understand the point either way. I was quoting from a survey that studied relative intelligence in 130 different countries - the results were interesting because there were significant differences within Europe.
From those results the racial variations were clear to see.

I would bow to your claim of superior intelligence but I strongly suspect that my dog could give you a run for your money on a chess board.

That's just being silly, not to say inflamatory.

I said that the races all have differences. If we have taller races, shorter races, races with different bone structures, muscle distributions, immune systems, why can you not see that other parts of the body vary from race to race? These are the result of varying environmental effects on evolution.

Does it seem so incredibly unbelievable therefore that we might have dissimilar characteristics inside our skulls when every other part of our bodies varies so much from race to race?

When the various races have been subject to wildly different living conditions, climates, threats, and survival needs for thousands of generations, can you really, truly say that you think they will all evolve to be exactly the same???????
If that were the case, we would all be the same colour, size and shape. We are not.

I know where you're coming from, and - against the odds, you might say -agree with the line of argument and would be pleased to pursue it with subtantiated source material. Sadly, we ARE so programmed that any discussion of this nature is 'racist' that there cannot be any real debate on the subject. Not in public, at any rate. That's the way it is.

I'm not missing the point at all Bartfarst, I'm posing a hypothesis.

Is it inconceivable for a people to consciously decide to retain a (for example) nomadic self sustaining existence with no need for western models?
The whole of man's evolution has been based on what you just said.

Man first started rummaging around on two legs, thereby having a free hand to scratch his bum, in Africa.
By and large, the more inquisitive individuals (requiring more stimulus, and wanting to explore) moved the species' boundaries further. They made conscious decisions to do so, rather than to stay and make do with what they had. (We see exactly the same happen today in our society – some people choose to stay I their job, happily sweeping and quite content with that level of stimulus and excitement, others need to do more, push themselves and find out what’s round the corner).

Those branches of man that moved out encountered harsher conditions which required complex survival strategies to get through the winters and deal with the new environments. More complex tools, agriculture and buildings were part of this. Against those requirements, survival came to those who could think round a problem rather than run away from it, and the evolutionary paths of mankind in different parts of the globe differed.

That’s why you don’t see a whole lot of white Olympic sprinters, and you don’t see a whole lot of black physics professors. Of course you do get some of each, but in a very small minority.

I think inteligence of a culture should be measured by what that culture, as a group has acheived and i think its safe to say that as a culture......black cultures have acheived a lot less than any others. obviously black individuals have performed very well, but i can not think of many black communities that are prosperring.

as a group, blacks have acheived gun crime and poverty and i'd argue this is due to lack of inteligence.

Obviously i recognise that black people have acheived individually, but i don't see communities of black people prospering together.

perhaps this is due to external factors, not their inteligence but due to the extreme of the case i don't think so.

I am also more than happy to share that I think black people, as a group have a very poor work ethic in comparison to other ethnics

Is it inconceivable for a people to consciously decide to retain a (for example) nomadic self sustaining existence with no need for western models?


Some of Australia's aboriginal people are trying this after what has been a disaster when our 'western' culture was forced on them . Anyone wanting to see the effects of destroying a peoples culture should study Australian history how crime, suicide and alcoholism now blight a people who didn't even have word in their language for these things . Is the culture imposed on them more intelligent than theirs ? not for them .
Culture is not about a subjective things like intelligence it's not about any stupid notion of superiority it's the cement that keeps societys together .

That's just being silly, not to say inflamatory.

I know where you're coming from, and - against the odds, you might say -agree with the line of argument and would be pleased to pursue it with subtantiated source material. Sadly, we ARE so programmed that any discussion of this nature is 'racist' that there cannot be any real debate on the subject. Not in public, at any rate. That's the way it is.
The comment wasn't inflammatory when taken in context with the post it replied to.

As for the rest of your own post, it saddens me.

What I infer from your statement is that, even if you were to accept that there are differences between the races, you see it as a total taboo to discuss them?
We accept that some races have different colours – but surely it isn't racist to accept that an Indian usually has darker skin tones than a Swede. It's a factual observation, with no ill intent. Is it racist to say that black men make better sprint athletes and heavyweight boxers? No, it isn’t. It certainly isn’t if you’re a fan and cheering somebody on.

I had always thought that racism comes when there is ill intent, or when somebody prejudices against somebody else due to there ethnicity. Surely accepting that there are differences cannot be racist. We have problems between the races because we refuse to accept, and make allowances for, the fact that we are different.

As for substantiated source material, look at a map of the world, think about its climate, its varying seasons and environments, and you have an lump of evidence weighing about 6,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons.

As for the rest of your own post, it saddens me.


Yes, I accept that. I made a statement of fact. Not saying I agree with it.

How many Einsteins and Newtons have been lost to the World because of lack of education. It makes you think how much more advanced we could be, if all the money wasted on educating rich mens sons, had been spent on educating the best amongst us.
When you think no great world leader or great thinker ever came from a very aristocratic background

does anybody out there actually think that a doctorate level survey would just put a westernised tick-test in front of an illiterate villager?

Come on people, tests are specially developed. You can accuse me of anything you choose, but can you really believe that the academic institutions, departments full of highly qualified social sicentists and psychologists don't understand this better than we do?

Yes, so smart they can't figure out who invented the wheel.................or test his intelligence.

How many Einsteins and Newtons have been lost to the World because of lack of education. It makes you think how much more advanced we could be, if all the money wasted on educating rich mens sons, had been spent on educating the best amongst us.
When you think no great world leader or great thinker ever came from a very aristocratic background
Er - maybe I've wrongly understood our education system, but I really did think that GCSEs, A levels, degrees and doctorates were open to everybody - or am i wrong in that?

As for the last statement, it's pointless listing them becasue yuo'll decry every one simply on the basis of your inverted snobbery.

Feel free to answer the questions I asked you on post 96.

Yes, so smart they can't figure out who invented the wheel.................or test his intelligence.
I think you'll find that he wasn't African, that much is worth a fiver at the bookies.

