Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (15478)	1/3/2002 10:11:53 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Maurice Winn; Re: "Honest, I do not see any difference in "IQ" amongst the races. ... Well, the Bell Curve book does prove you wrong. ... Since IQ is a function of DNA [some people still are unaware than DNA has a dominant effect on IQ - yet they seem to accept that they can't educate their family dog to get into Mensa], it's obvious that there will be group drift in IQ just as there is in any other DNA variable. That's just how DNA drift works." This is way off topic, except to the extent that it illustrates the fact that humans have an infinite number of ways of considering themselves superior to their neighbors, and that foreign relations will therefore always be complicated by (illogical) pride. While twin studies have shown that IQ is dominated by DNA effects (around 50% of variance, if my memory serves correctly), and while it is true that different races have different average IQs (no more than 10% of variance, if I recall correctly), it *doesn't necessarily follow that the different races have different average IQs because of DNA differences.* Here's why: (1) While IQ is dominated by DNA, the environmental effect is considerable. In fact, I believe the environmental contribution is much larger than the differences between racial averages. As an example of this, over the past 100 years the average IQ of each race has increased, and by much more than the amount you'd expect from DNA changes. In fact, most of the racial IQ believers would predict that stupid people are out breeding the smart people and that the average IQ should therefore be going down. But the reverse is the case. This just shows how dependent the averages are on the non dominant contributions. (2) There's a very strong positive correlation between the environments that are conducive to raising high IQ children and the races that have higher IQs. In other words, it's not as if blacks are all sending their children to the preschool reading lessons &c. that the high IQ types are. This probably explains all differences between the races. Let me explain this argument again. You don't need to use a difference in DNA between the races to explain the differences in average IQ. You only need to explain away about a 10% difference in variation, but far more than 10% of the variation in IQ is unexplained by DNA differences. If you really want to see big differences in IQ between races, all you have to do is arrange for certain races to be raised in very, very, very deprived environments. Since that is the case that obtains in our world, why would we be surprised to see racial differences in IQ? Humans are unnaturally, bizzarely intelligent. If you look at humans from an alien point of view to think that this band of savages would be able to crack the structure of the universe is very strange. Scientists believe that they understand all the basic physical forces that allow life to exist, but my guess is that they are missing some very big pieces, and it is possible that those pieces help explain the puzzle that average IQs continue to increase with time. In other words, is it really true that by the time you've bred an animal smart enough to make rocks into arrow heads, is it also necessarily true that you've bred an animal capable of cracking the atom? It appears to me that having high intelligence makes it less likely that a person will succeed in most occupations. It's a matter of too much of a good thing. In addition, I've noticed that people who are obviously stupid have ways of compensating for the deficit. For example, if you divided engineers into two groups, according to how well they kept notes of their work, I'd bet that you'd find that the ones who made more careful and complete notes were slightly slower than the ones who were sloppier. -- Carl

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (15478)	1/3/2002 10:12:20 PM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 281500

Well, the Bell Curve book does prove you wrong. Hordes of tests have been done sufficient to prove differences. LOL. well it sure does show you need a real education. I have not read your post yet in detail but I will. I am really squirming here thinking you maybe right. LOL btw, even if you are right, and I mean this in a good KIWI way.. NO BIG DEAL.. I will admit I am wrong.