Mention of Race?

Mortmain

Why, when recounting experiences e.g. "I came home the other day to find my house being broken into by..." do people always find the need to mention the race of the person involved - Mexican, Romanian (who seems to be any Eastern European, Nigerian (any African) etc. Yet when it comes to an Irish person, they just say "scumbag"

Any thoughts?

The Free Man

what i believe is that everybody is stereotypical and hypocritical.......

celticwarriorjb

great another race thread, fantastic. I predict Everyones gonna say how they dont refer to people by their race, but everyone else does and everyone else is really racist but not them.

SparkyLarks

If they say I came home to find my house being broken into by a man are they being sexist.

People always try to classify people. If it was an Albino they would probalby tell you this fact. If it was a buisness man they would probably tell you that. Race is an easily identifiable characteristic. If a person with a wooden leg and parrot had broken into their housem, the'd probably say my house was broken into by a pirate.
You only hear about other races becasue if no extra information is given you assume irish. If I hear that two people robbed a bank, i'll assume they are irish, because the chances are they are irish, we have a lot of irish people living in this country. If more information is given then I might know there not Irish or are pirates or whatever.

If a mexican did break into your house however
To say My house was broken into by a mexican is not a racist comment. It is mearly providing more information to whoever you are telling, you might also say they were massive or short or fat, is that sizist, you might even say that they were gorgeous. you might say they wer wearing jeans.

If I came home to Salma Hayek robbing my house I might say , this gorgeous mexican broke into my house. I might even say Salma Hayek broke into my house, all to provide whoever I am telling with more information.

Zombrex

SparkyLarks wrote:

People always try to classify people.

True,

Even if a country like the UK or USA where the nation is more dirverse when it comes to ethnic origin than Ireland it would still be not uncommon to use race as one of the first things to say to the police. For example if I was black, lived in a largly black neighbourhood of New York, and was broken into by a white guy I might say to the police he was "tall, white, black hair". The fact that he was white would probably stick out in my mind.

If I was on the other hand robbed by a black guy I might not think to mention that straight away because it would not stick out as out of the ordinary, my ordinary, that he was black.

Racism only comes from the assumptions made based on knowing the skin colour. If you say "it was a black guy" and the police go out pull over the first random black guy they find, that is racist.

MrJoeSoap

SparkyLarks wrote:

If I came home to Salma Hayek robbing my house I might say , this gorgeous mexican broke into my house. I might even say Salma Hayek broke into my house, all to provide whoever I am telling with more information.

Wonderful, wonderful analogy!

Dades

Mortmain wrote:

Why, when recounting experiences e.g. "I came home the other day to find my house being broken into by..." do people always find the need to mention the race of the person involved - Mexican, Romanian (who seems to be any Eastern European, Nigerian (any African) etc. Yet when it comes to an Irish person, they just say "scumbag"

Any thoughts?

Mortmain (we meet again )

How would you describe, say, an "Oriental" thief to the first person you spoke to?

Isn't it more racist to refrain from describing someone using the charateristic that distinguishes them more than any other? Isn't that the same thing as saying races are inequal?

In a make-believe world where racism had never been heard of, would it still not be okay to describe a thief by their colouration?

Mortmain

The Atheist wrote:

Mortmain (we meet again )

How would you describe, say, an "Oriental" thief to the first person you spoke to?

Isn't it more racist to refrain from describing someone using the charateristic that distinguishes them more than any other? Isn't that the same thing as saying races are inequal?

In a make-believe world where racism had never been heard of, would it still not be okay to describe a thief by their colouration?

Thank God for Atheists! (followed your directions and ended up here)

I suppose that what I was trying to get at is why should it matter what the thiefs race was in the first place? Why do we feel the need to classify people? I wasn't trying to insinuate that anyone who does this is in some way racist - merely that it seems, to me, strange that this is one of the first items of information that people offer when recounting such experiences.

When it comes to your I have yet to hear of a white person (regardless of what country they live in) refer to being mugged/robbed etc. by 'a white guy', the same also goes for black people, oriental people, hispanics etc. this only seems to arise when there is an interracial element - what is it about society that makes us deem this important. Is it something we become unknowingly conditioned to do? I can't say I haven't done it myself.

Macmorris

Mortmain wrote:

what is it about society that makes us deem this important. Is it something we become unknowingly conditioned to do? I can't say I haven't done it myself.

I would think it has very little to do with social conditioning. It's more likely to be a genetic adaption to living in groups. Human beings are a tribal species. We evolved in small tribal groups where being able to distinguish between in-groups and out-groups would have been an important part of tribe's survival. It's no surprise therefore that the first thing we identify in strangers is how foreign they are.

The fact that people are quick to identify the race of someone just shows as well how misguided people are who say that race doesn't exist. If race doesn't exist why does it seem to play such an important part in the way that people identify themselves and others?

nobodythere

Human beings have always survived through groups, it's evolution. It's perfectly natural to treat others as outsiders simply because where they came from. However, what's always natural isn't always right.

Does anyone else believe that the human race is NATURALLY racist? Not to say that we naturally believe people of other races are inferior, but that we treat them as outsiders? I for one have had to fight against natural racist inclinations...

Mortmain

grasshopa wrote:

Does anyone else believe that the human race is NATURALLY racist? Not to say that we naturally believe people of other races are inferior, but that we treat them as outsiders? I for one have had to fight against natural racist inclinations...

This is what I was getting at, and yes I do belive that we have natural predisposition towards racism. Perhaps it's a hangover to our more tribal days, perhaps it's a result of more recent human developments. Surely though, in todays Globally integrated societies, the race of any particular person should be assuming less importance - yet it's there. I too have to fight against a natural inclination to classify according to race on some occassions.