Seeing as the wheel predates written language, and we haven't made time machines, I think I'll excuse the historians not knowing who that was.

i can't believe bartfarst hasn't had a pop at me!

No, it has been claimed by the posters who disagree with the facts that it is not an accurate test.
Experts the world round do find it to be a useful test - I do not think they will choose to consult the Forum's armchair experts before they next conduct a survey.

Who are threse experts of whom you claim to know so much. I too could refer to hypothetical experts to back up my arguments.

You refer to everyone else as 'armchair experts' implying that you consider yourself to be a real expert. And why is that? Because you para-phrase 'experts' with no names and no references to their data.

Well I know some hypothetical experts too, and their doctorates are bigger than your hypothetical experts doctorates, and they say you're making it all up.

Er - maybe I've wrongly understood our education system, but I really did think that GCSEs, A levels, degrees and doctorates were open to everybody - or am i wrong in that?



Yup, you're wrong on some of those. Try adding finance into the equation at a very basic level.

I think you'll find that he wasn't African, that much is worth a fiver at the bookies.



Explain yourself, if you can. If you can't then quote someone else (with the source)

i can't believe bartfarst hasn't had a pop at me!
Go on then - seeing as you asked nicely this time:
he was smart enough to be world champion 3 times. lets see you do that Quite how being a good boxer, having fast reflexes and physical strength equates to smart, I’d love to know.
h e was smart enough to change and amend his religious beliefs as he grew older and his view of the world changed. He was dim enough to be brainwashed by a bunch of Islamic activists. Read up on this – it’s interesting.
he was smart enough to see that the vietnam war was wrong way before most of the USA Just as many draft-dodgers were?
he was smart enough to be the greatest before he was the greatestAnd if he’s smart enough to understand that, he’s smart.
he was smart enough to to outhink outmanouver and outsmart his opponentsWho, let’s face it, were all men of towering intellect.
he was smart enough to use psychology to win fightsSee above.
he was smart enough to realise the power of the mediaSo, he had no managers, promoters, advisers, hangers-on?
sadly he wasn't smart enough to quit and sadly he has parkinsons. even the greatest are fallibleAgreed, and terrible to see. His talent was massive, he was an hugely charismatic individual and it is very sad to see the way he declined.

He did, however, have the low IQ that you quoted earlier.

Explain yourself, if you can. If you can't then quote someone else (with the source)


can you tell me how i asked 2 stupid questions?

But..............................intelligence is not the same as intellect. It's pretty basic hun.

can you tell me how i asked 2 stupid questions?

By opening your mouth and speaking? :hihi:

I'm sorry, that wasn't meant personally at all. It was just BEGGING to be said. As a joke, I mean. :)

can you tell me how i asked 2 stupid questions?

Well the former one was so DUMB it must have been pulled by the mods! It was the one where you said "a mate" asked you to ask it.

Well the former one was so DUMB it must have been pulled by the mods! It was the one where you said "a mate" asked you to ask it.

oh lol that was true they did tell me to ask it

Who are threse experts of whom you claim to know so much. I too could refer to hypothetical experts to back up my arguments.

You refer to everyone else as 'armchair experts' implying that you consider yourself to be a real expert. And why is that? Because you para-phrase 'experts' with no names and no references to their data.

Well I know some hypothetical experts too, and their doctorates are bigger than your hypothetical experts doctorates, and they say you're making it all up.
You do the Googling, I don't need to re-trace things I've already covered, start with these:

- Prof HJ Eynseck established US blacks 15 points lower than US whites
- Ellis, Don of Leeds University - recent paper articles
- Richard Lynne, of the University of Ulster - survey of nations included revealing that the Zimbabweans have a national average of 61.

Er - maybe I've wrongly understood our education system, but I really did think that GCSEs, A levels, degrees and doctorates were open to everybody - or am i wrong in that?

As for the last statement, it's pointless listing them becasue yuo'll decry every one simply on the basis of your inverted snobbery.

Feel free to answer the questions I asked you on post 96.

I didnt realise you required an answer.
I agree we all develop according to evolution. For instance we are all much bigger and taller now due to better food, and, in the most case, women prefering men taller than themselves.
I disagree that the education system is open to all.
How does a child in Sub Saharan Africa, or the Amazon Basin get access to school?
For that matter how does a child in England get a chance in the Rat Pack that is a post Thatcherite classroom these days?
I am Not an inverted snob, I am a total snob, and I look down upon you from on high. Stay cool, stop being offensive, and then you would not need to be so defensive :cool:

I am Not an inverted snob, I am a total snob, and I look down upon you from on high.:cool:Make your mind up artisan, because the following two posts you just made do sound just a tiny, weeny bit like inverted snobbery:
Is it because of years spent flattering them, that they still dont accept you.
They never will Bartfarst, you are a hireling, paid to do their dirty work.
They mock your efforts to be part of a society you cannot understand. :
It is very big hearted of the hunting fraternity to spend all these vast sums of money on horses stables, packs of dogs etc, just to help out the local chicken farmer.
I bet when he turns up at the Mansion covered in feathers and chicken **** they welcome him with open arms, when they are just sitting down to dinner with the latest popsinger or footballer that entertains them :

