Are some races just genetically more intelligent than others?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
If you really want the answer to this question, try google (like the above) and you'll find that from a genetic standpoint, the whole concept of race is a soundly debunked myth. Interesting to see how many AT'ers are still ignorant racists though!
Undeniably certain races are more or less susceptible to different illenesses. Some of this can be socioeconomic and how they eat, live, etc. but I think there are also other illnesses that target one race more than another simply because they are of that race.
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Undeniably certain races are more or less susceptible to different illenesses. Some of this can be socioeconomic and how they eat, live, etc. but I think there are also other illnesses that target one race more than another simply because they are of that race.
That is another misconception:
Misconceptions persist because of the belief that biological races exist in anatomically modern humans. Here are some of the common examples. Races differ in intellectual ability, morality and temperament. Races differ in athletic abilities. Races differ in sexual appetites, in particular that blacks are hypersexual. Races have specific diseases, thus membership in race with predict an individual's disease predisposition. Again, this is inconsistent with what we know about the genetic variation in humans, so if we apportion human genetic diversity there are 86% shared in all world populations. Every population in the world has these genes, but may have them at different frequency. Of these, 10% are unique to a given continent, and 4% are unique to a specific local population. People have said to me, 'Professor Graves, that means that if you have 4% that are unique to a specific population, couldn't you use those 4% to identify a race?' I said, yes, if you want to do it that way; you could. But that would mean that we've got about 2000 races in the human species because you can identify these 4% of rare alleles to specific geographical regions. What's the point in identifying any of them if you have so many? You would have races by every hilltop, every valley, every divide in a river. At that level, the whole idea breaks down.

Polymorphic genes are genes that vary in frequency. These are the genes that everybody does not have in common. These are genes that occur at loci where no single gene or allele has a frequency of greater of 99%. Some of the ones that have been best studied are disease, like phenylketonuria, Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and sickle cell anemia. A map showing the frequency of the allele for cystic fibrosis shows that it differs in various portions of Europe. There are four things that maintain these polymorphisms.

*The first is called balancing selection. That is also called heterozygous advantage. This explains sickle sell anemia. Though the origin of this allele is uncertain, we do know that it is distributed at high frequency in groups that have been anthropologically described Negroid, but also groups that have been described as anthropologically Caucasoid. There are high frequencies of the sickle cell allele in Western Africa, but also in the Middle East and in the Mediterranean and in India. The only reason we think that sickle cell is a black disease is because the slaves imported to North America came from Western Africa. If they had come from the Mediterranean, if they had been Greek, they would come from the Middle East, or if they had come from India, Americans would have been describing sickle cell anemia as an Indian disease or a Yemen disease or whatever. It is not a racially identified disease. It has to do with the presence or absence of malaria. For example, Kenyans, who live at high altitude, do not exhibit any sickle cell because the mosquitoes that carry malaria do not live at high altitude, so you do not find it there.

[edit: didn't get as much into the quote as I intended]
 

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
1
0
It is a possibility. I mean think about it. How many times is an Indian kid the smartest in the school?
 

mAdD INDIAN

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
7,804
1
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Very likely, and I won't get into it because a lot of people simply can't keep a straight head when talking about it because of PC. intelligence is considered by most a combination of nature and nurture. Nurture aside, nature/genetics do make up a portion of intelligence. Since there have been proven physical differences between certain races in regards to stature, physical strength, propensity to develop certain illnesses, etc. etc, I find it quite unlikely that physical differences there cannot or have not propogated themselves in peoples' brains as well.

If you take it further and follow survival of the fittest it seems to me that a ruthless tribe of people in one area of the world that has been around for 2000 years and favors strength above all else is going to be stronger than a tribe of people who favor a more cognitive approach to life including science and things of that sort.

I suspect that those who are quick to respond saying no are doing so not because they've thought about the issue in depth but because it's the PC response, and anything else can be deemed by those who know nothing about it as racist. That's my $.02!

Oops, I got into it ;)


It's doesnt have to do so much with race than it has to do with culture and traditions. It depends on the family and how they raise their children and what kind of work ehtic they show. From my expeirence here, i've noticed that parents don't really mind if their kid gets a C or a B. They are just happy he/she passed. With my family, I better be getting A+s!! If I get a 95 on a test, my dad will say wat happened to the other 5! Not to say he's not happy with my mark, but I shouldnt' be settling for a 95, when I can attain a 100. "Aim for the moon, you might at least reach for hte stars."

The other thing is, lots of teachers in CDN schools don't really push their students. I remember my guindance counselor in middle school telling my class that passing is enough. I was like wtf? That just contradicts everything my parents told me.

So to conclude, it depends on the individual family rather than the race. BUT, it seemsl ike certain races push education more than other things.
 

m2kewl

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2001
8,263
0
0
green ET pwnz asian, blacks, and whites!

/stirs up the flaming pot; runs quickly
 

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,218
8
81
i just have to wonder why the questions is being asked in the first place? What possible value could it serve?
 

bernse

Diamond Member
Aug 29, 2000
3,229
0
0
Originally posted by: Slammy1
Is the question:
Asians are gentically superior to caucasions?