It comes down to the nature v's nurture debate, I suppose - personally I don't belive that it's a genetic issue, I'm much more of the opinion that it is socially created. To be honest, I would be most interested in people's opinions on whether or not this cycle can or will be broken?, will we ever live in a society where race is deemed insignificant?

Hagar

Watch "The Bill" for example, "the burgler was an IC2 male". That specifies the race clearly to a policeman , in The Bill of course. It is common for police forces to have a description convention to identify a person's race without saying the actual words.

It is not racist to specify a person's race to identify a suspect involved in a crime.

If I was mugged / burgled by a black guy, asian guy that's exactly what I would tell the Gardaí. This would greatly reduce their workload as they could ignore the major part of the population who aren't black or asian. The same applies to being mugged by white scumbag, the Gardaí could then ignore all non-scumbag types, this would naturally include all blacks, asians etc as they wouldn't fit the profile.

The world has gone PC made. Being non-white doesn't make you an angel any more than being white does.

nobodythere

Every time I hear something like a foreigner robbing an Irish guy I suddenly feel like I have a pitch fork in my hand going "THEM FECKIN FOREIGNERS COMING IN HERE AND TAKING OUR JOBS!".

Gotta pose the question: Has anyone here NOT had to fight against natural racist inclinations?

We grew up in a TV world where every black guy is a thug or a break-dancer (the latter being worse of course). I still have this image in my head that the majority of thugs in America are black people, yet I have never seen a non-fictional example of this at all. In a sense I think that at the very least, the media has created this division and separation. And if the stereotype is true, it's not because black people are less intelligent, but because they've been kept in the ghettos for so long. The racism didn't end with the Martin Luther King.

In Galway, I grew up in a world afraid of travellers. If someone stole your taxi, your mother would say "oh the travellers stole it". You stayed away from the travellers in your school because it meant getting your ass kicked. I went 15/16 years without ever having a good encounter with a traveller (and one of them stole our fookin Buckfast last night!) and I HATED them... by which I mean I feared them. I'm dying to know what sort of world they've grown up in that makes them lash out at everything...

I remember watching a video in religion class about the Apartheid governnment and how one set of parents said that if their child married a black man they would disown her. This seems so incomprehensible to us, but what would yer mammy say if you brought a traveller home?

Generally around the streets of Galway the black people stay with the black people and the white people with the white people. This doesn't have anything to do with racism, but because no white people in galway have an opportunity to meet black people. When I'm walking past a primary school on my way into town I have to stop and watch them all play because it's a sight I've never seen before. About 30% of the kids are black. And they all play freely with each other.

With regards to these black awards etc etc, I don't believe that you inherit the actions of your ancestors. If your 'people' have been opressed by former generations, it does not give you the right to oppress the descendents of the oppressors. Judging who your people are simply by the colour of their skin is RACISM.

To not be racist we have to judge people as individuals. It pisses me off to hear this **** about retaliating against '800 years of oppression'. It's BULL****. This oppression was not against you and any retaliation you can give will not hurt the oppressors at all. I'm sick of people trying to identify with causes and power trip groups just so they can feel like they have a purpose. It's a pity we can't break the barriers between accents and skin colour and shake hands as human beings

rubadub

It is being descriptive rather than racist. In mexico the burgled guy would say to his mates he was burgled by a "el scumbago" it was a mexican or a white guy (or gringo) if it was a caucasian. You are just telling a story and adding detail. If the guy had no leg it would not offend similar people if you mentioned it.

Now if I said my house was robbed by a caucasian I doubt anybody would accuse me of being racist.

Macmorris

Hagar wrote:

If I was mugged / burgled by a black guy, asian guy that's exactly what I would tell the Gardaí. This would greatly reduce their workload as they could ignore the major part of the population who aren't black or asian. The same applies to being mugged by white scumbag, the Gardaí could then ignore all non-scumbag types, this would naturally include all blacks, asians etc as they wouldn't fit the profile.

The world has gone PC made. Being non-white doesn't make you an angel any more than being white does.

I agree completely. It's worth remembering as well that racial profiling has been used against white criminals just as effectively as it has against black criminals. I remember reading that the first case of racial profiling in America was used to track down some white serial killer. I don't think many white people complained of racism at the time.

grasshoppa wrote:

I still have this image in my head that the majority of thugs in America are black people, yet I have never seen a non-fictional example of this at all.

I find that very hard to believe.

And if the stereotype is true, it's not because black people are less intelligent, but because they've been kept in the ghettos for so long.

But the evidence indicates that black people are less intelligent than white people. The evidence also indicates a strong correlation between low intelligence and criminal and thuggish behaviour. It means that statistically, because of their low-intelligence, blacks are more likely to be involved in crime and other forms of anti-social behaviour.

Mortmain

Macmorris wrote:

But the evidence indicates that black people are less intelligent than white people. The evidence also indicates a strong correlation between low intelligence and criminal and thuggish behaviour. It means that statistically, because of their low-intelligence, blacks are more likely to be involved in crime and other forms of anti-social behaviour.

Yup, that Martin Luther King sure was one dumb son of a b*tch :rolleyes: - I really hope that you're just trying to raise a response.

aidan_walsh

Macmorris wrote:

But the evidence indicates that black people are less intelligent than white people. The evidence also indicates a strong correlation between low intelligence and criminal and thuggish behaviour. It means that statistically, because of their low-intelligence, blacks are more likely to be involved in crime and other forms of anti-social behaviour.

So you're black then?

Hagar

aidan_walsh wrote:

So you're black then?