you better appreciate this! took me ages to put it together!;) Go on then - seeing as you asked nicely this time:he was smart enough to be world champion 3 times. lets see you do that
Quite how being a good boxer, having fast reflexes and physical strength equates to smart, I’d love to know.boxing requires great emotional intelligence, a cool head, an even temper, an analytical mind and superb decision making all of which is to be done at speed. boxing like football is one of the great working class escapes and at its best is more than a sport it is an artform. a truly great boxer is an artist, almost all artists by their very description are genius'. the fact that his gift was an ability to do a fight is neither here nor there. the fact that he was recognized as the best in the world on multiple occasions makes him a genius.he was smart enough to change and amend his religious beliefs as he grew older and his view of the world changed.
He was dim enough to be brainwashed by a bunch of Islamic activists. Read up on this – it’s interesting.i have read up on this, from many sources. just as he was brainwashed by the nation of islam he took many positive things from them. he was black and proud at a time when you shouldn't be. he refused to duck the racists and refused to be what the white establishment wanted him to be. he was in short a cultural icon and incredibly important in the black rights movement in 60's america. as important as martin luther king or malcolm x. were they also stupid? he was politically important and an icon for black america and 4 decades later he still is. not bad for a think ignorant kid from louisville! then when he went on his hajj he realised that he had been wrong and changed his ideals. just like malcolm x. personally i have more respect for people wha can admit they're wrong and act on it than people who stick stubbournly to beliefs they know to be untruehe was smart enough to see that the vietnam war was wrong way before most of the USA
Just as many draft-dodgers were?ali was far more than a draft dodger. he never ran for canada he faced his punishment like a man and went to jail for his beliefs, was stripped of his world title, refused a boxing license, ran a gauntlet of hate. that puts him up there - although not on a par - with mandela in my book. he also refused to go for political, social and humanitarian reasons, he made himself bigger than boxing, bigger than sport. he was no pot smoking hippy peacenik he was a proud angry warrior standing up for himself, his race and the vietnamese whilst defying the american governmenthe was smart enough to be the greatest before he was the greatest
And if he’s smart enough to understand that, he’s smart.glad you agree!he was smart enough to to outhink outmanouver and outsmart his opponents
Who, let’s face it, were all men of towering intellect.yes, they were boxershe was smart enough to use psychology to win fights
See above.see abovehe was smart enough to realise the power of the media
So, he had no managers, promoters, advisers, hangers-on?yes he did and most of the time angelo dundee tried to shut him up, they didn't understand what he was doing, noone did he pretty much invented sports psychologysadly he wasn't smart enough to quit and sadly he has parkinsons. even the greatest are fallible
Agreed, and terrible to see. His talent was massive, he was an hugely charismatic individual and it is very sad to see the way he declined.

He did, however, have the low IQ that you quoted earlier. never denied he had a low IQ indeed thats the point of all this! a man with a low IQ is a cultural, political icon. an inspiration to many and generally a superb human being

never denied he had a low IQ indeed thats the point of all this! a man with a low IQ is a cultural, political icon. an inspiration to many and generally a superb human being
And I never denied that he was a great man with huge talent, but his determination, will to succeed, and physical prowess don't make him bright, or a genius.

There are many 'not too bright' but hard-working successful captains if industry, and there are lots of under-achieving brainboxes without the drive to push themselves.

Usually though, the two go hand in hand.

btw- I did appreciate it, and I think we share admiration for Ali as much as passion for the sport

And I never denied that he was a great man with huge talent, but his determination, will to succeed, and physical prowess don't make him bright, or a genius.

There are many 'not too bright' but hard-working successful captains if industry, and there are lots of under-achieving brainboxes without the drive to push themselves.

Usually though, the two go hand in hand.

btw- I did appreciate it, and I think we share admiration for Ali as much as passion for the sporti would hope so, i love boxing. shame the heavyweight division is so poor these days, i can't think of a time when quality heavyweights were this thin on the ground

boxing requires great emotional intelligence, a cool head, an even temper, an analytical mind and superb decision making all of which is to be done at speed.

When I read this I immediately thought of Naz and his notorious driving habits. I know it's the wrong thread and all, but somehow it just didn't ring true for me...

Is it racist to say that black men make better sprint athletes and heavyweight boxers ?
Well, then u have to consider who the fastest runners are in the world. Is it a black person, or is it a white person ? If this is non-conclusive, then you have to think why the world record holders can and do come from different races ? Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

I had always thought that racism comes when there is ill intent, or when somebody prejudices against somebody else due to there ethnicity. Surely accepting that there are differences cannot be racist. We have problems between the races because we refuse to accept, and make allowances for, the fact that we are different.
But are these so called scientific researches pointing out intrinsic and definitive differences ? I don't think so.

You have to ask yourself whether talking of 'race' this way is being prejudiced or not. Even though there are researches out there. Do the conclusion generalise the same way that you have ? To me, they don't. Neither do I doubt that the Professors would publically claim so either. They can only claim what is factual. Which is to truly represent exactly how the experiments are done. They are not a 'template' for societal ills, or justifications. Oh no... that's too simplistic for your average joe blogg to pick up, interpret and then sprout rubbish with loaded connoctations. Their conclusions are based on their experimental conditions. That is it. They do not say, race A, and race B blah blah blah. That is just you. Please at least acknowledge this slight difference.

People do not have to be a scientist or have numerous letters after their name to read something in English, and to understand it. Researches take place all of the time. How representative, and whether the scientific community take the research into consideration or even remotely as representative for further research is another matter. Anyone and everyone can make a name for themselves within the science community across the world. The ones that do make a name for themselves are more ethical in nature, and is not controversial for the sake of controversy.

Do I know that evolution changes humans in terms of weight, height, and biological factors ? Yes. I recall it was GCSE science that taught me the differences of how people living in different areas of the world affect their biology over generations.

The idea and theory is that, if I place u in Antartica, and left u to procreate for a few generations. Yes, your kids may increase their weight too in order to survive the cold harshness of the environment that they're in. They may also grow a little taller, a little wider. To retain the heat loss. Yet, how will your race come into play ? It doesn't.

Much as it pains me, I have to agree in principle with some of what bartfast says. It is possible that different races will differ in intelligence.
What I don't agree with is measuring that intelligence using western biased approaches (the IQ test is notoriously not accepted amongst all academics of being indicative of intelligence) and then making a declaration about which races are more/less intelligent.

Before you can measure something, you have to understand it, and intelligence is not well understood, nor even well defined, so how we can claim to accurately measure it I don't know.

I have to say that I'm right with Cyclone all the way there. I'm perfectly happy to accept that some races have different.. shall we say mental capacities as a global term?... than other races if somebody can reliably demonstrate it.

Sadly, 'intelligence' is such an empirically distorted and ephemeral concept that I suspect it's difficult to 'prove'.