I'd be willing to accept that... I'd also be willing to accept that their culture values education strongly and, as a result, they tend to study more and make a serious commitment to education. More than the lazy caucasions.

Yeah, but everyone knows that asians have small little dicks, right? :disgust:
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: bernse
Originally posted by: Slammy1
Is the question:
Asians are gentically superior to caucasions?

I'd be willing to accept that... I'd also be willing to accept that their culture values education strongly and, as a result, they tend to study more and make a serious commitment to education. More than the lazy caucasions.

Yeah, but everyone knows that asians have small little dicks, right? :disgust:

/me looks in his pants


shoot. i must be part asian :eek:
 

wfbberzerker

Lifer
Apr 12, 2001
10,423
0
0
while i think genetics plays a small role in intelligence, i think the major influence is definitely social, not genetic.
 

yellowperil

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2000
4,598
0
0
It's disturbing how many people are willing to believe that one race is genetically superior to another, when the confounding variables are so complex. In addition the 'tests' for intelligence are already biased towards Anglo culture. Really, I think it's just an excuse for peoples' prejudice and racism. There is not enough evidence to be conclusive about anything, yet people are willing to reach the most prejudicial conclusions. Why? How about waiting until the results are finally in (which may never happen), and giving the benefit of the doubt to equality in the meantime?
 

phatj

Golden Member
Mar 21, 2003
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: Slammy1
Is the question:
Asians are gentically superior to caucasions?

I'd be willing to accept that... I'd also be willing to accept that their culture values education strongly and, as a result, they tend to study more and make a serious commitment to education. More than the lazy caucasions.

On a completely unrelated note, do you think the Simpsons would have survived if they were a family of black people?

I take it you are an Asian *cough* elitist *cough* ?
"Caucasions" are lazy?? You're an asshat. I'll agree that Asians are typically a more intelligent race - but moreso book smart. Look at the social, economic, and political situations of Asian countries. Now look at those of Western European countries. Which did you say worked harder, was more dedicated, and more educated?

By the way, it is spelled Caucasian. I do not know what these "Caucasions" are that you speak of. Perhaps if you were more dedicated to your education you would know how to spell Caucasian.



 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: naddicott
What DNA says about human ancestry.
The Nazis, as everyone knows, justified the death camps on the grounds that Jews and Gypsies were genetically inferior?but what is less known is that the Nazis took their cue from eugenics legislation passed in the United States. Here, race is defined primarily by skin color. Since that's a genetic trait, the logic goes, race itself must be genetic, and there must be differences that are more than skin deep.

But that's not what modern genetics reveals. Quite the contrary, it shows that race is truly skin deep. Indeed, genetics undermines the whole concept that humanity is composed of ''races''?pure and static groups that are significantly different from one another. Genetics has proven otherwise by tracing human ancestry, as it is inscribed on DNA.
....
''white people'' do not share a common genetic heritage; instead, they come from different lineages that migrated from Africa and Asia. Such mixing is true for every race. ''All living humans go back to one common ancestor in Africa,'' explains Paabo. ''But if you look at any history subsequent to that,'' then every group is a blend of shallower pedigrees. So, he says, ''I might be closer in my DNA to an African than to another European in the street.'' Genetics, he concludes, ''should be the last nail in the coffin for racism.''
...
Over time, ''genetics will help beat down racist arguments,'' says Eric Lander, a world-renowned geneticist at M.I.T. ''But they will need to be beaten down, because they will keep coming up.''
If you really want the answer to this question, try google (like the above) and you'll find that from a genetic standpoint, the whole concept of race is a soundly debunked myth. Interesting to see how many AT'ers are still ignorant racists though!
;)

I think it would be fair to say that some cultures are better than others at raising their children intelligently (hence the preponderance of stupid people among the "white trash" subspecies, which more accurately could be labeled as "trailer trash").

Humm, interesting point. But still, if there's no such thing as "race" there would still have to be something similar. Otherwise, how does one explain things like sickle cell amnemia, a condition far more common in blacks than other population segments?

PS phatj, take a chill pill man; it's not worth getting worked up over ;)
 

Slammy1

Platinum Member
Apr 8, 2003
2,112
0
76
WARNING: The following post has been known to lower IQ. Re-read at own risk.

Originally posted by: phatj
Originally posted by: Slammy1
Is the question:
Asians are gentically superior to caucasions?

I'd be willing to accept that... I'd also be willing to accept that their culture values education strongly and, as a result, they tend to study more and make a serious commitment to education. More than the lazy caucasions.

On a completely unrelated note, do you think the Simpsons would have survived if they were a family of black people?

I take it you are an Asian *cough* elitist *cough* ?
"Caucasions" are lazy?? You're an asshat. I'll agree that Asians are typically a more intelligent race - but moreso book smart. Look at the social, economic, and political situations of Asian countries. Now look at those of Western European countries. Which did you say worked harder, was more dedicated, and more educated?

By the way, it is spelled Caucasian. I do not know what these "Caucasions" are that you speak of. Perhaps if you were more dedicated to your education you would know how to spell Caucasian.