I doff my cap to you sir.:D

Macmorris

Mortmain wrote:

Yup, that Martin Luther King sure was one dumb son of a b*tch :rolleyes:

No, I'm sure he was very intelligent, but I was talking about average group differences. On average, black people have lower IQs than white people. It doesn't mean that every black man is less intelligent than every white man, just that most white men are more intelligent than most black men. Of course there are exceptions, but the exceptions only prove the rule. Just as there are some women who are taller than the average men, most women are smaller than the average man. I don't think anyone has a problem with the proposition that men are taller than women. Why should it be any different when making the same kind of claim about racial differences?

I really hope that you're just trying to raise a response.

I was just making the point that there are other reasons besides white racism and poverty that explain why black people commit so much crime. It's a verifiable fact that people with low IQs commit more crime than people with average IQs. There's nothing racist about pointing that out. It applies to all ethnic groups, to white people just as much as black people.

Dades

Macmorris wrote:

On average, black people have lower IQs than white people.

I wonder if you're going to be banned again for this.

It appears a couple of days worth of rants have disappeared.
Pain in the butt.

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

On average, black people have lower IQs than white people.

Yes but IQ tests have been widely, and for sometime, been dismissed as a reflection of intelligence. As my science teacher in school said, having a high IQ means you are good a IQ tests.

Also, "intelligence" is not a single attribute like "height" or "weight". It cannot be pinned down in something as definiate as an IQ number. Classically, intelligence is often attributed to acedemic excellence in a particular field. A professor of computer science would probably be considered intelligent. But my mother loves telling the story of a professor in the 70s that was a friend of her family who was quite weird, had very little social graces and very little cop-on for situations around him, who put his hand into boiling water to get out a egg that he was cooking for breakfast. So is he intelligent? He can be award acedemic medals in his field but doesn't properly realise or understand one of the most basic fundamentals of physics, namely things get very hot when heated.

Another example would be someone like a football player. Now the general stereotype is that footballers are a bit thick. They often leave school early or with limited education to focus on football. But most professional footballers have incrediable visual and spacial awareness, can carry out complex plays and moves and antispiate well in advance actions and reactions. But would you consider a footballer as intelligent as a chess player?

Macmorris wrote:

I was just making the point that there are other reasons besides white racism and poverty that explain why black people commit so much crime.

A number of assumptions here.

Firstly the link between poverty and crime in America explains far better the incarraration rates of blacks than IQ scores. The vast majority of blacks in American prisions are not there because of violent crimes, they are there because of drug related crimes. And the link between drugs and poverty are well established. If you look at a country such as Ireland, with a tiny population of black people, you see the same pattern of higher incarraration of the poor for drug crime. Also the statistics of blacks committing violent crime fall way often with black young adults who leave inner city areas. Do all of them suddenly get smarter? So it has very little to do with them being black, and a lot to do with them being poor.

Secondly, black people don't commit "so much crime". You are far far more likely to commit white collar crimes such as fraud, blackmail etc if you are a white american. And taking into account population spread, if you are white you are far more likely to simply break the law in the USA. So by your (flawed) logic, being white makes you more likely to disregard the rule of law in America (which is nonsense, I use it to point out the flaws in your sweeping assumptions).

Macmorris

The Atheist wrote:

I wonder if you're going to be banned again for this.

Damn it, why did you have to say anything? I was hoping to piss them off by just continuing on as though nothing had happened. I'm not holding out much hope though. The global war to save the world from racism isn't likely to come to an end because of some technical glitch. At least it gives me a chance to respond.

Wicknight wrote:

Also, "intelligence" is not a single attribute like "height" or "weight". It cannot be pinned down in something as definiate as an IQ number.

It's true that intelligence is something that is very difficult to define but I think of intelligence as some general overall factor that is a sort of average of different kinds of intelligence.

Another example would be someone like a football player. Now the general stereotype is that footballers are a bit thick. They often leave school early or with limited education to focus on football. But most professional footballers have incrediable visual and spacial awareness, can carry out complex plays and moves and antispiate well in advance actions and reactions. But would you consider a footballer as intelligent as a chess player?

That's a valid point. Most people accept that there are different kinds of intelligence, but I still think that there is such a thing as an overall level of intelligence.

The best way to think of the measurement of intelligence would be to compare it to measurement of physical strength. Two men may be strong in different ways but one might be just stronger overall than the other one. A cyclist may have stronger leg muscles than a boxer for example, and a boxer may have bigger biceps than the cyclist but does that mean they are both equally strong and that their different strengths perfectlly cancel each other out? I would think that one of them would probably be stronger overall. It's the same thing with intelligence. Everyone is intelligent in a different way but some people just have a higher general level of intelligent to others.

You could argue that there is no way of measuring that general overall factor but I think IQ tests give a good approximation of the average across different kinds of intelligence.

Firstly the link between poverty and crime in America explains far better the incarraration rates of blacks than IQ scores.

Not entirely. People have lived, and still live, in levels of poverty far worse than black Americans and they don't seem to be as heavily involved in crime. As far as I know, American Indians live in levels of poverty worse than blacks and yet the rate at which they commit crime is below black people's. If it was purely related to poverty then you would expect all racial and ethnic groups at the same social level to commit crime at roughly the same rate and I don't think that is the case. Poor blacks commit more crime than poor people of other races.

The vast majority of blacks in American prisions are not there because of violent crimes, they are there because of drug related crimes.

I don't know why you mentioned prisons but according to this, blacks are much more likely to be charged with violent crime than whites.

You are far far more likely to commit white collar crimes such as fraud, blackmail etc if you are a white american.

I would think that's probably only because white people are more likely to be in a position to commit that kind of crime in the first place.

And taking into account population spread, if you are white you are far more likely to simply break the law in the USA. So by your (flawed) logic, being white makes you more likely to disregard the rule of law in America (which is nonsense, I use it to point out the flaws in your sweeping assumptions).

