Race, Gender and Intelligence

LiveIsLife · 17-08-2014 8:12pm #1

Do people think gender or race play a role? It's something that is often shut down before any discussion can take place and labeled as racist. Regarding race, there are obvious physical differences, so could there be mental differences between humans that aren't down to gender? Or are we too young as a species and specific human races around to short a time to have diverged in intelligence?
Regarding gender, there are obvious psychological differences but does this extend to intelligence? I suppose it depends how you measure intelligence too, you could probably say men are higher in spatial intelligence and women higher in emotional intelligence on average. But one thing I've heard but never really checked out is that at the very top end of scale, men tend to be smarter than women. So even though on average it might even out and lead to the average woman being smarter than the average man, the people with the highest intelligence capabilities are men.

What do people think?

Awkward Badger · 17-08-2014 10:03pm

Its not a topic I have looked into in any great detail. But I wouldn't think race or gender would play any significant role in intelligence.

I think the main thing that would affect it (if there was a measurable difference in whatever you deem to be "intelligence") would be environment and in particular education.

That may differ from region to region, for example the Japanese method of learning maths differs a bit from how we do it. And this is credited with producing a higher standard of numeracy. There is the old internet view of Asian kids being smarter on the back of these types of things but its down to education rather than race. Some more reading here if you're interested.

I guess it might be the case for women that traditionally gender roles encouraged them not to focus on education and re-enforced the view that they were not as intelligent than men. There is some information of different studies on this wiki page and from what it seems there is no real difference between the intelligence of men and women just some variation in specific abilities. Which again may be environmental rather than genetic.

Black Swan · 18-08-2014 1:23am

For purposes of this discussion, how is intelligence defined? Without a clear definition, claims that there are differences by gender or race are problematic.

LiveIsLife wrote: »

I've heard but never really checked out is that at the very top end of scale, men tend to be smarter than women.

You have "heard but never really checked out" that "men tend to be smarter than women?" Don't you think that it would be worth while to review a bit of the relevant literature before making such broad sweeping and unsupported statements?

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I guess it might be the case for women that traditionally gender roles encouraged them not to focus on education and re-enforced the view that they were not as intelligent than men.

Are you discussing intelligence or educational attainment? There can be substantial differences depending on how each is defined in terms of what they measure, as well as what associations may or may not exist between these two concepts by gender.

Your case for women, traditional gender roles, and the observation that women were not encouraged "to focus on education" is way, way behind times. Since World War II the numbers of women enrolling and completing higher education degrees has dramatically increased, especially in the United States. According to Pew Research Center (2 March 2014) there were more women enrolled and completing degrees in higher education than men in the US, and there was a large and increasing gap between women and men, with more women than men participating in higher education attainment (Population Reference Bureau, April 2011).

Awkward Badger · 18-08-2014 1:41am

Black Swan wrote: »

Are you discussing intelligence or educational achievement? There can be substantial differences depending on how each is defined in terms of what they measure, as well as what associations may or may not exist between these two concepts by gender.

I'm discussing environmental effects on perceived intelligence. In general I don't think anyone is born more or less intelligent than anyone else. I think the environment they grow up in and the standard of education they get will shape their intellect.

Your case for women, traditional gender roles, and the observation that women were not encouraged "to focus on education" is way, way behind times. Since World War II the numbers of women enrolling and completing higher education degrees has dramatically increased, especially in the United States. According to Pew Research Center (2 March 2014) there were more women enrolled and completing degrees in higher education than men in the US, and there was a large and increasing gap between women and men, with more women than men participating in higher education achievement.

I just meant that traditional gender roles is where this notion that the OP mentions of men being smarter than women came from. As you say its changed dramatically but its not that long ago that these views were the standard and as a result the numbers of women in and at the top of many professions was few up until very recently. As the wiki page seems to show that while men and women can perform differently on different tasks there is nor ever was any credible basis for the argument that men are more intelligent than women.

Black Swan · 18-08-2014 2:01am

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I'm discussing environmental effects on perceived intelligence. In general I don't think anyone is born more or less intelligent than anyone else. I think the environment they grow up in and the standard of education they get will shape their intellect.

Once again, for the purposes of our discussion, how do you define "intelligence," perceived or otherwise?

Referring to women, when you state the "standard of education they get will shape their intellect," by "intellect" are you referring to their "intelligence?" If so, are you confounding intelligence with educational attainment, which are two different concepts?

0O0 · 18-08-2014 2:15am

Black Swan wrote: »

Once again, for the purposes of our discussion, how do you define "intelligence," perceived or otherwise?

Referring to women, when you state the "standard of education they get will shape their intellect," by "intellect" are you referring to their "intelligence?" If so, are you confounding intelligence with educational attainment, which are two different concepts?

Intellect and intelligence are NOT mutually exclusive either.

Very basic example - how would you know if you could understand covalent bonds in chemistry if you were never taught.

Does that make men better at science etc. simply by default?

The ability to grasp new things and retain information is only as helpful and useful as the information that is put forward to learn.

LiveIsLife · 18-08-2014 10:05am

Black Swan wrote: »

For purposes of this discussion, how is intelligence defined? Without a clear definition, claims that there are differences by gender or race are problematic.

I suppose aptitude, ability to learn new information and problem solving.