One thing is for certain though - we aren't all the same ;)

Since the word 'culture' is mentioned in the title, the question probably has more to do with the relative merits of global cultures rather than of the intellectual capacities of racial groups (although I would agree that the questions are intertwined).

The multiculturalist weltenschaung is based on the central premise that all cultures are of equal value and are worthy of equal respect - to think otherwise is regarded as a failure of imagination or as a form of cultural imperialism.

I disagree. Although of course all such comparisons are subjective and filtered through our own conceptual lenses, I fail to see how, for example, the towering achievements of Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven can be put on a par with the the music emanating form an Aboriginal didgeridoo or the warblings from a sub-Saharan African nose flute. The same applies to the visual arts- Aboriginal dream paintings are not on the same level as the works of Michealangelo. The same could be said, perhaps even more so, in the fields of science and technology.

The biggest recent survey showed it to be the Koreans - with an average of 108 or 109.

Sounds about right, I would have said Japanese, but it's in the same general part of the globe.

I wasn't gonna post a long reply, but this is what I think anyway. I'm not gonna do a sweeping generalisation.

What I infer from your statement is that, even if you were to accept that there are differences between the races, you see it as a total taboo to discuss them ?
There may be intrinsic differences between groups of people, who are grouped together a certain way by science. i.e. the scientists defines their grouping. For example, I am a chinese. If researches are done on chinese people, do the research then be applicable to all chinese across the world ? Are all chinese the same across the world ? No, they are not. Is the research then conclusive ? No, it is not. Why am I certain of this ? Cos of the following example.

Actually, I have heard that chinese people, or SE Asian cannot tolerate alcohol. As they do not have a particular enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase, which breaks down alcohol. (Yes, this one has gone round the grapevine.) Yes, I do also remember that I was taught this at university too by a lecturer. Did I believe it at first ? Possibly. Do I truly believe it now ? No. However, because it's been highlighted to me I have also come to learn more about it. Which is that, it does not apply to all of my chinese friends. Some can drink me under the table. Neither does it mean that I don't drink. Or can't drink. Cos I can. What does it all mean ? Do I fall outside of the statistics ? Have I beaten statistics in some ways unbeknown to myself ?

I think it was Panorama or similar documentary which ran once about genetics, and how race was defined. Scientifically, it's classification are very strict. i.e. caucasians, blacks, asian etc. It mentioned that although one may look caucasian, asian, or black. When tracing their DNA, and their family tree. They found that sometimes there's a child from mixed-race parents at one point or another. So that throws argument of race related studies out of the windows. Cos the possibility of mixed-race children means that there is no 'pure' race. Or rather, 'rarely'.

I've also come across something before about yeast-based diet affecting a person's biology through time too. I sometimes wonder whether it's because that I have ancestors who had diets of rice rather than bread that made me unable to tolerate beer, say. As beer have yeast through its fermentation processes. (Or something to that effect, I think.) Yeh, I do drink spirits more. Cos I can tolerate it a lot more without going red.

Even with IQ. I can say that within SE Asia, the language are characters based, and are often learnt by memory alone. So a kid that has to learn how to memorise from a young age may of course learn differently, than say a kid who learns a latin-based language which needs logic to string together a sentence/word. You may think this is race related, but in reality, it is 'conditions' related. How human adapt in one area of the world, they will and do become a certain way, or get better at something because of this. Instead of seeing it as a race-based thing, why not see it as a cultural thing ?

The point I'm making is that. Yes, you may want to character 'race' as definitive, but ultimately, there is nothing to say that if you move to another environment, or if you were brought up differently that you don't become that part of that statistics. Cos then race is not even an issue.

A colleague came across an article on the bbc website once. There was also another controversial finding to say that a kid with dyslexia had no problem picking up chinese as a lingo, whereas he had problem picking up English. I thought that a fair conclusion would be that, a dyslexic kid would possibly have a better memory, and not necessarily logical in thought. So therefore if a dyslexia kid is taught to memorise words in its own entirely and memorise exact sentences in its entirety. He/She would go a long way !

*gaaaaasps*

Does it mean that even Joe Bloggs can and do start new research angles when they give any subjects some good considerations ? Possibly. Yes, I do agree with what peterw said before about chances, and events in one's life. It's what u make of it. I find it odd that a lot of people just put it down to fate, and give up. Cos their cards are dealt. Because the statistics are done. What a lot of poo.

I also want to say this much. Life is NOT fair. The educational standard within the UK is NOT the same across the board. So to use the argument that each person had equal chance at education is not exactly correct. A teacher may fail a kid by not giving him/her the attention when needed, say. If teachings standard were all the same across the UK, then u wouldn't even have a league table. So how does such factors come into play on the IQ front ?

Will people reside to the fact that just because they are of a certain race will mean that their life is destined ? Don't be daft. Is what I say.

Well said Bago. No study I know of yet has managed to accurately measure 'intrinsic' intelligence (whatever that may be). The environment plays far too big a role in that to say.

Personally I do think that some genetic backgrounds will be intrinsically better at certain things than others mentally (just because it affects everything else so why not that?) but it's certainly not something that will determine the fate of your whole life. Also, as intelligence covers such a lot of traits, it's highly unlikely that anyone would be genetically unintelligent or intelligent - more likely that they'll have an advantage with certain things and maybe not be so good at other things.

I would expect intelligence as a whole to be determined by the interactions between a massive amount of genes - hundreds at least. That's a complete guess though, could be wrong. But if so it's unlikely someone would end up with a dud copy of all of them.

statistics mean nothing to an individual anyway, why should they. But that doesn't in any way invalidate the statistic.

PS - with regards to studying race and trying to isolate culture as the course, it's quite simple, you also use study groups of that race that were raised in a different culture, you can then isolate the differences which are due to culture from those which are due to race.

statistics mean nothing to an individual anyway, why should they. But that doesn't in any way invalidate the statistic.
No, it does not invalidate the stats itself, BUT it does mean that the stats must be represented in a certain way in order to be claimed as 'valid'. They are never a simple case of, 'A = B'. It's always a case of 'A=B' only because 20 cases of A were studied, and then magnified by or postulated by 1000x by some statistical method. As it is statistics, there are always uncertainty involved.