You've missed the point. I was talking about the different per-capita rates a which different ethnic groups commit crime, not about the overall incidence of crime. What I said is that different ethnic groups commit crime at much higher rates than others. I can't see how you've shown that that isn't the case.

Hagar

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but IQ tests have been widely, and for sometime, been dismissed as a reflection of intelligence. As my science teacher in school said, having a high IQ means you are good a IQ tests.

I suspect that you will find that statements like these are made by people who haven't done too well in IQ tests.

IQ measurement is a valid indication of how intelligent a person is.
Just as height measurement is a valid indication of how tall a person is.

Having a high IQ doesn't make a person any better than any other person no more than being taller makes you a better person than someone else. It just says that you are taller, likewise high IQ says you are smarter.

This is absolutely not in support of any racial slur.

bonkey

Macmorris wrote:

It's true that intelligence is something that is very difficult to define but I think of intelligence as some general overall factor that is a sort of average of different kinds of intelligence.

There may well be...but no-one has found a reasonable and objective way to measure it yet.

Two men may be strong in different ways but one might be just stronger overall than the other one. A cyclist may have stronger leg muscles than a boxer for example, and a boxer may have bigger biceps than the cyclist but does that mean they are both equally strong and that their different strengths perfectlly cancel each other out? I would think that one of them would probably be stronger overall.

I would agree with your thinking. However, when push came to shove, I would be at an utter loss to find an objective way of determining which of the two people it was. Have you figured it out?

You could argue that there is no way of measuring that general overall factor but I think IQ tests give a good approximation of the average across different kinds of intelligence.

Unfortunately, the evidence would tend to lean against you.

Give an IQ test to an illiterate who has no formal education. Then tell me this is a fair assessment of their intelligence.

If it was purely related to poverty then you would expect all racial and ethnic groups at the same social level to commit crime at roughly the same rate and I don't think that is the case.

Fair point. I assume you will also concede that if it were linked to IQ (which rightly or wrongly you see as a reasonable measure of intelligence) then one would find a far greater correlation across people of comparable IQs then across racial distinctions where one can make a general statement that the average IQ is marginally different.

I don't know why you mentioned prisons but according to this, blacks are much more likely to be charged with violent crime than whites.

Operative words : violent and charged with. They say something like 70% of all rape goes unreported. Does that mean that the 30% that is reported is necessarily still representative of the full 100%, or could one envisage that there are entire sub-classes that go mostly/entirely unreported?

As you yourself have pointed out, they're "obviously" less likely to be involved in white-collar crime because its mostly white-dominated. So could/should one not make a similar distinction with violent crime? That it is - at least partially - socially related?

I was talking about the different per-capita rates a which different ethnic groups commit crime, not about the overall incidence of crime.

But you ignore the different social constituencies and historical backgrounds of the different ethnic groups. This leaves you with a single correlation which you can conclude is causation, but doesn't make your argument convincing in my book.

jc

bonkey

Hagar wrote:

I suspect that you will find that statements like these are made by people who haven't done too well in IQ tests

Anecdotally, the only people I've heard say it before Wicknight are myself and people I know have IQs high enough to qualify for membership in Mensa.

jc

Hagar

bonkey wrote:

Anecdotally, the only people I've heard say it before Wicknight are myself and people I know have IQs high enough to qualify for membership in Mensa.

jc

That would be me then and I didn't scrape in either.
I have been a member for about 27 years and I still am not any taller.

nesf

Hagar wrote:

I suspect that you will find that statements like these are made by people who haven't done too well in IQ tests.

IQ tests have their uses and do show some interesting statistics when applied but they it's a pretty big assumption to assume that they are an accurate measurement of intelligence.

I prefer to think of them as being a useful statistical tool when applied to large groups but that individual scores have little meaning. Same as statistics in general.

Edit: For example, and to make myself clearer.

Looking at groups of individuals in a certain grouping, say 120-135, can show very interesting trends in the group. But you can't take those trends and apply them to an individual of IQ 123 and expect them to be in any way accurate.

I would extend that to look at say two individuals with IQ 120 and IQ 121 respectively. With such a small difference is it really valid to say that one is more intelligent than the other? Perhaps the person with 120 just was having a bad day etc. I don't think you can infer a lot from an individual's score. But you can see quite interesting tendencies across groups of individuals with similar scores.

IQ is a useful statistical tool but I think it's misused when held up as an absolute measurement of a person's intelligence.

Dades

nesf wrote:

IQ tests have their uses and do show some interesting statistics when applied but they it's a pretty big assumption to assume that they are an accurate measurement of intelligence.

I don't think it's a big assumption that a test designed to measure your "Intelligence Quotient" is a reasonable measure of your intellignce.

nesf wrote:

I prefer to think of them as being a useful statistical tool when applied to large groups but that individual scores have little meaning. Same as statistics in general.

Are you sure you meant to say this?

Surely IQ tests are more relevant on an individual level than when averaged, and taken as part of a group. IQ tests are only relevant in determining what areas of expertise (e.g. numbers, spacial awareness etc.) an individual performs strongly in.

IQ test result statistics in general are useless, particularly when they purport to show that one race is less intelligent than another. You don't have to be smart to know that that kind of information benefits no-one.

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

I think of intelligence as some general overall factor that is a sort of average of different kinds of intelligence.
...
That's a valid point. Most people accept that there are different kinds of intelligence, but I still think that there is such a thing as an overall level of intelligence.

What do you base that theory on?

Macmorris wrote:

I would think that one of them would probably be stronger overall. It's the same thing with intelligence. Everyone is intelligent in a different way but some people just have a higher general level of intelligent to others.