Black Swan wrote: »

You have "heard but never really checked out" that "men tend to be smarter than women?" Don't you think that it would be worth while to review a bit of the relevant literature before making such broad sweeping and unsupported statements?

I don't claim to be an expert, that's partly why I started this thread, to learn from people who know more than me, as well as have an interesting discussion. Coming in presenting a load of facts would hardly lead to discussion. In any event I've found what I was talking about, it was Larry Summers and his claims. Taken from wiki:

"The second hypothesis, the generally greater variability among men (compared to women) in tests of cognitive abilities,[30][31][32] leading to proportionally more males than females at both the lower and upper tails of the test score distributions, caused the most controversy."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_between_the_sexes

He was widely criticised but was he right or wrong?

NipNip · 18-08-2014 10:09am

That's the first time I've ever heard the notion that men were perceived as being more intelligent, let alone, proven to be more intelligent? In my own actual experience, the opposite would be true.

NipNip · 18-08-2014 10:20am

It is an interesting question however!

First of all, there is the perception of Russians being brilliant at chess, Chinese being musically gifted and southern Europeans being artistically inclined. Continue on there with stereotypes as you will....

I have also always held the personal perception that Americans were a bit dumb. Precipitated presumably by the raucous innocent pleasure they take in tracing their roots to Ireland, the bermuda shorts, the cameras and God help us, the accents. More my own innocence and ignorance of assessing the behaviour of people on holiday, than any measurable proof or evidence!

In the workplace, I've found them to be some of the most shrewd business people to deal with. They have that useful combination of being cut-throat, yet affable at the same time. I don't know much about their education system, but I do know that as a 'nation', they are one of the most racially and ethnically diverse.

In terms of women vs men - I find, with some exceptions that women are more intelligent but less ruthless.

Basically, I would think we are all on a par, with certain negligible nuances in aptitudes in men vs. women, though it is hard to tell whether that is resultant of the historical stereotypes of men/women in terms of the educations they have received.

sbsquarepants · 18-08-2014 10:31am

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I'm discussing environmental effects on perceived intelligence. In general I don't think anyone is born more or less intelligent than anyone else. I think the environment they grow up in and the standard of education they get will shape their intellect.

That's clearly not the case. Stephen hawking was simply born different to joey Essex, no amount of environmental differences could have turned Joey into Stephen, not in a million years. That's not just learning, it's the raw ability to learn in the first place.

Wibbs · 18-08-2014 10:33am

Black Swan wrote: »

For purposes of this discussion, how is intelligence defined? Without a clear definition, claims that there are differences by gender or race are problematic.

Add in some level of cultural squeamishness regarding "race" and more recently gender(understandably on both scores) and it can be very problematic. When looking at populations worldwide it's OK to suggest population A may be better or worse than population B at enduring cold, heat, altitude, physical stress etc because of localised selection pressures but any differences apparently disappear above the neck regardless of localised selection pressures.

You have "heard but never really checked out" that "men tend to be smarter than women?" Don't you think that it would be worth while to review a bit of the relevant literature before making such broad sweeping and unsupported statements?

Indeed. It seems on IQ testing anyway men and women are pretty equal on average. One study will claim men are slightly ahead while another will claim women are. In both cases the "differences" measured are tiny. There does appear to be a higher variance among males though. Basically there are more males at the top end and more males on the bottom end of the curve, while the female IQ curve is more linear. At the very top end the ratio is 2 to 1 in favour of men. There's been a fair number of studies that support this, here's one.

"Males have only a marginal advantage in mean levels of g (less than 7% of a standard deviation) from the ASVAB and AFQT, but substantially greater variance. Among the top 2% AFQT scores, there were almost twice as many males as females. These differences could provide a partial basis for sex differences in intellectual eminence."

I'd add that autism type thinking is much more common in males and at the high functioning end of that spectrum this makes them more likely to be more single minded, even obsessive over a particular subject so application levels will be higher and results will be better. The old idea that it takes 10,000 hours to become proficient at something would make it more likely that the tendency to the more obsessive in the male mind would result in more high achievers in certain areas.

Awkward Badger · 18-08-2014 11:04am

Black Swan wrote: »

Once again, for the purposes of our discussion, how do you define "intelligence," perceived or otherwise?

Referring to women, when you state the "standard of education they get will shape their intellect," by "intellect" are you referring to their "intelligence?" If so, are you confounding intelligence with educational attainment, which are two different concepts?

Well I'm not really defining it, I'm responding to the question of it which is why I say "perceived" intelligence. I'd imagine it will differ depending on the persons view that is trying to quantify it. I'm just putting forth that wiki page that covers some studies and tests and saying the attempts of those people who conducted them to measure "intelligence" doesn't seem to have shown any real difference between men and women.

By intellect I don't mean intelligence as such I simply mean the process by which a person will view and solve the problems.

NipNip · 18-08-2014 11:08am

There are people who can manage to get others to solve their problems. They are the most intelligent!

I'll give you an example. Most recent job I held. Stand-off between male boss and outside consultant. In I come. Charm consultant, end up with consultant and male boss working well together again.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, boss fires me. (Well, not quite, but 'lets me go'.). Cliver hoor.

srsly78 · 18-08-2014 11:17am

As Wibbs has stated already, on average there is no real difference. However males show more deviance from the average.

