I wonder why he didn't also point out that "yellow" (Chinese/Japanese/etc) people have higher IQs than "white" people.
Does saying that make me racist against myself? Hmm...
OK. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is drifting in the direction of discussing whether it is right that black people have a lower average IQ than white people.
But I want to focus, as far as possible, on the question of whether it is simply wrong even to suggest that it is true.
Is it akin to saying 'Jewish people are on average greedier than non-jewish people' or is it more like saying 'Black people are on average blacker than white people'?
Or neither?
I wonder why he didn't also point out that "yellow" (Chinese/Japanese/etc) people have higher IQs than "white" people.
Does saying that make me racist against myself? Hmm...
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
A fellow forumite PM'd me and asked a question they were unhappy about posting in the open thread.
Here is the question and my response - others may like to comment.
I don't know.Originally Posted by Concerned of CerocScot
It seems unlikely that there has been sufficient research done to reach that sort of conclusion. It would be a very tough task to design an experiment to investigate such a slippery concept.
I'm not sure that 'consequences of actions' is, in any event, a matter of intelligence, or at least if it is a matter of intelligence, it seems to me that it doesn't require much intelligence. I think consequences of actions is more a question of learning - that is, my experience of parents is that they begin by shielding their kids from the consequences of their actions because they are too young to understand cause and effect; but gradually the idea that 'what you do will affect you and possibly other people too' has to be instilled into them.
Isn't that the whole point of punishment? “Don't do that or this will happen”? I suspect it's more likely that the reason certain people, of whatever colour, don't think about the effect of their actions is because as children they could never tell when they were being punished for doing wrong and when they were being punished because Daddy or Mummy was drunk or embarrassed or hungry or miserable or frustrated or stoned - in other words, they never learned about cause and effect properly.
OK, then it's wrong. If only because there's no single ethnic group of "black people", as I said.
AFAIK, Jewish people are a relatively-homogenous ethnic grouping, so it's conceivable that they may share some characteristics - for example, talking very loudly during a dance class when they should be listening to the teacher...
But people with dark-coloured skin are most definitely not ethincally the same throughout the world - unless you believe that the Amazonian Indians, the Maoris, and the Zulus are ethnically identical just because they happen to have dark-coloured skin.
So in my view any statement - any statement - saying "Black people are XYZ" is at best profoundly ignorant, and at worst racist, unless it's the ministry-of-the-bleedin-obvious one relating to their skin colour.
This thread and statement has actually shocked me! Even more so when my black friend at work told me what her son had asked her earlier that day when he heard the same statement.
I dont believe statements like these are helpful to anyone and if anything actually cause harm. Its so easy for people just to give up and giving them excuses only just helps. We should be encouraging people to become better rather than pointing out that their group are bound to be worse than another group.Originally Posted by Friends son (~5 years)
Does IQ account for cultural difference? (the fact I dont know that might be down to my roots)
Last edited by Msfab; 18th-October-2007 at 08:38 PM.
This is where the use of stats gets dangerous. The issue re 'sticking in knifes' appears to apply as much to whites as blacks, but maybe more to Hoodie-culture than Middle-Class bankers? If you are 'on the streets' where image/respect is key, then the availability of weapons and drugs AND the social pressure to use them is probably a key contributor. Factor in the abuse that society at large heaps upon poor blacks and maybe the apparent predisposition to violence is understandable.
I would suggest that the violence is NOT as a result of not thinking, just thinking within rules that me, you and most of the Forum do not have to encounter .... and lets all thank our Gods for that.
On a personal note, coming form a mixed race environment, I have seen and suffered far more violence from white trash than anyone 'of colour'.
It's "supposed" to. But if IQ really does measure intelligence without cultural bias, I find it very hard to believe that an entire nation's IQ could be as low as 64 (average IQ in Ethiopia, according to the study). That would equate their average IQ to the bottom 1% or so in the UK.
I would go back to the "you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre and claim freedom of speech" arguement. It's too easy for what he's saying to be read as "Blacks are less intelligent". That is profoundly irresponsible.
"Does that mean I dont have to try hard at school any more?"
You're really blonde?
Black is just about the worst thing you could call a Maori. They're brown damn it! And proud!