Macmorris you are kinda contracting your points there. Firstly you are saying, rightly that different people can have different strength in different muscles, and comparing a boxer to a cyclist is pointless because they have strenghts in different areas. But then you bring "general strenght" into it, which seems to go completely against your first point. What is "general strength", and how is it meassured.

Macmorris wrote:

You could argue that there is no way of measuring that general overall factor but I think IQ tests give a good approximation of the average across different kinds of intelligence.

Well not really, as has already been mentioned IQ tests have been widely critised. Just because a cyclist is better at cycling than a boxer doesn't mean he is stronger than a boxer. Likewise, having a high IQ simply means that you are good at IQ tests (which is a good thing, but not really a reflection of intelligence compared to someone who doesn't score as high as you, just like the boxer might not win the Tour de France)

Macmorris wrote:

Not entirely. People have lived, and still live, in levels of poverty far worse than black Americans and they don't seem to be as heavily involved in crime.

Show me an area of high poverty that does not have a much higher drug or violent crime rate than area of wealth in the same country or area.

Macmorris wrote:

As far as I know, American Indians live in levels of poverty worse than blacks and yet the rate at which they commit crime is below black people's.

Glad you mentioned native Americans. You are right, they live in high levels of poverty and unemployment. Read on ...

Enlarging the Healing Circle: Ensuring Justice for American Indian Children. (2000). Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice. wrote:

This report shows that Native American youth are being arrested for crimes, such as larceny-theft and liquor law violations, at double to triple the expected rate. The report identifies substance abuse, depression, gang involvement and faulty legal procedures as major underlying causes of Native American youth delinquency

Macmorris wrote:

Poor blacks commit more crime than poor people of other races.

Simply not true.

Macmorris wrote:

I would think that's probably only because white people are more likely to be in a position to commit that kind of crime in the first place.

Exactly. The types of crimes are a reflection of economic and social standing, not skin colour or race. Once again we get back to the basic fact that it is about poverty not race.

Macmorris wrote:

What I said is that different ethnic groups commit crime at much higher rates than others.

And I am saying they don't. Different types of crimes can be linked to different social and cultural aspects. Poor native americans, poor blacks, and poor white are more likely to commit violent or drug related crimes than wealthy people. But wealthy (relatively speaking) white people are far more likely to commit other types of crimes than poor black people.

What you get in reality is that a certain amount of people, no matter what their skin colour, are going to break the law. Their circumstances determine what type of crime they commit. But there is nothing in being simply black (such as low intelligence) that makes you more likely to break the law than a white person.

Zombrex

Hagar wrote:

I suspect that you will find that statements like these are made by people who haven't done too well in IQ tests.

IQ measurement is a valid indication of how intelligent a person is.

And I would suspect that you will find statements like these are made by people who are more interested in the prestiege of having a Mensa membership than actually understanding what "intelligence" really is ... go figure ...

Hagar

There's no prestiege whatsoever. Most of the members I met were socially inept.

In 27 years I went to 2 meetings. The first one, natural enthusiasm. God knows why I went to the second.

BTW all the people I met were white, maybe the non-whites had better things to do with their time.

"It's all very well having intelligence but you must have the brains to use it"

nesf

The Atheist wrote:

I don't think it's a big assumption that a test designed to measure your "Intelligence Quotient" is a reasonable measure of your intellignce.

You're assuming there's an intelligence quotient to measure. That's what is hotly debated about IQ tests. And then you run into which IQ test is the correct one. You could do several IQ tests of different types and get different results. Do you average these or can you pick the highest?

That is what I meant by saying that a single IQ score for an individual is not meaningful. There are trends between the different tests but you cannot point at any single one and say that is an absolute measure of this person. It's not a physical quality that is (relatively) constant.

A reasonable measure of intelligence is one thing to say, but do we know what the margin of error is? Can we say that a score is accurate? Can it have much meaning if we cannot know how accurate it is?

When I say meaning I'm talking about the inference that a high or low IQ score translates directly to mean intelligence rather than just a reflection of how good or bad a person is at doing IQ tests. It's the difference between saying that a high IQ suggests a person is highly intelligent and saying that a high IQ means a person is highly intelligent.

The Atheist wrote:

Are you sure you meant to say this?

Surely IQ tests are more relevant on an individual level than when averaged, and taken as part of a group. IQ tests are only relevant in determining what areas of expertise (e.g. numbers, spacial awareness etc.) an individual performs strongly in.

IQ test result statistics in general are useless, particularly when they purport to show that one race is less intelligent than another. You don't have to be smart to know that that kind of information benefits no-one.

What I was talking about was the social and economic correlates of IQ scores. If one looks at bands of IQ scores you do find certain social and economic correlates to hold. Crime rates do not correlate strongly with IQ. Other factors such as numbers of children and level of education aquired do however.

The racial arguments are different to these. The evidence for them that I've seen comes from measurements taken purely from the US. If anything I find it amusing that people take a white supremacy argument, asians are the top runners from the research done.

Again the issue is one of misuse rather than something being wrong. The data suggests that there is a difference in the average IQ score between races, it does not however translate into saying that white people are smarter than black people. It just shows that your average white person's IQ score will tend to be higher than your average black person's IQ score. You can easily put this further into context by looking at the difference in education, wealth etc between your average white and black person. You cannot draw inferences from the statistics without looking at what is influencing the statistics in the first place.

It is just statistics being misused by people who do not understand them. It doesn't mean the statistics are incorrect, it just means the person isn't interpreting them correctly.

Macmorris

nesf wrote:

If anything I find it amusing that people take a white supremacy argument, asians are the top runners from the research done.

Good point. A lot of the liberal critics of IQ tests have claimed that they are designed to demonstrate the superiority of White people. If that was the case, the designers of the tests haven't done a very good job.

Snowball

SparkyLarks wrote:

People always try to classify people.