It's an interesting topic and is somehow related to the X and Y chromosomes. Females have 2 Xs, and if one copy is "damaged" or mutated in some way they still have another one to rely on. Males however do not, and thus have a higher chance of expressing deviant traits (deviant here meaning atypical not necessarily bad). Thus they have a higher tendency toward idiocy and genius.

It all comes down to the question: why do males even exist? The Y chromosome is pretty much junk, all it carries is info about sperm production. Everything else that makes up a human being comes from the X chromosome.

Here is one theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis
Males exist to mix things up genetically. Indeed many bad things like war/rape etc can be posited of as an extension of this. Horrible as these things seem to us, our selfish genes do not care - it's all about continued evolution.

Regarding race: this is an even more incendiary topic. Some studies have shown that certain isolated tribes test poorly for IQ when compared to mainstream humans. This is thought to arise from them going through a genetic bottleneck, which is on average detrimental to any species compared to the hybrid vigour expressed by a healthy genepool. Also might explain why racists are so dumb

Awkward Badger · 18-08-2014 1:39pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's clearly not the case. Stephen hawking was simply born different to joey Essex, no amount of environmental differences could have turned Joey into Stephen, not in a million years. That's not just learning, it's the raw ability to learn in the first place.

Is that clear though ?

Stephen Hawking while an intelligent man excels in one particular field for which he has an aptitude for and a keen interest in. His aptitude may not have come from his education but that's not to say it didn't come from his environment and it was purely genetic. Any number of factors in a child early developmental stages could be the cause of any particular way of viewing things which may enable an individual to perform better at certain tasks.

Joey Essex is a product of his environment. While he plays up his ignorance for his TV career I do not buy that had he being raised in a different environment and learned a different world view that it would be impossible for him to have an aptitude for physics.

Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking's friend, colleague, collaborator and a mathematical physicist wrote in Road to Reality that he does not believe that most people have an innate ineptitude in relation to mathematics. And that aversion and ineptitude is likely caused by poor education and lack of confidence.

sbsquarepants · 18-08-2014 3:15pm

It seems clear enough to me, what is an aptitude for something like physics if not intelligence? You can see it quite plainly in even young kids some just get things quicker than others, or can grasp concepts that their peers simply can't, you see it even among siblings who share more or less identical up bringings.
Some abilities are just inate and whereas they can definitely be honed and focused, you have to have the bare ability just in you somewhere from birth for that to happen. Same for all abilities, music, sport and so on, not just intelligence. If the processor isn't up to speed no amount of time spent tweaking the programming will make all that much difference. You could no more turn Wayne Rooney into Stephen Hawking than you could have Stephen Hawking playing up front for united (actually never mind, they could probably do with him at the moment:D)

NipNip · 18-08-2014 3:49pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It seems clear enough to me, what is an aptitude for something like physics if not intelligence? You can see it quite plainly in even young kids some just get things quicker than others, or can grasp concepts that their peers simply can't, you see it even among siblings who share more or less identical up bringings.
Some abilities are just inate and whereas they can definitely be honed and focused, you have to have the bare ability just in you somewhere from birth for that to happen. Same for all abilities, music, sport and so on, not just intelligence. If the processor isn't up to speed no amount of time spent tweaking the programming will make all that much difference. You could no more turn Wayne Rooney into Stephen Hawking than you could have Stephen Hawking playing up front for united (actually never mind, they could probably do with him at the moment:D)

Does my 5 year old asking me 'why is the water falling to the bottom all the time' while she twirled a bottle around, some sort of apple falling moment? I explained gravity to her. She was 5. Not Newton.

NipNip · 18-08-2014 3:51pm

I considered throwing an apple at her pmsl.

Awkward Badger · 18-08-2014 3:55pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It seems clear enough to me, what is an aptitude for something like physics if not intelligence? You can see it quite plainly in even young kids some just get things quicker than others, or can grasp concepts that their peers simply can't, you see it even among siblings who share more or less identical up bringings.

Some people learn differently to others and at different paces. And some people are immersed in certain things from an early age that others are not. If you read through Hawking's childhood, his family and his education its going to be drastically different than the early life Joey Essex had. The influence all that had on him and his way of thinking cannot be dismissed. As for identical upbringing, even with identical upbringing people will be different people with different experiences and a different perception of the world and different likes and dislikes.

Some abilities are just inate and whereas they can definitely be honed and focused, you have to have the bare ability just in you somewhere from birth for that to happen. Same for all abilities, music, sport and so on, not just intelligence. If the processor isn't up to speed no amount of time spent tweaking the programming will make all that much difference. You could no more turn Wayne Rooney into Stephen Hawking than you could have Stephen Hawking playing up front for united (actually never mind, they could probably do with him at the moment:D)

But are those abilities not innate for everyone with the difference being they are honed and focussed more in some than in others ? As well as aided in some due to their view of the problem and approach that would be learned in the early stages of development ? Joey Essex while seeming to be dumb still has all the faculties necessary to solve problems and draw conclusions. The reason he may not be able to do so on the same level as Stephen Hawking is because Stephen Hawking was raised differently and has spent a lifetime immersed in physics and mathematics.

The Corinthian · 18-08-2014 4:07pm

srsly78 wrote: »

It all comes down to the question: why do males even exist? The Y chromosome is pretty much junk, all it carries is info about sperm production.

Regarding race: this is an even more incendiary topic.

There's something a bit disturbing about the fact that calling an entire gender, half the population, little more than breeding fodder is less incendiary than racism. Only in the Anglophone World, I suppose...