 

Techie333

Platinum Member
Jan 20, 2001
2,368
0
0
This is a ridiculous thread......its not that we (asians) are genetically smarter, its that we work much harder like some have said.....also parents play a HUGE role! My parents have always been strict about education and I think it worked out for the better for me now because I don't have to worry at all about paying for college. Infact I make A HUGE sum for just going to college............almost like a career.............
 

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
1
0
I remember in Anthropology class, learning that there is no genetic intelligence difference between races, and that it's a nurture thing. Also, there is more genetic variability within a race than between races. Not sure what that means.
 

Slammy1

Platinum Member
Apr 8, 2003
2,112
0
76
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
I remember in Anthropology class, learning that there is no genetic intelligence difference between races, and that it's a nurture thing. Also, there is more genetic variability within a race than between races. Not sure what that means.

It means at we're all 99.999% the same, but people tend to focus on the 0.001% difference in an effort to show superiority.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,547
20,262
146
Originally posted by: Slammy1
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
I remember in Anthropology class, learning that there is no genetic intelligence difference between races, and that it's a nurture thing. Also, there is more genetic variability within a race than between races. Not sure what that means.

It means at we're all 99.999% the same, but people tend to focus on the 0.001% difference in an effort to show superiority.

We're 98.7 % the same as chimpanzees. Yet we focus on the 1.3% difference in an effort to show superiority.

:confused:
 

AmbitV

Golden Member
Oct 20, 1999
1,197
0
0
Originally posted by: LAUST
Originally posted by: Slammy1
Is the question:
Asians are gentically superior to caucasions?

I'd be willing to accept that... I'd also be willing to accept that their culture values education strongly and, as a result, they tend to study more and make a serious commitment to education. More than the lazy caucasions.
lol... so take Japan vs the UK then... please someone fill out this list for me who has the superior

Government
Economy
University's
Military

just start off with a light appetizer

Japan has a superior economy.

Governments are about the same.

UK has better known universities, and spends more on military.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
35,374
2,492
126
Originally posted by: vman


Japan has a superior economy.

Governments are about the same.

UK has better known universities, and spends more on military.

I thought I heard on the radio (some time ago, mind you) that Japan's economy was tanking because the government keeps pumping money into dying companies and the money is running out.
 

nan0bug

Banned
Apr 22, 2003
3,142
0
0
I believe it has more to do with socio-economic factors, but you won't catch me saying that's definately it. I've never cared enough to look into it.
 

nan0bug

Banned
Apr 22, 2003
3,142
0
0
Originally posted by: naddicott
What DNA says about human ancestry.
The Nazis, as everyone knows, justified the death camps on the grounds that Jews and Gypsies were genetically inferior?but what is less known is that the Nazis took their cue from eugenics legislation passed in the United States. Here, race is defined primarily by skin color. Since that's a genetic trait, the logic goes, race itself must be genetic, and there must be differences that are more than skin deep.

But that's not what modern genetics reveals. Quite the contrary, it shows that race is truly skin deep. Indeed, genetics undermines the whole concept that humanity is composed of ''races''?pure and static groups that are significantly different from one another. Genetics has proven otherwise by tracing human ancestry, as it is inscribed on DNA.
....
''white people'' do not share a common genetic heritage; instead, they come from different lineages that migrated from Africa and Asia. Such mixing is true for every race. ''All living humans go back to one common ancestor in Africa,'' explains Paabo. ''But if you look at any history subsequent to that,'' then every group is a blend of shallower pedigrees. So, he says, ''I might be closer in my DNA to an African than to another European in the street.'' Genetics, he concludes, ''should be the last nail in the coffin for racism.''
...
Over time, ''genetics will help beat down racist arguments,'' says Eric Lander, a world-renowned geneticist at M.I.T. ''But they will need to be beaten down, because they will keep coming up.''
If you really want the answer to this question, try google (like the above) and you'll find that from a genetic standpoint, the whole concept of race is a soundly debunked myth. Interesting to see how many AT'ers are still ignorant racists though!
;)

I think it would be fair to say that some cultures are better than others at raising their children intelligently (hence the preponderance of stupid people among the "white trash" subspecies, which more accurately could be labeled as "trailer trash").


Interesting point, and I'm glad you brought that up. It is very easy for people to replace 'culture' with 'race' when both have totally different meanings.

 

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Slammy1
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
I remember in Anthropology class, learning that there is no genetic intelligence difference between races, and that it's a nurture thing. Also, there is more genetic variability within a race than between races. Not sure what that means.

It means at we're all 99.999% the same, but people tend to focus on the 0.001% difference in an effort to show superiority.

We're 98.7 % the same as chimpanzees. Yet we focus on the 1.3% difference in an effort to show superiority.

:confused:

And we are like 90% the same as.. some much lower level creatures. I don't think genetic percentages mean much.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
If one race is smarter then the adavatage would be gone with in a few generations smarter people bread less then stupid people gring down the average. I don't think the reason you see asains at the top the class alot is because they are smart they just haven't figured out that doing all the homework assigned in class is pointless.