I also agree with that.
I am not sure, but believe, that most people use it as a easy way to describe what someone looks like. Not sure if it's intended to be derogative.
Personally I can't say that I don't do use terms like that but I don't think I have ever used any terms like that in a derogative way. Not since I was a kid anyways

Dades

nesf wrote:

It's the difference between saying that a high IQ suggests a person is highly intelligent and saying that a high IQ means a person is highly intelligent.

I agree - "suggests" is probably the more accurate approach.

nesf wrote:

It is just statistics being misused by people who do not understand them. It doesn't mean the statistics are incorrect, it just means the person isn't interpreting them correctly.

I don't see point in producing statistics that are only going to be misread to say one thing to certain people. What is the point of measuring IQ on a racial level if you are only going to go and then claim the test results are flawed due the social and economic status of half the participants? Does your IQ then become a measure of your standing in society?

Again I believe the only positive inferance from an IQ test is on an individual basis to ascertain any strengths that person has.

nesf wrote:

If anything I find it amusing that people take a white supremacy argument, asians are the top runners from the research done.

Heh I made this point in a post that was deleted in the recent DB mishaps. Odd how quiet people were on Asian "supremacy".

Hagar

Anecdotal Theory: Willie Size * IQ = K

(Blacks with Big Willies * Low IQ) = (Whites * Medium Willies) = (Asians * Tiny Willies) = K

We're all the same at the end of it all.
I haven't worked out a theory for the ladies yet, but I'm working on it.;)

Dades

Hagar wrote:

Anecdotal Theory: Willie Size * IQ = K

Brilliant!

Except, if K is constant - as a white* mensa member - does that not mean you have a small willie?

* Assumption made for the purposes of humour

Hagar

I was hoping nobody would spot that...

rubadub

I must technically have the intelligence of a mouse so...

and flute of a shire horse with a high-testosterone problem

Wibbs

The last 4 posts alone were worth the mouse click . Obviuosly, I say this speaking as a well hung gentleman both in between the ears and elsewhere. The exception proves the rule etc....

As for IQs among races. Yes there have been studies both inside and beyond the US that suggests the intelligence goes down as you go down the populations from asian to sub saharan african, with europeans piggy in the middle. One example that was pointed to was that of the cambodian immigrants(boat people) into the US. When they were studied years later it was found that they had ascended through the social/economic ranks much faster and were more successful than africans who arrived around the same time and were way ahead of afro americans. Same with the chinese community. Many said it was due to higher racism encountered by blacks but the results were interesting. Again white europeans were in the middle. It seems there are differences that one can make across broadly defined "races". On the individual scale however, one can't make such presumptions.

As for the OP, obviously people pick the most obvious visual clues when describing people. Sex, height, weight and race are the most obvious. If you described to the police that you were robbed by a non specific humanoid, you're not going to get too far.

nesf

The Atheist wrote:

I don't see point in producing statistics that are only going to be misread to say one thing to certain people. What is the point of measuring IQ on a racial level if you are only going to go and then claim the test results are flawed due the social and economic status of half the participants? Does your IQ then become a measure of your standing in society?

I do agree that there is a problem with releasing any kind of race statistics that show differences between the races. On one hand people misread them as rascist, which is not true. On the other people misread them as being a scientific basis upon which to justify their own rascism, which is worse imho. The stats show differences in IQ scores between races. That is all. A reasonable and intelligent person would not take these stats in isolation but would try to put them into context. Not everyone is intelligent or reasonable so there are going to be issues.

The Atheist wrote:

Heh I made this point in a post that was deleted in the recent DB mishaps. Odd how quiet people were on Asian "supremacy".

I agree.

Hagar wrote:

Anecdotal Theory: Willie Size * IQ = K

Damn.

*starts shoving crayons up his nose*

bonkey

nesf wrote:

The stats show differences in IQ scores between races.

What they don't do is explain why the differences are there. It is a useful exercise, but the effective result is to beg the question as to why these differences exist. Hence, the issue of whether it is genetic (and hence potentially inherently racial) in nature, or social in some way is not answered but asked, and thus concluding genetic or inherent racial differences would be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. It is interesting to note that in the latest education figures being reported from the US at the moment, blacks are showing a far greater improvement than whites since the last figures were reported (2 years ago, IIRC), particularly in areas such as mathematics. Does this mean that blacks are getting smarter? It would be interesting to discover whether or not there is a matching increase in IQ, if only to give the tired old discussion some new fat to chew on....no matter what the result. jc

nesf

bonkey wrote:

What they don't do is explain why the differences are there. It is a useful exercise, but the effective result is to beg the question as to why these differences exist. Hence, the issue of whether it is genetic (and hence potentially inherently racial) in nature, or social in some way is not answered but asked, and thus concluding genetic or inherent racial differences would be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. It is interesting to note that in the latest education figures being reported from the US at the moment, blacks are showing a far greater improvement than whites since the last figures were reported (2 years ago, IIRC), particularly in areas such as mathematics. Does this mean that blacks are getting smarter? It would be interesting to discover whether or not there is a matching increase in IQ, if only to give the tired old discussion some new fat to chew on....no matter what the result. jc

I agree completely. As I said, the stats do not show one race being smarter than another but are representive of racial inequalities in the society in which they are gathered. IQ tests don't take into account anything about a person other than their ability to take the test.

There is however bias in the stats as you have pointed out. It would be as enlightening to look at different social groups and look at average IQ scores. Comparing races directly is fine so long as you keep in mind that it is not a level playing field and that each race will not, on average, have the same social and economic factors applying to it. The stats as they are, are fine. They just need to be put into context imho.

If anything, increases in average marks for certain areas of a country, be they racial or geographical areas, do not show that these people are getting more intelligent. I would take it that they are a byproduct of improving social and economic factors for either the race or area involved.