Wibbs · 18-08-2014 4:12pm

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking's friend, colleague, collaborator and a mathematical physicist wrote in Road to Reality that he does not believe that most people have an innate ineptitude in relation to mathematics. And that aversion and ineptitude is likely caused by poor education and lack of confidence.

Well I have an pretty serious lack of facility with maths and I had a good education and given my mum was an accountant and my dad an engineer you'd think I'd have the maths bases covered genetically. I still struggle with it. Hell even reading the time can be an issue for me if it's a digital display. I have to consciously think about it. I suspect if I was a child these days I'd be pegged as having dyscalculia. Joke is I could read to an 8 year old level before I started school.

As for Penrose's take? I strongly suspect subjective thinking. He finds it easy, therefore... Common enough thinking even in the very bright. Plus lauded geniuses tend to be feted by the general public in matters outside their speciality and often believe this themselves. Hawkings a good example. He's made all sorts of pronouncements outside the field of physics and they're usually taken as read by the general public. When in fact he often has no more real clue than the bloke in the pub.

As for intelligence being inheritable? It seems it is quite strongly so. Environment will change the potential of an individual and/or which way they apply that intelligence, but it's just as much if not more nature opposed to nurture.

srsly78 · 18-08-2014 4:17pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's something a bit disturbing about the fact that calling an entire gender, half the population, little more than breeding fodder is less incendiary than racism. Only in the Anglophone World, I suppose...

You misinterpreted the post, read the link and it explains a theory as to why males exist. In the context of evolutionary biology everyone is breeding fodder, your genes don't care.

Also, males do not just consist of the Y chromosome.

NipNip · 18-08-2014 4:23pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Well I have an pretty serious lack of facility with maths and I had a good education and given my mum was an accountant and my dad an engineer you'd think I'd have the maths bases covered genetically. I still struggle with it. Hell even reading the time can be an issue for me if it's a digital display. I have to consciously think about it. I suspect if I was a child these days I'd be pegged as having dyscalculia. Joke is I could read to an 8 year old level before I started school.

As for Penrose's take? I strongly suspect subjective thinking. He finds it easy, therefore... Common enough thinking even in the very bright. Plus lauded geniuses tend to be feted by the general public in matters outside their speciality and often believe this themselves. Hawkings a good example. He's made all sorts of pronouncements outside the field of physics and they're usually taken as read by the general public. When in fact he often has no more real clue than the bloke in the pub.

As for intelligence being inheritable? It seems it is quite strongly so. Environment will change the potential of an individual and/or which way they apply that intelligence, but it's just as much if not more nature opposed to nurture.

Crying men

Black Swan · 18-08-2014 4:25pm

LiveIsLife wrote: »

Taken from wiki:

"The second hypothesis, the generally greater variability among men (compared to women) in tests of cognitive abilities,[30][31][32] leading to proportionally more males than females at both the lower and upper tails of the test score distributions, caused the most controversy."

Wibbs wrote: »

There does appear to be a higher variance among males though. Basically there are more males at the top end and more males on the bottom end of the curve, while the female IQ curve is more linear. At the very top end the ratio is 2 to 1 in favour of men.

I would exercise caution when referring to IQ tests as THE MEASURE of intelligence. Depending upon how intelligence is defined, as well as how the IQ test was constructed and administered, there may be many important and substantial factors missed that may serve to confound what differences may exist between women and men; i.e., I am suggesting that we should exercise caution when interpreting the validity and reliability of such tests.

NipNip · 18-08-2014 4:34pm

Black Swan wrote: »

I would exercise caution when referring to IQ tests as THE MEASURE of intelligence. Depending upon how intelligence is defined, as well as how the IQ test was constructed and administered, there may be many important and substantial factors missed that may serve to confound what differences may exist between women and men; i.e., I am suggesting that we should exercise caution when interpreting the validity and reliability of such tests.

Say it or don't.

NipNip · 18-08-2014 4:35pm

Men are usually good at stating controversial findings when they have the stability of a wife behind them.

The Corinthian · 18-08-2014 4:36pm

srsly78 wrote: »

You misinterpreted the post, read the link and it explains a theory as to why males exist. In the context of evolutionary biology everyone is breeding fodder, your genes don't care.

I didn't misinterpret your comment that race was "an even more incendiary topic" at all.

You might not have intended it to come out like that, but ultimately it did, and indeed you're right, as LiveIsLife pointed out in his/her initial post, suggest what you did in relation to race and you'd likely be branded racist - as Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray discovered. Say it of men, and it's fine. It's something that you see a lot more of in the Anglophone World than elsewhere (where you realize this brainwashing exists due to the lack of it there).

Anyhow, it's more of an observation and strictly speaking OT, so I'll leave it at that.

NipNip · 18-08-2014 4:36pm

Doesn't give it credence to anyone but idiots.

Awkward Badger · 18-08-2014 4:36pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Well I have an pretty serious lack of facility with maths and I had a good education and given my mum was an accountant and my dad an engineer you'd think I'd have the maths bases covered genetically. I still struggle with it. Hell even reading the time can be an issue for me if it's a digital display. I have to consciously think about it. I suspect if I was a child these days I'd be pegged as having dyscalculia. Joke is I could read to an 8 year old level before I started school.