PS - with regards to studying race and trying to isolate culture as the course, it's quite simple, you also use study groups of that race that were raised in a different culture, you can then isolate the differences which are due to culture from those which are due to race.
Yes, this is true. I met a friend from online who is studying diabetes amongst 2nd generation chinese people in the UK. People like myself. She thinks that the diet of rice, and a certain type of dessert called 'sweet soup' (made of lots of sugar) would increase the chances of type II diabetes. Her PhD parameters are very defined, and narrow. In order to make it fair. The 2nd generation must have lived here for a certain number of years. Of both chinese descent. Of a particular age group. etc etc.

But u know what, she's is unable to identify the people to come forward that may be diabetic. Either they moved away, or that they don't have it. Or the 2nd generation is way too young to develop type II. Cos they're not the age to have it yet. Stats say around 30-40 years old will develop this.

Saying all this, her study is not done because of race alone. It will and it may be used for further studies in the future, depending on what the scientist is trying to understand. The study may be used in a way to identify that if a non-chinese person in the UK have a lot of rice-based diets with incess intake of sugar from other dessert, then they too may resort to type II diabetes. She's currently writing up the thesis. But having problems concluding it. Not because she doesn't have the stats, but there are too many factors which comes into play. She can go into various angles with the conclusion, depending on what she is trying to achieve. That is what research means.

Yes, a conclusion can be drawn from any research. Though researches are not done in order to satisfy one's prejudice. They are done under specific conditions, with a specific aim in mind. Did it fit the theory ? Yes or no. If not, why ? What factors may affect the results. The person may write further inconclusive factors which can be expanded into further researches.

All I am saying is that, if a person wants to play with stats, at least have the courtesty to quote exactly what it say. It is relative. It is statistical. It is not definitive.

You do the Googling, I don't need to re-trace things I've already covered, start with these:

- Prof HJ Eynseck established US blacks 15 points lower than US whites
- Ellis, Don of Leeds University - recent paper articles
- Richard Lynne, of the University of Ulster - survey of nations included revealing that the Zimbabweans have a national average of 61.

Quote:
In a second departure from scientific consensus, the authors also maintain that the IQ gap between blacks and whites is 15 points, an usually high figure. But this is not what four major IQ tests for children have found:

Black/white IQ gap in major IQ tests (1991) (1)

Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices 7 points
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children 7
Stanford-Binet IV (two separate studies) 10
The authors of The Bell Curve note these numbers, but dismiss them. The Kaufman-ABC results, they claim, suffer from statistical problems. (2) Even granting them their objection, however, still leaves three major studies showing a 7 to 10-point gap, not a 15-point one.

The authors of The Bell Curve, then, face an uphill battle in trying to prove that black and white IQs are not converging, but diverging. They attribute this divergence to "dysgenesis," which supposedly results when dull people interbreed. In fact, they assert this downward trend in spite of the famous "Flynn Effect," which has been raising IQs for all people and all classes world-wide, about 3 points per decade.

www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-15point.htm (source) (end quote)

This is just one of many things I immediately found. I argued in my first post on this thread that any true test of intelligence should involve a section on mental flexibility. ie The ability to interact with new information rather than edit it to fit the views already held by it's recipient.

As I stated, a lot of people with very high IQs are utterly predictable in what opinion they will have on a given subject, because although they are very clever in a certain narrow logical way, they are utterly unconcious of the way they disregard information which does not fit their view of the world - thus proving they are really quite stupid in another way, which is not apparent to them.

Of course, I'm not saying that people with high IQs are narrow minded, but that they are as likely to be narrow minded as anybody else. The high incidence of supposedly intelligent people among extremist groups everywhere is further proof of this.

no all cultures are different, if your culture says shag a virgin to cure aids, that cultures not very inelligent (medically).

But then that culture is inself very defined within the evolutionary cycle. What is to say that one civilisation differs and is more advanced than another ?

Is the West more intelligent, and more advanced when we have increased global warming by many times. Or that we have increased population growth without a natural way which decreases death rates too ? Are we more intelligent now that we have all these kind of technologies around us, but not every single person can and do make time to make use of it all to make our lives supposedly much easier ? Are we more intelligent when we eat bad processed food, and neglect our health ?

Primitive peopel may think they want to advance and live a better life, but once they are exposed to Western style living, then they are stuck, and I bet u that it's ironic that a lot of people living in the West now want a simplistic lifestyle. An organic lifestyle. A happier lifestyle without the rushing, the angst, the competitiveness, the mental stress.

Is the West more intelligent, and more advanced when we have increased global warming by many times. Or that we have increased population growth without a natural way which decreases death rates too ? Are we more intelligent now that we have all these kind of technologies around us, but not every single person can and do make time to make use of it all to make our lives supposedly much easier ? Are we more intelligent when we eat bad processed food, and neglect our health ?

.

That is exactly the point. Who made the western world boss on deciding who has more intelligence anyway??

no all cultures are different, if your culture says shag a virgin to cure aids, that cultures not very inelligent (medically).
No, it just demonstrates the value of education. Those same cultures are quite capable of grasping a medical concept that doesn't involve virgins once you get the local customs out of the way.

Ignorance is very different to lack of intelligence. :)

Originally Posted by Bago
Is the West more intelligent, and more advanced when we have increased global warming by many times. Or that we have increased population growth without a natural way which decreases death rates too ? Are we more intelligent now that we have all these kind of technologies around us, but not every single person can and do make time to make use of it all to make our lives supposedly much easier ? Are we more intelligent when we eat bad processed food, and neglect our health ?

That is exactly the point. Who made the western world boss on deciding who has more intelligence anyway??
Surely the fact that those technologies were developed is in itself overwhelming evidence that the cultures which develop technology are more gifted between the ears than the cultures that rely on mud huts and bananas.