It would be interesting to discuss the factors that can influence IQ scores; it definitely is something that is open to debate. But that's probably for another thread.

Macmorris

What they don't do is explain why the differences are there. It is a useful exercise, but the effective result is to beg the question as to why these differences exist.

The politically-correct response is that the differences are due almost exclusively to environmental and cultural factors, with genes playing only a small, negligible role. The more sensible response is to admit that while environmental factors are a major cause of the difference, genes are also a very significant contributory factor. As far as I know, the experts have put the heritability (i.e. the genetic element) of intelligence at somewhere between 40 to 80 percent. That still leaves the possiblity that environmental factors may be the main cause of difference in intelligence but it's more probably the case that genes are the primary cause.

As for the racial differences, I would attribute that to natural selection. Homo Sapiens are subject to the same laws of biology as every other species of animal. Although we spent most of our evolution in the same part of the world, we've spent much of our recent history isolated in completely different continents with different climates and different terrain. It would be a denial of evolution on a level with creationism (there's no difference between political-correctness and religious-correctness) to pretend that humans haven't developed traits that have helped them adapt better to those environments and that those adaptions don't include things deeper than just skin colour.

There's a theory that the reason why East-Asians and Europeans have such high intelligence in comparison with the rest of the world is because the environments they evolved in were much more intellectually demanding than the original warm tropical environment of Africa where blacks remained after the migration of humans across the world around 100,000 years ago. When Homo Sapiens migrated to the colder Ice Age environments of Asia and Europe forty or fifty thousand years ago, they faced a much tougher environment in which they would have had to survive. Because it was so cold, they would have had to spend much of their time trying to keep warm and find shelter for themselves and their familes. They would also have to learn to make more sophisticated weapons and traps to catch the large mammals then roaming the continent.

Those kinds of conditions would have meant that people with good problem-solving abilities and high intelligence would have had a survival advantage over the less intelligent. Because intelligent people would have been more likely to have lived long enough to have children and thereby pass on their genes, it's not hard to see how genes for high intelligence would have spread through the gene-pools of the Asians and the Europeans more rapidly than they would in warmer places like Africa where high intelligence was less important for survival.

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

It's not hard to see how genes for high intelligence would have spread through the gene-pools of the Asians and the Europeans more rapidly than they would in warmer places like Africa where high intelligence was less important for survival.

That would be great if IQ test actually measured intelligence spread in a relatively static fashion. They don't

IQ levels for different population groups can fluctuate wildly over very small periods of time. For example IQ level of Japan has risen dramatically over the last 50 years, in other groups they have drop dramatically. This effect known as the Flynn effect, and if attributed to health and enviornmental changes such as nutrition. The Japanise people didn't suddenly evolve into more intelligent people. :rolleyes:

There is absolutely no way to know what the IQ levels for the world were 150 years ago, let alone 100,000 years. And even if we did it wouldn't mean anything, they could all be different another 150 years back. This is all assuming IQ tests actually measure "intelligence," which looks doubtful.

No offence Macmorris, but your argument is assumption based on nonsense.

simu

Macmorris wrote:

There's a theory that the reason why East-Asians and Europeans have such high intelligence in comparison with the rest of the world is because the environments they evolved in were much more intellectually demanding than the original warm tropical environment of Africa where blacks remained after the migration of humans across the world around 100,000 years ago. When Homo Sapiens migrated to the colder Ice Age environments of Asia and Europe forty or fifty thousand years ago, they faced a much tougher environment in which they would have had to survive. Because it was so cold, they would have had to spend much of their time trying to keep warm and find shelter for themselves and their familes. They would also have to learn to make more sophisticated weapons and traps to catch the large mammals then roaming the continent.

Those kinds of conditions would have meant that people with good problem-solving abilities and high intelligence would have had a survival advantage over the less intelligent. Because intelligent people would have been more likely to have lived long enough to have children and thereby pass on their genes, it's not hard to see how genes for high intelligence would have spread through the gene-pools of the Asians and the Europeans more rapidly than they would in warmer places like Africa where high intelligence was less important for survival.

That's just waffle really. You could argue that the people in harsh climates had no time to sit and ponder things and develop a complex oral culture and all. Or compose a million other stories to fit whatever argument you feel like backing!

Dades

Macmorris wrote:

it's not hard to see how genes for high intelligence would have spread through the gene-pools of the Asians and the Europeans more rapidly than they would in warmer places like Africa where high intelligence was less important for survival.

Should the same not hold true then for animals?

I don't see the animals living in the artic wastes or deserts being particularly intelligent. In fact the smartest animals of all, primates, live in warmer climates such as Africa or zones of similar climate around the world.

I don't know who's right - just that there's a dozen arguments for either side.

Wibbs

There just may be something in the theory. I seem to remember experiments into delayed gratification(rather than IQ) conducted some years back. Again the results divided into broadly racial lines, with Europeans being the ones more likely to defer present gratification for greater reward in the future. This may tie in with the whole harsh environment hypothesis. If you're living in a more sharply seasonal climate with limited food sources, it would make sense to store food and plan ahead more in order to survive. In an environment where food is plentiful year round such forward planning may not be as big an evolutionary advantage. You even see this with animals in such climates. They store food for the winter. In those animals their spacial skills(for remembering where their food stores are) are higher than in relatives in more southerly climes. I partially agree with The Atheist regarding animals in warm climates having similar intelligence levels. That said humans themselves evolved intelligence in the face of rapid climactic change between 5-3 million yrs ago. Africa changed quite a bit in theat time, from thick jungle to a more open savannah type of environment. The apes that stayed in the jungle remained much as we see them today.