As for Penrose's take? I strongly suspect subjective thinking. He finds it easy, therefore... Common enough thinking even in the very bright. Plus lauded geniuses tend to be feted by the general public in matters outside their speciality and often believe this themselves. Hawkings a good example. He's made all sorts of pronouncements outside the field of physics and they're usually taken as read by the general public. When in fact he often has no more real clue than the bloke in the pub.

I don't know I have some first hand experience of how Penrose sees it. I never "got" maths in school, dropped down from higher level in first year. Got by without any real understanding of it until I dropped out at 16. Always shied away from it and felt that there was no way I could do maths in third level as I just didn't get it. Yet when I went to college as a 30 year old mature student I found maths to be one of my best subjects. Like anything else I done I found the effort put into understanding it was worth more than any inherent ability to understand it. And while I was a bit slower on the uptake I did pick it up, remember it, understand it to a good degree and did well in exams. I think were I a child in a better education system I'd have developed a much better understanding of maths from an earlier age.

Black Swan · 18-08-2014 4:46pm

NipNip wrote: »

Crying men

NipNip wrote: »

Men are usually good at stating controversial findings when they have the stability of a wife behind them.

NipNip wrote: »

Doesn't give it credence to anyone but idiots.

MOD: NipNip this is the Humanities forum not AH. We are attempting to have a meaningful discussion of this topic. Please improve the content of your replies.

The Corinthian · 19-08-2014 9:08am

Back to grown up conversation... Race and intelligence; correlation, yes - as I mooted already, physical and medical differences exist between races and the Bell Curve noted IQ differences based on ethnic background. However, causation is another matter; those same statistics showed that certain races were more likely to have better levels of education, especially in early childhood, and so environmental reasons need to be considered as the true reasons for such deviations.

Same on a macro level. It cannot have escaped people's notice that any of sub-Saharan Africa barely made it as far as the iron age, and much of it didn't get that far. Aboriginal Australia never made it out of the stone age.

Could this be due to inherent trends in intellect due to race? Maybe. On the other hand, climate, scarcity and so on are also important - necessity is the mother of invention, so if you don't need, why should you bother to invent?

In short, perhaps there is a link between race and intellect (however we wish to define it), but it is clear that environment is also a major factor and either way there's no conclusive proof.

LiveIsLife · 19-08-2014 9:19am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Same on a macro level. It cannot have escaped people's notice that any of sub-Saharan Africa barely made it as far as the iron age, and much of it didn't get that far. Aboriginal Australia never made it out of the stone age.

Could this be due to inherent trends in intellect due to race? Maybe. On the other hand, climate, scarcity and so on are also important - necessity is the mother of invention, so if you don't need, why should you bother to invent?

I think this is more a case of environment. Less resources means more time is spent on survival and less on invention. Societies that farmed or had an abundance of food could afford to have people who spent more time learning or inventing

diveout · 19-08-2014 9:20am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Back to grown up conversation... Race and intelligence; correlation, yes - as I mooted already, physical and medical differences exist between races and the Bell Curve noted IQ differences based on ethnic background. However, causation is another matter; those same statistics showed that certain races were more likely to have better levels of education, especially in early childhood, and so environmental reasons need to be considered as the true reasons for such deviations.

Same on a macro level. It cannot have escaped people's notice that any of sub-Saharan Africa barely made it as far as the iron age, and much of it didn't get that far. Aboriginal Australia never made it out of the stone age.

Could this be due to inherent trends in intellect due to race? Maybe. On the other hand, climate, scarcity and so on are also important - necessity is the mother of invention, so if you don't need, why should you bother to invent?

In short, perhaps there is a link between race and intellect (however we wish to define it), but it is clear that environment is also a major factor and either way there's no conclusive proof.

Is the data actually there?

How many Aboriginals or people living in Sub Saharan Africa have been given the Weschler or Stamford Binet tests to know this?

Or do they have their own versions of this that I am not aware of?

You are also looking at this geographically, not racially. Although it's impossible to say in the US. That Bell Curve book is ridiculous as no one in the USis racially pure. About 75% of black Americans have an Irish genetic component {saw that on a PBS documentary.}

Inventiveness is also created by culture and motivation. Plenty of inventions came out of American garages...the Wright Brothers....Amazon.com for examples. A market was there and the culture of permission to fail is also there. I wouldn't necessarily mark that out as a signifier of higher IQ but of a spirit of attempt and potential reward.

LiveIsLife · 19-08-2014 9:34am

diveout wrote: »

I don't know about this. South America and Africa have tremendous resources. Gems, oil, mines. They wouldn't have been so attractive to colonists otherwise.

Where you have sun and water, you have empire.

They're not much use when you're in the stone age though. There were complex societies in the Americas when the Europeans arrived, and while they weren't as advanced as Europe, it was a combination of good fortune and disease that the Europeans were able to take over so quickly. Much of Africa and Australia didn't even get that far, as The Corinthian has pointed out

diveout · 19-08-2014 9:41am

LiveIsLife wrote: »

They're not much use when you're in the stone age though. There were complex societies in the Americas when the Europeans arrived, and while they weren't as advanced as Europe, it was a combination of good fortune and disease that the Europeans were able to take over so quickly. Much of Africa and Australia didn't even get that far, as The Corinthian has pointed out

That's true. When you are busy surviving not much room for intellectual nourishment. Same applies to poorer people living in the West.

The Corinthian · 19-08-2014 10:27am

LiveIsLife wrote: »

I think this is more a case of environment.