Originally Posted by Bago
Is the West more intelligent, and more advanced when we have increased global warming by many times. Or that we have increased population growth without a natural way which decreases death rates too ? Are we more intelligent now that we have all these kind of technologies around us, but not every single person can and do make time to make use of it all to make our lives supposedly much easier ? Are we more intelligent when we eat bad processed food, and neglect our health ?


Surely the fact that those technologies were developed is in itself overwhelming evidence that the cultures which develop technology are more gifted between the ears than the cultures that rely on mud huts and bananas.

You're dead gifted between the ears you are, It's not often you hear a mud hut and bananas type admit the backwardness of their own way of thinking. Do you really associate yourself with great inventors etc. just because they've got the same colour skin as you? I've heard of hangers on, but that really takes the biscuit.

Just answering the question..

Yes.

Surely the fact that those technologies were developed is in itself overwhelming evidence that the cultures which develop technology are more gifted between the ears than the cultures that rely on mud huts and bananas.

on the contrary, it just demonstrates that we apply our intelligence differently, or indeed that we had the good luck to stumble across industrialisation first.

on the contrary, it just demonstrates that we apply our intelligence differently, or indeed that we had the good luck to stumble across industrialisation first.
How can a race have the 'good old luck' to stumble across industrialisation?

I assume they just happen to trip over a blast furnace on their way to pick some roots from the forest, and the next thing you know, they’ve colonised the moon.

Most of the primates have opposing thumbs, but the chimpanzees are the only ones to make good use of tools and apply complex trap strategies when hunting. Is this because they tripped over those tools and found them, or stumbled upon a guide book to team hunting strategy under a bush? Or is it that their elevated intelligence compared to the other primates has allowed them to develop more complex skills?

I am sure that different people do apply their ‘intelligence’ differently. In some cases, that means developing complex social organisations, cities, technologies, medicines, art and a constant desire to explore, improve and understand the world around them. Industrialisation is just a late step of progression which started many thousands of years ago when the more mentally alert and capable races started to explore and develop, driven by curiosity and need.

In other cases, applying intelligence clearly means being satisfied for tens of thousands of years with the most fundamentally basic tribal ‘society’, zero technological advancement for hundreds of generations, no written language, no art that couldn’t be replicated by a 6-year old European, and hand skills and crafts limited to the skill levels of a European child. Yes, I’d have to agree that’s a different way to apply their ‘intelligence’.

I would welcome any poster who has spent time in Africa to debate this. Those who have not are simply not qualified to comment.

Political correctness is a very, very dangerous thing. It blinds people.

How can a race have the 'good old luck' to stumble across industrialisation?

I assume they just happen to trip over a blast furnace on their way to pick some roots from the forest, and the next thing you know, they’ve colonised the moon.

Most of the primates have opposing thumbs, but the chimpanzees are the only ones to make good use of tools and apply complex trap strategies when hunting. Is this because they tripped over those tools and found them, or stumbled upon a guide book to team hunting strategy under a bush? Or is it that their elevated intelligence compared to the other primates has allowed them to develop more complex skills?

I am sure that different people do apply their ‘intelligence’ differently. In some cases, that means developing complex social organisations, cities, technologies, medicines, art and a constant desire to explore, improve and understand the world around them. Industrialisation is just a late step of progression which started many thousands of years ago when the more mentally alert and capable races started to explore and develop, driven by curiosity and need.

In other cases, applying intelligence clearly means being satisfied for tens of thousands of years with the most fundamentally basic tribal ‘society’, zero technological advancement for hundreds of generations, no written language, no art that couldn’t be replicated by a 6-year old European, and hand skills and crafts limited to the skill levels of a European child. Yes, I’d have to agree that’s a different way to apply their ‘intelligence’.

I would welcome any poster who has spent time in Africa to debate this. Those who have not are simply not qualified to comment.

Political correctness is a very, very dangerous thing. It blinds people.
Materialism does not equal intelligence either.

Materialism does not equal intelligence either.
Who said it does? Materialism is the belief that having money and possessions is the most important thing in life.

I fail to see the connection between this and the desire to improve ourselves, develop medicine and technology, and explore the world around us.

I fail to see the connection between this and the desire to improve ourselves,

Then give it some more thought

Are all cultures equally intelligent ? on a whole, of course not!

:hihi::hihi: So which cultures (in your opinion) are more intelligent? :)
[:hihi: I love a good troll now & then :)]

Personally, I would not answer this Q until the OP defines "intelligence"...

Here are some Dictionary definitions :thumbsup:

in·tel·li·gence ("n-tl-jns")
n.


1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
2. The faculty of thought and reason.
3. Superior powers of mind. See Synonyms at mind.
2. An intelligent, incorporeal being, especially an angel.
3. Information; news. See Synonyms at news.
4.
1. Secret information, especially about an actual or potential enemy.
2. An agency, staff, or office employed in gathering such information.
3. Espionage agents, organizations, and activities considered as a group: “Intelligence is nothing if not an institutionalized black market in perishable commodities” (John le Carré).

here (http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521544785&ss=exc) is a good starting point for your question.

Yes, the definition of intelligence is vastly debated

This is amazing. People debate the meaning of the word intelligence, when the simple issue under discussion here is whether some cultures/races are brighter than others.

The PC brigade, with their heads firmly in the sand, say no. No great surprise there.

Others keep their eyes open, and can see that the difference between the achievements of the races is a neat parallel for the difference between the achievers at school and the under-achievers with learning difficulties.

Given that you normally acuse me of being 'the pc brigage' or at least part of it. Maybe you could find where I said no?

I said that it was entirely possible, but given that we can't define it (intelligence) we definitely can't measure it and thus we are in no position to say.

You simply use your cultural elitism to declare that your way is best and so that any culture that follows a different path must be doing so because of a lack of intelligence. A circular and self fulfilling argument.

This is amazing. People debate the meaning of the word intelligence, when the simple issue under discussion here is whether some cultures/races are brighter than others.

