Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
This should be a fun thread.
My take:
It's a human fantasy to believe that we are all equal, or have equal potential. Genetics probably do play a role in intelligence, but we won't be able to separate it from cultural impact any time soon.
Viper GTS
Yes.
I would add that since we know there is a genetic component to intelligence and we all achknowledge that there are genetic differences between races, which are known to manifest in ways such as appearance and also propensity to certain illnesses, response to certain stresses, etc. it's simply asinine to assume that these racial differences do not also enter the realm of intelligence. Especially when any evidence in these issues generally finds it, even though it is later "debunked" by people looking to find holes in the test methodology, since they are unwilling to accept its findings.
It's bullcrap to think that whole races/population groups are inferior intelligence wise. You're essentially saying that nature accounts for the majority, if not all, of intelligence while nuture accounts for a much smaller piece.
No, you're saying it accounts for some percentage, as it likely does. I don't see anything bullcrappy about that!
Can you give me concrete examples of certain races being better or worse at something that cannot be chalked up to differences in environment? I'm even being easy on you here, because you can use physical things like sports that are infinitely easier to measure then something like intelligence. Even with sports though, I think you will be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that genetics is the deciding factor over environment.
They are an influencing one. Case in point being Kenyan endurance runners. Specific tribes in Kenya have a disproportionate representation in the international arena of endurance sports that is not answerable merely by culture. In the book "The Lore of Running", the best book I've ever read on running and citing thousands of references throughout on its various topics, the author quite capably refers to several studies that indicate to a reasonable person that Kenyans from these particular tribes are better suited to endurance running than, say, the average White person. The best runners combine God-given talent with intense training, but the numbers lead one to the conclusion that if you take 100 Kenyans from these particular tribes and 100 people from London and throw them off on an island from birth with the same lifestyle, the Kenyans will be better runners. I don't have the book in front of me, you'll have to take my word for it, but the myth that Kenyans are such good runners because they have to run around from childhood is one regularly given and simply inaccurate. The author of this book contends the genetic difference is because these particular Kenyan tribes may have bred their slower individuals out because through their history, efficient movement over distances has been an influential factor in their ability to succeed.
Anyway, Asians, for instance, are shorter than Blacks as a whole (clearly beyond culture; they are genetically set to be shorter) and so will find benefit/detriment in particular sports as well.
So I guess as an answer, if such a thing were possible it would make sense. I think that in reality it is so improbable and rife with potential for errors and abuse that it's simply not worth talking about. Everyone knows that individuals aren't equal to one another, there's just no way that we can measure it accurately enough to make decisions without wasting far more resources on the testing then we are wasting on the presumption of equality.
That may be true. We don't know, either