Opinion.

Less resources means more time is spent on survival and less on invention. Societies that farmed or had an abundance of food could afford to have people who spent more time learning or inventing

Fewer resources often mean a necessity for invention - so the relationship is not simply relational.

diveout wrote: »

You are also looking at this geographically, not racially.

I did both. I cited the Bell Curve which specifically examined scores from racial groups in the US, and when I looked geographically it was on the presumption that most people who have been living in sub-Saharan Africa in the last 10,000 years are not East Asian.

Inventiveness is also created by culture and motivation.

Raises the question of which came first though - did the culture develop from a history of inventiveness or inventiveness from the culture?

LiveIsLife wrote: »

There were complex societies in the Americas when the Europeans arrived, and while they weren't as advanced as Europe, it was a combination of good fortune and disease that the Europeans were able to take over so quickly.

It should be noted that the Asiatic migration that populated the Americas meant that pre-Colombian culture was a lot younger than European culture. In short, they had less time to develop and innovate. I would also note that the Mayans independently developed the concept of zero, which I would certainly flag in the intellectual stakes - we leaned it from the Arabs, who in turn took it from the Indians.

Wibbs · 19-08-2014 10:52am

Black Swan wrote: »

I would exercise caution when referring to IQ tests as THE MEASURE of intelligence. Depending upon how intelligence is defined, as well as how the IQ test was constructed and administered, there may be many important and substantial factors missed that may serve to confound what differences may exist between women and men; i.e., I am suggesting that we should exercise caution when interpreting the validity and reliability of such tests.

Sure, but in the absence of the perfect intelligence measuring test IQ tests will have to suffice as a measure of a particular kind of intelligence and mental processing and these tests show time after time that the difference between the genders around the average is tiny if present at all, but that overall more men are to be found at the bottom of the heap and at the top of the heap.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Back to grown up conversation... Race and intelligence; correlation, yes - as I mooted already, physical and medical differences exist between races and the Bell Curve noted IQ differences based on ethnic background. However, causation is another matter; those same statistics showed that certain races were more likely to have better levels of education, especially in early childhood, and so environmental reasons need to be considered as the true reasons for such deviations.

True environment is a huge factor. However I do recall when the stats included those who were adopted into a different ethnic background there were still some differences. Still een there environment would have a part to play. The perception of one "race" in the wider societal mind would affect outcomes. One interesting bit of research I read showed that African Americans vocabulary went noticeably up if they thought they were writing a letter to a European American and dropped when they thought they were writing to another African American. That shít is subtle.

That said it is pretty much a given and not just a perception that African Americans(and Caribbean folks) produce more athletes than the surrounding populations. That holds even when you take out culture and access to facilities. They also have a much higher rate of diabetes than surrounding populations or indeed their ancestral populations in Africa. One theory being that slavery caused a major artificial selection pressure on the populations which favoured strength and endurance(and diabetes came along for the ride). For someone just to survive the trip on a slave ship was an achievement. A sickening amount of people died and more died from the privations of slavery. It makes sense that the folks who were left would be stronger.

Could intelligence also be affected by such selection pressures? I don't doubt that it could, however it would be just as likely that intelligence would go up as a survival trait.

Same on a macro level. It cannot have escaped people's notice that any of sub-Saharan Africa barely made it as far as the iron age, and much of it didn't get that far. Aboriginal Australia never made it out of the stone age.

Could this be due to inherent trends in intellect due to race? Maybe. On the other hand, climate, scarcity and so on are also important - necessity is the mother of invention, so if you don't need, why should you bother to invent?

Very true. The selection pressures for inventiveness might be low. At least the selection pressures for a particular type of intelligence might be low, while others might be higher. Native Australians score low in IQ testing, one of the lowest of any population, however they score extremely high on pattern memory tests, much higher than other populations. It seems the environment selected more for one than the other.

Environmental stability is a big selection pressure too. It tends to bring cultural stability along with it. Which sounds great in theory, but not so much in practice. Look at Egypt. A giant of early civilisation based on the like clockwork flooding of the Nile. The same culture changed remarkably little over the thousands of years of it's existence. SubSaharan Africa would have had a similar predictable environment. Australia would have initially been similar, but climate change(likely manmade) made it much harsher over time, so the pressure would have been aimed at basic survival. That takes brains of a different sort. In Europe it tended to go from one extreme to another and less predictably so that would select for a different type of "brain". Then again something else is going on here. Neandertals lived in Europe for 200,000+ years and through many ices ages and warm periods and major changes in environment and yet their inventiveness was minimal by comparison to ours. You could drop a Neandertal into any period within that time frame and he would likely find little to surprise him regarding the technology involved.

Modern humans were different. For whatever reason our brains and minds were extremely plastic and adaptive over time. This plasticity is the mark of us and that apparent intelligence and cultural achievement can go up or down over time within our species. We can observe this throughout history. Go back three thousand years and the Greeks were giants of achievement. Throw a stone in an Athenian town square and you'd be likely to hit someone who would forever change the world in some field or other. At the same time the Jews were just another bunch of middle eastern farmers by comparison. Today the Nobel prize list is stuffed with Jewish folks, but precious few Greeks.

diveout · 19-08-2014 3:12pm

Wibbs wrote: »

At the same time the Jews were just another bunch of middle eastern farmers by comparison. Today the Nobel prize list is stuffed with Jewish folks, but precious few Greeks.