My bad. See, I thought the question was "Are all cultures intelligently equal?". Though poorly constructed, I felt that the OP was trying to ask if all cultures were as intelligent as each other and immediately wondered how it is possible to quantify intelligence.
Now a ‘culture’ is different to a ‘race’ - you're mixing the two in order to begin producing your extremely fascist views. Now this is fair enough, but why criticise those attempting to stay on topic? :loopy:

I give up trying to explain to the do-gooder PC brigade that some races are thick as a plank and others have varied gifts between their ears.

There have been various studies showing some races to be brighter than others, and some to be - on average - up to 40 points below Western Europeans. It's proven, and nomatter how much the liberals and those who cry 'racism' at every opportuniy dig their heads in the sand when presented with evidence, it's a simple fact of life.
That's why many countries never evolved a written language, or mathematics, or pushed technology beyond the stone age. And no, I'm not going to Google to find the references - last time did that I was (as ever) banned for the heresy of explaining that we're not all equal.

Give it up t020.

Given that you normally acuse me of being 'the pc brigage' or at least part of it. Maybe you could find where I said no?
I said that it was entirely possible, but given that we can't define it (intelligence) we definitely can't measure it and thus we are in no position to say.
You simply use your cultural elitism to declare that your way is best and so that any culture that follows a different path must be doing so because of a lack of intelligence. A circular and self fulfilling argument.
Perhaps you misinterpret me, in part at least. I don’t necessarily think that my, or the Western European, way is the best. Although I do believe in an elitist society – insomuch as I think hard work, ambition and talent should be rewarded, I don’t think that our society is necessarily ‘better’.

There are very many cultures around the world that differ wildly from ours, but their history, art, styles of living, working, building and philosophy are as right for them as ours are for us. However, there are other cultures out there that are backward, scarily so, primitive even, because the people of that culture have not evolved as far as we have and are not as bright.

Sheep dogs are bright – they’ve been bred that way. Good working dogs are used to breed better working dogs. The same applies to people. The forward-looking, inquisitive, exploring races have rewarded success of thought and inventiveness with positive selection and evolution, just as the animals and some of our close cousins have stayed with eat/survive/fight or flight, requiring more physical choices for breeding successful generations.

Pah. You've changed your tune. I was going to write something else, but I resisted.

Alright, for the sake of debate. Why should primitive civilisations be 'advanced' and become like the West ? There are many tribes out there in the world which are now preserved. They are also studied. The smarter tribes will try to avoid human contacts. As once Western diseases seep into their societies, they're practically killed. Even if you think that they are primitive, so what ? They are an entire civilisation/society in its own right. They live comfortably in their environment which allows them to survive. Basic survival skills at its simplistic model. They work with their environment so their foodchain balances. I don't think such societies are less 'intelligent'. Cos I'm sure they fit the Maslow's Hierarchy. On the contrary, they may even be more intelligent than us because they control their food chain, and also population growth.

A recent story about a certain tribe in Cuba (?) made it to the tv the other day. Now they are a preserved indigenious group by the World Heritage List (?) Or something like that. I think it was the "Mendes".

I think u ought to go and meet other ingenious groups of this world, and see how they fair after they've made contact with the Western world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indigenous_peoples

Visit Sweden and meet the Sami people. Or go to Canada and meet the Inuit descedents. See how they struggle to adapt into Western society. The only thing that keeps them going are being tourists attractions. Sometimes they're better off not being this 'half way house'. Not completely Westernised, and not completely a primitive tribe any more.

This is amazing. People debate the meaning of the word intelligence, when the simple issue under discussion here is whether some cultures/races are brighter than others.

The PC brigade, with their heads firmly in the sand, say no. No great surprise there.

Others keep their eyes open, and can see that the difference between the achievements of the races is a neat parallel for the difference between the achievers at school and the under-achievers with learning difficulties.

You give ammunition to "thick" white people who think they're superior to all blacks / asians etc with this kind of arguement.

You give ammunition to "thick" white people who think they're superior to all blacks / asians etc with this kind of arguement.
No, I've never suggested that. There are (clearly demonstrable) mean values which demonstrate the intellectual differences between the races, but it's just a case of where the centre of the normal distribution curve lies for each race.

There are many brilliant, gifted men and women of all colours and creeds. there are also many cretins of all colours and creeds - and I'd be the first to say that many of those are white baseball cap wearing chavs on the Manor.

However, we have to accept that the races are not all equal because the PC madness that generates 'equal opportunity employment' MUST take into account the relative abilities of average members of each ethnic group before forcing the major employers to take on population-representative numbers.

It can never fit a normal distribution curve. (Of standard intelligence across the board with standardised tests, and specific age groups etc.)

Alright, maybe I should take that back. You can force it to fit a normal dist. curve if you fudge the axises to correlate with evolution, and various other factors. It's just not very representative of the data.

I think u need to understand what 'equal opportunity' truly means. Again, employment laws govern the choices here. Whether you personally think a person fits the job or not is not irrelevant. (I'm sure you have strong opinions on this subject.) It's whether your employer thinks they fit the job. Some jobs standardise the recruitment process by bringing out psychometric testings. Not many British SME will use this method which are standard for blue-chip comps.

i think that we also need to determine if intelligence is the ability to adapt and survive within their environment. which would make some of the most academically backward societies the most intelligent.

for instance the average aborigine wouldn't be able to tell you a whole lot about science but the average scientist wouldn't last more than a few days in the outback

agreed, intelligence, intellect, is as mentioned previously, totally subjective, IQ tests, academics, are merely a way of quantifying ability to use a certain part of the mind.

look at aboriginal art, it may be viewed as fairly primitive, but the creative intricacies are stunning. To produce this kind of work requires a high level of creative 'intelligence'.

I think u need to understand what 'equal opportunity' truly means. Again, employment laws govern the choices here. Whether you personally think a person fits the job or not is not irrelevant. (I'm sure you have strong opinions on this subject.) It's whether your employer thinks they fit the job. Some jobs standardise the recruitment process by bringing out psychometric testings. Not many British SME will use this method which are standard for blue-chip comps.
For major employers like the Armed Forces and Police, EO means that we are pressured by the government to recruit percentages of minorites representative of the percentages in the UK population.
It doesn't take into account that some of those minorities are not interested in military careers, or that some of those minorites are on average not very capable - which results (as with the recent Police recruitment scandals) that sub-standard ethnic applicants are offered jobs while above-standard white applicants don't even get an interview.