As for simu's argument re oral traditions. A developed oral tradition is more advantageous to harsh climate dwellers as many of these stories contain wisdom about food sources/weather changes etc. The Australian aboriginies, arctic Inuit and the Kalahari bushmen have vast oral traditions for just such a reason(among others). Without such traditions, survival skills needed for such environments may not be passed on nearly as efficiently. In any case, hunter gatherers have quite a bit of time on their hands to sit and ponder. One could argue that it was the invetion of farming that reduced such free time. Farming was an advantage mainly because it helped the formation of an elite because of an excess of foodstuffs. From that city states and "civilisation" followed,

Experiments on Australian aboriginal children found that they had far higher spacial and visual memory skills than the european children they went to school with. That would be a harsh environment where such skills were required for survival. The joke is they're considered lesser humans by many of the far right brigade.:rolleyes:

nobodythere

Maybe there are evolutionary factors involved. I once saw a thread over on totse about something similar where the OP argued that African-Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote because they were inferior. One of his arguments was that there were no great african civilisations in recordable history while white people had the Romans etc etc.

This had me by the balls for ages. I thought he had a point, until I realised that when we judge intelligence we judge it in a very Western context. Let's face it, if you took most people from Irish cities and put them in a rural place all on their own, not very many of us would survive. I wouldn't anyway. I'm guessing most people on the African continent would be able to. They have an education that we have never had.

These past few years I've realised just how crazy the Western world is. It's INSANE that we've come to live our lives in this fast-food TV generation, full of so many lazy fat people. Devoid of love and real goals we drift through our lives looking for something to satisfy us between our Dilbert work lives and isolated home lives. We keep our kids in school 8 hours a day so that one day they can become like us and take the safe route through life. I've had some eye-openers and I've seen that life can be much better. It depresses me to see all of this advertising and everything shoved down our throats.

I'd go as far to say that our inability to escape this greed and materialism indicates a lack of intelligence within us. This is a lifestyle that we inherit. I know that's generalising but that's my perception of the Western world, always being stamped on by the guy above you.

In summary what I'm saying is that because of the subjective nature of what intelligence is, it's impossible for you to judge the intelligence of other races, because you will always be affected by the way you have grown up. If you have any reason within you you would judge the individual, and not the ethnic minority.

Back to the original post, we are the facilitators of our own evolution. We determine how intelligent we are by how we choose to live life. For example, let's say crime rates were higher among Romanians. This is not in "the nature" of a Romanian, it is the influence of his environment. If he grows up around theft, he is more likely to think less of stealing. Intelligent people are those who can escape the influence of their environment and make decisions for themselves. These are individuals, not races.

From the 1927 Grand Council of American Indians

"The white people, who are trying to make us over into their image, they want us to be what they call "assimilated," bringing the Indians into the mainstream and destroying our own way of life and our own cultural patterns. They believe we should be contented like those whose concept of happiness is materialistic and greedy, which is very different from our way.

We want freedom from the white man rather than to be intergrated. We don't want any part of the establishment, we want to be free to raise our children in our religion, in our ways, to be able to hunt and fish and live in peace. We don't want power, we don't want to be congressmen, or bankers....we want to be ourselves. We want to have our heritage, because we are the owners of this land and because we belong here.

The white man says, there is freedom and justice for all. We have had "freedom and justice," and that is why we have been almost exterminated. We shall not forget this."

bonkey

grasshopa wrote:

One of his arguments was that there were no great african civilisations in recordable history while white people had the Romans etc etc.

This had me by the balls for ages.

Why? Egypt is in Africa

Presumably, though, he meant something like sub-saharan African (which had the Mali, the Ghanese kingdom, and others, but you could argue none were "great"). Of course, if you look at the climate and landscape, its not entirely surprising that you didn't have great kingdoms, whereas you did in more temperate, agriculturally-suited areas. Of course, that correlation couldn't have anything to do with anything. Nope. Has to be genetics. Obviously

The entire "no great civilisation" is making the presumption that intelligence / evolutionary status is not just the prime factor in the establishment of civilisation but the only significant factor really.

Its like assuming your answer is correct as a basis for the evidence you use to supposedly strengthen the credibility of the answer.

I should further point out that its convenient that this guy stopped at the limit of recorded history, because when you go back a bit further - to the archaeological level - there is evidence that sub-saharan Africans were working with steel about 1400 BC. Steel, you might be interested to know, was "invented" in Europe about 3000 years after that.

But we're more intelligent here in Europe, right?

jc

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

Why? Egypt is in Africa

Well spotted that man (though do not go down the Afrocentric route and say that Egypt was black(at least in the terms that afro Americans like to think).

Presumably, though, he meant something like sub-saharan African (which had the Mali, the Ghanese kingdom, and others, but you could argue none were "great"). Of course, if you look at the climate and landscape, its not entirely surprising that you didn't have great kingdoms, whereas you did in more temperate, agriculturally-suited areas. Of course, that correlation couldn't have anything to do with anything. Nope. Has to be genetics. Obviously

Well the Aztec and Inca civilisations grew up in a very similar climate and landscape to sub saharan Africa and they did alright as did many in Asia in similar tropical jungle areas. So it doesn't seem to be just down to climate and landscape.

I should further point out that its convenient that this guy stopped at the limit of recorded history, because when you go back a bit further - to the archaeological level - there is evidence that sub-saharan Africans were working with steel about 1400 BC. Steel, you might be interested to know, was "invented" in Europe about 3000 years after that.

Linky please. That sounds very impressive. Hadn't heard of that. I know the Japanese were working with steel long before us in Europe. I seem to remember the Chinese were at the steel lark too. The industrial manufacture of steel in Europe was later, but I seem to recall that small scale steel production was going on in Europe before that.