Sorry, could you clarify? Which Jews are you talking about? Don't they cross races? It's a religion no? Are the Jews that are on the Nobel Prize list middle eastern? Aren't there Russian Jews, Sephardic...

And technically, my understanding, is that middle eastern is still "white." No?

Awkward Badger · 19-08-2014 3:23pm

diveout wrote: »

Sorry, could you clarify? Which Jews are you talking about? Don't they cross races? It's a religion no? Are the Jews that are on the Nobel Prize list middle eastern? Aren't there Russian Jews, Sephardic...

And technically, my understanding, is that middle eastern is still "white." No?

I think he meant Jews as in the ethnoreligious group. Not simply members of Judaism.

sbsquarepants · 19-08-2014 3:41pm

NipNip wrote: »

Does my 5 year old asking me 'why is the water falling to the bottom all the time' while she twirled a bottle around, some sort of apple falling moment? I explained gravity to her. She was 5. Not Newton.

You never know, Newton was five once too. I think Einstein was also. She's in good company:pac:

The Corinthian · 19-08-2014 4:35pm

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I think he meant Jews as in the ethnoreligious group. Not simply members of Judaism.

Actually diveout it technically correct. Jews are white in that as Semites they are part of the Caucasoid racial group (the other two being Mongoloid and Negroid). The term 'white' muddies the water a fair bit because it's a socially constructed term, generally used as a result of racial prejudice and the pseudo-sciences that promote such prejudices.

Reality is that 'race' is a very dodgy concept to begin with because there's a lot of grey, or brown, areas. Indians are technically Caucasoid too, even though many may have extremely dark skin. Or what of Eurasians? Or Americans, for that matter?

Personally, I've always thought that the concept of race is useful at a very broad level, but the moment you start trying to classify smaller and smaller subgroups, it gets terribly silly. So I'd avoid the use of such labels as 'white' or 'black'.

Wibbs · 19-08-2014 5:00pm

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I think he meant Jews as in the ethnoreligious group. Not simply members of Judaism.

Yep pretty much. While the description Christian covers a diverse population, the description Jew covers a much smaller population originating in the Middle East with admixture from other populations over time through intermarriage. That admixture was often pretty low compared to other populations that migrated.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually diveout it technically correct. Jews are white in that as Semites they are part of the Caucasoid racial group (the other two being Mongoloid and Negroid).

Australoid used to be added in as well, but I dunno if that's still the case. I've got books printed in the 1960's that have Native Australians down as "more primitive humans", not quite fully modern. Yep, that late in the day. Yes they have some distinct features, but so does any population if you look at them in isolation.

Reality is that 'race' is a very dodgy concept to begin with because there's a lot of grey, or brown, areas. Indians are technically Caucasoid too, even though many may have extremely dark skin. Or what of Eurasians? Or Americans, for that matter?

I agree. I prefer populations myself. Even then there is a lot of overlap at the edges and in new world nations and other colonies all bets are off on the genetic level because of the hanky panky in the past down to today. Never mind that, if you look at Africa your racist thinkers would say "they're all the same, all Black" whereas in actual fact the most genetically diverse folks on earth hail from below the Sahara. It's all very grey and that's before we get into admixture from archaic different humans among different modern populations. You will sometimes read that humans are very related, but I would slightly disagree. Yep we're pretty related, but at the same time there is lots of diversity and long may that continue.

Black Swan · 20-08-2014 7:13am

Wibbs wrote: »

IQ tests will have to suffice as a measure of a particular kind of intelligence

Once again, what does the IQ test measure? You suggest that it measures "a particular kind of intelligence." Is this particular measure a subset of a larger universal measure of intelligence? If particular and not universal as a measure, what is missing in IQ test measurement may confound the differences between women and men in terms of explaining intelligence.

LiveIsLife wrote: »

Regarding race, there are obvious physical differences, so could there be mental differences between humans...

Race is a problematic concept in terms of measurement. Often when collecting such data (e.g., census, etc.), subjects are asked to self-identify their race by checking a box from a predetermined list of races. More often than not, the list assumes that race is at the nominal level of measurement exhibiting mutually exclusive categories. If you check Black, you cannot be Asian at the same time, but what if you are Tiger Woods?

It gets a bit more complicated if we look closer at Tiger's immediate ancestry. Tiger's mother Kultida Punsawad is mix of Thai, Chinese and Dutch (i.e., Asian and White). To confound our so called mutually exclusive race category measure further, Tiger's father Earl Woods Sr has Black, White, and Native American ancestry. So what is Tiger Woods in terms of race, and which box does he check: Black, Asian, White, or Native American? If he is only allowed to check one box, to what extent is the data set misleading, confounded, or spurious?

What about Tiger's children? What box do they check, given the immediate and extended ancestry of their mom and dad, grand parents, etc.?

When studies are conducted that attempt to measure, analyze, and draw conclusions about intelligence based upon differences by race, do you see there may be problems in terms of validity and reliability of measurement? I do.

Wibbs · 20-08-2014 9:42am

Black Swan wrote: »

Once again, what does the IQ test measure? You suggest that it measures "a particular kind of intelligence." Is this particular measure a subset of a larger universal measure of intelligence? If particular and not universal as a measure, what is missing in IQ test measurement may confound the differences between women and men in terms of explaining intelligence.