That is morally wrong.

Our American friends have a fairly strong track record of executing (mostly poor and black, but that's another story) people who's intellect is in the range of children's.
Thank you Halibut.

Thank you.

i think that we also need to determine if intelligence is the ability to adapt and survive within their environment. which would make some of the most academically backward societies the most intelligent.

for instance the average aborigine wouldn't be able to tell you a whole lot about science but the average scientist wouldn't last more than a few days in the outback.
BUT think of the film Trading Places.

The scientist could learn the survival tricks in a few months. Bushcraft is not rocket-science, if you'll excuse the pun, and is easily learned. Funnily enough, we can teach military pilots enough to survive in a course of just 3 weeks long.

The aborigine simply would not be capable of coping with the role reversal.

I'll probably get flamed and/or pulled up by the Mods for this, but IMO some people in America still haven't learned intelligence yet.. :rant:

Some of them shouldn't be allowed Internet access that is a cert, Poppins is of course excluded from that analogy.

I think there are stupid and intelligent people everywhere, and that the distinction between the two is largely due to environmental considerations, mostly during childhood. E.g. Role models, importance placed on intelligence and learning, access to a varied environment, toys and educational material.

However, whoever's fault it is that a stupid person is stupid, the fact is that they are.

And I just plain don't like stupid people.

However, across cultures this becomes harder to define - it's easy to say who's intelligent (in whatever aspect - academic, physical, artistic etc.) and who isn't when comparing other members of our society, but the same values don't always apply elsewhere.

It's ridiculous to believe there are literally no genetic differences between the races other thasn skin color and bone structure, but becuase of cultural and economic factors it is difficult to measure.

One thing is for sure though, mixed race people like Brazilians where interracial breeding was encouraged years ago are better looking and can fight disease better despite many living in squalor.

There will be intellegent people and thick people within every culture. Though you could argue oppressive cultures are less likely to support and reward free thinking hence stuff is made in china but rarely invented in china. That's not to say their aren't intellegent people there.

But then all races in their countries of origin started off with nothing, some of these even had the head start with lush green landscpaes, animals for food and a ready supply of raw materials but never progressed, as others cultures had nothing but were far more advanced societies and civilised.

But then all races in their countries of origin started off with nothing, some of these even had the head start with lush green landscpaes, animals for food and a ready supply of raw materials but never progressed, as others cultures had nothing but were far more advanced societies and civilised.

you are looking at it from western eyes. some remote tribe will have skills you couldn't dream of and live at one with their surroundings. we exploit everything for personal gain and are quickly destroying our surroundings for relatively short term gain. there is definately intellegence, inovation, within our society but we seem to be lacking in wisdom and practical skills.

take away our infastructure and how clever do you really think you are?

It's ridiculous to believe there are literally no genetic differences between the races other thasn skin color and bone structure, but becuase of cultural and economic factors it is difficult to measure.
Why is it ridiculous? what genetic differences do you think there are?
One thing is for sure though, mixed race people like Brazilians where interracial breeding was encouraged years ago are better looking and can fight disease better despite many living in squalor.
Beauty is subjective so quite why you think this is anyone's guess. You have any evidence to back up your assertion that they 'fight disease better', and which particular diseases did you have in mind?

jb

But then all races in their countries of origin started off with nothing, some of these even had the head start with lush green landscpaes, animals for food and a ready supply of raw materials but never progressed, as others cultures had nothing but were far more advanced societies and civilised.

All 'races' ultimately started from the same place. Do you not think that once humanity had spread into many diverse environments that it would be the ones which were more challenging which would require more innovation for survival?

jb

ETA: Also, what do you mean by 'advanced' and 'civilised'?

no, ours is superior in many ways. its not perfect but its head and shoulders above most on the world who are where we were 50-500 years ago.

you are looking at it from western eyes. some remote tribe will have skills you couldn't dream of and live at one with their surroundings. we exploit everything for personal gain and are quickly destroying our surroundings for relatively short term gain. there is definately intellegence, inovation, within our society but we seem to be lacking in wisdom and practical skills.

take away our infastructure and how clever do you really think you are?

No the Chinese, Japanese and some other Asian cultures are far more advanced in a lot of ways than the west will probably ever be.

Greed is a human trait which ruined everything, some cultures could be more resourceful but that doesn't mean they are not still more innovative, creative than other cultures

Why is it ridiculous? what genetic differences do you think there are?

Beauty is subjective so quite why you think this is anyone's guess. You have any evidence to back up your assertion that they 'fight disease better', and which particular diseases did you have in mind?

jb

There's many differences in the way some collective tribes, cities, cultures prioritise their needs, wants and desires, all these factors have contributed to some nations advancing quicker than others.

there is a general consensus when it comes to beauty, and in the tests even babies senses where heightened when shown pictures of what is considered by many to be stunning looking people, good genes (models).

No the Chinese, Japanese and some other Asian cultures are far more advanced in a lot of ways than the west will probably ever be.

Greed is a human trait which ruined everything, some cultures could be more resourceful but that doesn't mean they are not still more innovative, creative than other cultures

In what sense of the word greed? (e.g. food/money/materials)

If you mean food, then it was an essential adaptation - we needed to eat as much as possible during times of prosperity to counter seasonal poverty. This trait didn't ruin everything, it kept people alive, and hence why we are here today. In modern western society, the substantial availability of high calorie food, and ease of access to it is more the reason to ruin our adaptations.

If you mean money, then similar to above, but sexual selection comes in to practice, whereby in our ancestry it would be advantageous for people (women) to choose sexual partners who could provide for offspring so that they would live long enough to produce offspring. Today we have so much money in the western world, that that is more the reason to ruin our adaptations.

If you mean materials, then that's a slightly different argument, since we are now a global world, rather than a small community.