• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Black-White-East Asian IQ differences at least 50% **

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Koing, the bottom line remains the same - the presence of a general trend in observable differences does not equivocate a GENETIC change..
Click to expand...

I've notice that the trend among "PC" people is to use this kind of logic:

Just because it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck does NOT necessarily mean that it's a duck. Therefore it's not a duck.

You can see that such logic is ridiculous.

You're saying that the presence of a trend in observable performance differences does not equivocate a genetic change. You're right- it doesn't equivocate a genetic change. But it also doesn't rule it out as a possibility, and compared to the various, inconsistent, far fetched alternative possibilities you gave, it does seems more likely to be the reason.

I believe in statistics. While the "PC" crowd likes to point out that statistics usually use approximations and aren't 100% accurate, they are pretty damn accurate and the more samples you have, the more accurate the statistic gets. The PC crowd doesn't seem to have much faith in math or science, they say do what sounds good. If you ask them, they'll usually use the exception as an example and not the rule. If I was trying to prove that group A has a 95% predisposition to activity A and showed how 95 out of 100 people did in fact follow this observation, the PC crowd would use the 5 exceptions to prove that my theory is wrong. That's just not very scientific reasoning.

Like I've said to Dijobi, I don't think that race is an accurate classification because it's too general, but I do think that regional genetics do play a large role.
 
from what i remember even black kids in well off neighborhoods do less well than their white counterparts. probably something to do with culture too. then again i vaguely remember an adoption study that blacks adopted by whites do better than their black parented counterparts. still not as well as white adoptees though.
 
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Koing, studies were done on Kenyan and European runners to see if there were muscular differences and the study concluded that the difference in performance was due to TRAINING style and not any sort of genetic differences.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true. They have found that there are anatomical differences in Kenyan/Ethiopian runners, namely that they have more of an enzyme that breaks down lactase that you get when you fatigue.

Text


The interesting part is that if you think about the top runners in the world, you are literally comparing the performance of several DOZEN individuals - not thousands upon thousands, as you would think. Remember, this is where the difference between first and second place is determined in the hundredths of a second, where the winner gets all the glory and the second fastest person is just a memory. You can say that it's genetic, but the problem is that there is NO genetic evidence for it because we can't pinpoint any particular gene and say "well, this gene clearly will make this individual a superstar runner."
Click to expand...

This argument is misleading. You're saying that there's only several dozen "top" runners in the world. This isn't quite true. There are thousands of runners, and only a certain number of them are good enough to be considered a "top" runner. But the fact that the Kenyans dominate should tell you that it's not just an individual thing that's related to them just "training harder". How come nobody else can train harder? Why is it that in Kenya, they all seem to be able to train harder than other nationalities? And if they are so good at training hard, why is their dominance limited to endurance events?

The writing is on the wall for those open-minded enough to accept it. It's not just one or two Kenyan guys who dominate, there are loads of Kenyan runners who dominate the competitions.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Koing, I've screamed RACE DOES NOT BIOLOGICALLY EXIST from the rooftops in the last seven million posts I've made but you're still intent on reading race into everything, it seems.

I have nothing more to say. I've said what I intended to say.
Click to expand...

I'm not hell bent on it. I'm just saying there are differences. 91TTZ has put it better then me. Maybe we shouldn't call it a race thing but there are certainly differences.

It is just a friendly discussion.

Koing

 
Haha, people in general are dumb. Especially the ones who see certain subjects and are automatically opposed to any rational analysis of the statistics.
 
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Koing, the bottom line remains the same - the presence of a general trend in observable differences does not equivocate a GENETIC change..
Click to expand...

I've notice that the trend among "PC" people is to use this kind of logic:

Just because it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck does NOT necessarily mean that it's a duck. Therefore it's not a duck.

You can see that such logic is ridiculous.

You're saying that the presence of a trend in observable performance differences does not equivocate a genetic change. You're right- it doesn't equivocate a genetic change. But it also doesn't rule it out as a possibility, and compared to the various, inconsistent, far fetched alternative possibilities you gave, it does seems more likely to be the reason.

I believe in statistics. While the "PC" crowd likes to point out that statistics usually use approximations and aren't 100% accurate, they are pretty damn accurate and the more samples you have, the more accurate the statistic gets. The PC crowd doesn't seem to have much faith in math or science, they say do what sounds good. If you ask them, they'll usually use the exception as an example and not the rule. If I was trying to prove that group A has a 95% predisposition to activity A and showed how 95 out of 100 people did in fact follow this observation, the PC crowd would use the 5 exceptions to prove that my theory is wrong. That's just not very scientific reasoning.

Like I've said to Dijobi, I don't think that race is an accurate classification because it's too general, but I do think that regional genetics do play a large role.
Click to expand...

Regional populations genetic patterns do exist, as opposed to the artificial term "race", but then these patterns only changes gradually between neighboring populations.

The problem is that physical attributes can readily be observed, but when it comes to IQ test, its score will be influenced by many variables, not just genetic differences between groups of people.

IQ test can only predict one's potential in life, not how successful that person will become in life.
 
If I was trying to prove that group A has a 95% predisposition to activity A and showed how 95 out of 100 people did in fact follow this observation, the PC crowd would use the 5 exceptions to prove that my theory is wrong.
Click to expand...
haha, exactly. People use the same reasoning when you talk about smoking and dying early: "My great uncle lived to 102 and smoked a pack a day, so there's no link with smoking and dying early." I really wonder how the hell these people have lived so long and remain so fvcking stupid.
 