Then we may as well not even discuss it as any test you care to mention will never be universal and the goal posts will be forever shifting. We might look at results of intelligent and creative thinking. Throughout history when the vast majority of people men and women were barely subsisting, at the top end while there were examples of extraordinary women the drivers of culture and technology were overwhelmingly male in gender. Sure lack of gender equality was a major pressure, however look at today, more women are graduating secondary school and far more are graduating third level, but still at the elite top end men are far more represented. Look at the other end of the scale, more men are at the bottom of the heap. More addicts, more homeless, more mentally subpar etc. I'll bet the farm that won't change much either and will back up the general trend that men and women are basically the same when averaged out for intelligence, but more men than women occupy the extremes.

Race is a problematic concept in terms of measurement. Often when collecting such data (e.g., census, etc.), subjects are asked to self-identify their race by checking a box from a predetermined list of races. More often than not, the list assumes that race is at the nominal level of measurement exhibiting mutually exclusive categories. If you check Black, you cannot be Asian at the same time, but what if you are Tiger Woods?

Very true. It depends where you look at populations though. Tiger woods would be an example of a colonial new world population that has had major admixtures going on in the last 500 years. Brazil would be another example. They're unstable genetic environments where ascribing population heritage is fraught with issues. It can get even weirder. European man marries African woman. They have two sons. The Euro/African sons have kids with European women. Their offspring of either gender will have European mtDNA. No trace of African mtDNA in the African grannies grandkids in just two generations. We can see that historically. Take the UK, they were invaded by Anglo Saxons in the early medieval. It's historical and archaeological fact and today many English folks would think of themselves as "saxon", however the genetics show a very different picture. A tiny percentage of living English people have Saxon heritage and they're all men. The saxon female lines have all died out.

Black Swan · 20-08-2014 10:57am

Wibbs wrote: »

Sure lack of gender equality was a major pressure, however look at today, more women are graduating secondary school and far more are graduating third level, but still at the elite top end men are far more represented.

Is increasing educational attainment some measure of intelligence, or are they associated but different concepts?

For thousands of years males and females have generally been sorted into sex typed division of labor roles. When this occurred it may have had some environmental survival value, hence its persistence. Relatively recent advancements in technology have allowed for change to occur at unprecedented rates. Yes, women are now surpassing men in higher education enrollments and graduations from US colleges and universities, and this may eventually trend worldwide. But this shift in educational attainment has been very recent. In the US only a small proportion of women attended university before WWII. Plus there are still some cultures today that demand historic sex typed roles for women and men, and if women attempt to break that glass ceiling by seeking educational attainment, they might be stoned (e.g., Taliban).

Because this division of labour has been in place for thousands of years, you cannot expect women to all of a sudden leap into the intellectual limelight in significant numbers across all disciplines where men have historically been given the opportunity to shine. Such a structural population shift may take decades, perhaps a century or two, but certainly not the thousands of years that this sex typed division of labour has been in existence.

Demographer faculty I know have been quite excited about this relatively new shift of women into higher education, and although they toss out theories, until there are more decades of longitudinal data, they really don't know what the consequences will be (other than decreased fertility rates).

"May you live in interesting times."

Valmont · 21-08-2014 12:53pm

I think post #31 by The Corinthian hit this issue right on the head! We have correlations, the dubious construct of intelligence (specifically as it is defined by IQ), and no real proof of anything.

Black Swan · 21-08-2014 8:05pm

Valmont wrote: »

I think post #31 by The Corinthian hit this issue right on the head! We have correlations, the dubious construct of intelligence (specifically as it is defined by IQ), and no real proof of anything.

Of course, science cannot prove anything, only suggest.

With the emergence of better theory, concept definitions, variable operationalizations, and related measurements we may discover differences in the future between women and men. Will such differences suggest that one is smarter than the other, or perhaps suggest that their combined intelligences make for a more viable species? Who knows?

The Corinthian · 21-08-2014 8:37pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Of course, science cannot prove anything, only suggest.

Social science.

Black Swan · 21-08-2014 9:58pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Social science.

The scientific method does not prove, only suggests, regardless if it pertains to the soft or the more precisely measured hard disciplines. This takes into account how science historically has changed its positions in accordance to revisions or marked changes in theory, concepts, hypotheses, and improving measurement techniques. Consequently by convention we do not prove the research hypothesis, rather we reject the null hypothesis, and report what has been suggested by the data analysis. Such a convention leaves us open to discovery and contrary evidence, as well as avoiding bias as the result of being rigidly attached to something we believe to be true (proof).

Whenever I read the statement, "Numerous clinical studies have proven" on the telly, I treat this as marketing/advertising spin, not science.

The Corinthian · 22-08-2014 8:45am

Black Swan wrote: »

The scientific method does not prove, only suggests, regardless if it pertains to the soft or the more precisely measured hard disciplines.

I'd still differentiate between the two.

Valmont · 22-08-2014 10:56am

Black Swan wrote: »

Such a convention leaves us open to discovery and contrary evidence, as well as avoiding bias as the result of being rigidly attached to something we believe to be true (proof).

Unfortunately they are rigidly attached to and biased towards their blunt statistical tools. That their methods are objective and free from bias as you claim is undermined by the fact that the belief in induction and empiricism is not grounded on evidence in the first place.

Race, Gender and Intelligence

Comments