If we change this thread's definition from "Race" to "Regional Genetics" then we could have a real... albeit useless and irrelevant discussion on differences. But everyone is so hell bound and determined to categorize people by such broad racial categories, it's just lame. And I'm not trying to play semantic PC game here... if you read the posts above there is a logical and clear explanation by several people as to why having this discussion in terms of "race" is invalid.

-Max
 
Is anyone else tired of the ridiculous banter back and forth between ignorant people on all sides of the "race" war. When will there be a thread that can be discussed purely on fact and theory, not stupidity and hatred.
 
This is wrong. There definitely used to be, pre-1985 (I believe). But now the SATS are simply a matter of how well educated you are. Someone with an IQ of 100 that went to the best schools may score higher then someone with an IQ of 120 that didnt care about school. The SATS measure innate cognitive abilities whereas the SATS measure your ability to complete basic tasks that were learned in HS.

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: Doboji
How many times do I have to repeat myself.... SAT scores are a reflection of education not of intelligence.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a pretty concrete link between IQ and SAT scores. The groups that do the best on IQ tests also do the best on the SAT's.

In fact, the rankings for IQ are identical to the rankings for SAT scores.

IQ tests, SAT tests, ACT tests, in fact any standardized tests, measure one's capability to produce the correct answers. These results indelibly rank the individual in comparison with other individuals who take the same test. A person who has superior intellect will find the questions easier than a person who finds thinking his weakpoint, and he's more likely to produce the correct answer. Apply that probability to a few hundred questions on the test, and you'll arrive at a pretty accurate conclusion.

That's why it's no surprise that people who score the best on one cognitive test will score the best on another cognitive test. These tests measure one's brainpower, after all, and the results will be pretty consistent. That individual's score will reveal his aptitude.

Here's an article that talks about this: link
Click to expand...

 
HmMmm... interesting... but utterly misleading and false in the end.

Even if we are to take that info into account, and exclude social and ecconmic issues...

What does a race with a higher IQ on average mean?
Smarter people? More intellegent?

Resourcefullness, empathy, ethics, morallity, and a host of other HUMAN factors influence ``Smartness`` & ``Intellegence``?

Look at the world we are in today? The new ways of suffering, the new types of illness, the lose of individuallity, the decay of humanity...

Does IQ really have a impact on resolving these issues, or has it been a contributing factor if it is not used in combination with the other HUMAN factors...

IQ may allow us to create a better Bomb... but our humanity should allow us to attain peace without using it, ey?

but... that just my view.. I could be wrong... although I am in the highest IQ race according to that article...lol
 
intelligence is a crux..believe me you want no part of it..🙂

Besides it has little to do with success. I think the Edison quote about 1% inspiration 99% perspiration rings true.


And finally I see the Asian "model minority myth" being perpetrated again here. Selection sample is the flaw, only from the elite and educated that made it here is flawed, just like financial demographics for them are. We have the richest, the smartest, the educated, the upperclass here in the united states; not the worst, the dumbest, the poorest, who remain behind.
 
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: Doboji


Bah... you're just plain wrong. The physical differences between races are so incredibly slight as to be insignificant. Only when you get to the absolute peak of performance do you begin to see any discernable difference (professional athletes). And even then you see plenty of white people who can sprint just as fast, or jump just as high as black people and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

Actually this is completely incorrect. The difference is huge and overwhelming. In sprinting, the field is completely dominated by black (of Western african descent) athletes. In the 100m dash, the entire Olympic qualifying field was black... as it has been for the last *25 years*.

Plenty of people have run the 100 meter dash in under 10 seconds. This isn't exactly a record anymore as each year you have people doing it. Want to know how many white sprinters managed to do it? Zero. Not a single white guy, ever, has been able to run that fast. Many have tried of course, but none have succeeded.

And on the other side of Africa the people are built totally differently. People from a tiny region of Kenya totally dominates long-distance races. If all else was equal, the makeup of winners would closely resemble the makeup of the entrants. The spread would be even and equal. But it isn't. You see the cream of the crop rising to the top, showing their genetic superiority at that task. Many people are trying, but only a few are succeeding.

The same applies to intelligence.... IF there is a difference here, it would only be apparant at the absolute extreme levels of intelligence. As 99.9999999% of people never come anywhere close to educating themselves up to their intelligence potential, education is really the only relevant factor when comparing intelligence.
Click to expand...

This is also incorrect. We're not talking about a miniscule difference that's fractions of a hundreth of a percentage point. We're talking very significant percentages. When you look at the probability of an Asian to score a 1500 on the SAT, and a black person to score 1500 on the SAT, the probability difference is astounding.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that people from different regions are, well, different. It doesn't make them any better or worse of a human being, but people from different areas are optimized for different tasks.
Click to expand...


You're wrong. Nicolas Macrozonaris ran it in under 10. Again selection. Whites do not gravitate twards sprinting, or athletics so much anymore...prolly to busy spaming the web with garbage like this, talking sh1t instead of doing sh1t. In fact, the white sprinters from the 60's and 70's where closer to breaking the 10-second barrier than today's white sprinters. And that's w/o the drugs w/o modern training techniques.

Pietro Mennea, white, held the 200m for 20 yrs and is still ranked 2nd, till broken by Johnson in 1996.


 
Way to bring back segregation and petty race competition which really serves no purpose I can think of.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Way to bring back segregation and petty race competition which really serves no purpose I can think of.
Click to expand...

Huh? Who brought back segregation? You're the one that brought this thread from the dead, trying to re-ignite an old fire.

I've already said everything I had to say in the thread. You missed your chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top