Although I can't remember the names of anyone involved and don't have the books to look it up in anymore.....Originally Posted by DavidFranklin
In the early 1900's America instituted manditory intelligence testing of it's immagrents. The results were telling, with figures such as 80% of Italian men and 100% of Russian women being medically classified as retards* or morons*. This "scientific" information was used to justify mass sterilasation programs.
Of course, the tests were heavily culturally biased and the results showed that. They were hardly fair tests. I suspect that to a smaller degree the same thing would be happening in this case. I wonder how well we'd score on a test designed for Africans?
*Yes - they were actual medical terms
Last edited by NZ Monkey; 18th-October-2007 at 09:24 PM.
Undesirable consequences of making a statement don't make making the statement undesirable, still less make it forbidden.
That appears to be a false dichotomy. No-one is suggesting that it's either consider the possibility that there are ethnically structured IQ variations or encourage people to do the best they can.I dont believe statements like these are helpful to anyone and if anything actually cause harm. Its so easy for people just to give up and giving them excuses only just helps. We should be encouraging people to become better rather than pointing out that their group are bound to be worse than another group.
The answer to that question - which possibly isn't quite the one you intended to ask? - is NO. Geographic separation accounts for cultural differences.Does IQ account for cultural difference?
I don't disagree with anything you say. In fact I very much believe that when you have a sub-culture with its own norms, behaviour will not be in the interest of society as a whole. When you are disadvantaged by the status quo, you are certainly not going to be unduly bothered about maintaining it.
I don't think David was being either. For better or worse, there's a very wide range of people that we describe as "Black". (My mum would have referred to herself as 'coloured' but that term is no longer acceptable). If you want to talk about a more specific grouping, I think you need to use a more specific term.
That, of course, is not what David said.Anybody else think that by 'blacks' was intended 'all races except europeans'?
But I do think that most would not have any idea that 'black' in this context referred specifically to 'sub-Saharan Africans'.
Just a thought, but given that the US has proven its cultural 'intelligence' by putting Bush's finger on the button ... wouldn't that constitute sufficient justification for the mass sterilisation of the US of A? Could well make the world a safer place. Just curious ...
Arguments don't get much more specious than that, chum.
It would be disastrous if we were prevented from saying things simply because other people might misunderstand.
And the 'fire in a crowded theatre' example is contrived. The point about that is that the statement is by definition malicious; whether people should be free to make malicious statements is debatable; but here we are debating whether people should be prevented from making statements simply because other people find them unacceptable, absent malice.
Hmm isn't it the main argument in American law regarding free speech vs causing harm
In this case I take umbrage with "might"
Are you seriously suggesting large numbers of people are not going to misunderstand?
Then respectfully I think you've chosen a bad example. I think Trampy's tagline is about respecting your right to have an opinion even if he disagrees with it. The line that gets drawn is when expressing your opinion causes harm. Franck clearly finds much of what Andy says unacceptable, but he doesn't stop him from saying it.
Science in the early 1900s is not science now. Any test in 'the early 1900s' would not have been the IQ test, since that wasn't invented until much later. And I believe it is accepted that the early IQ tests had a slight cultural bias; but the modern researchers who have been carefully investigating relative intelligence have been designing out the cultural bias - or at least, they claim to have been doing so.
It's worth bearing in mind that some of the people claiming a racial IQ difference are 'african americans', and that nearly all of them are involved because they want to find ways to improve the opportunities for poor blacks in the US. They aren't doing it in order to commence some sort of mass eugenics programmes.
An intelligence test designed for africans might be different from ones designed for us. Doesn't mean you can't draw conclusions from how well the two groups of people do in their tests.
Non-scientists need to bear in mind that it isn't like someone walks into their office one day and says 'Gee. I'll test some black IQs today...well, whaddaya know?' The tests involve groups of researchers investigating the matter for years, trying this, refining that, going back and trying a different route. Their conclusions cannot be sidestepped just because they may be politically difficult to stomach.
But my point is WHY CAN'T WHITE PEOPLE BE ON AVERAGE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN BLACK PEOPLE? Doesn't make them better, not one little bit.
If it was definitively shown that black penises are on average significantly longer than white penises, well we'd just have to learn to live with it, wouldn't we? No point bleating about it being an unacceptable thing to say, and not like all white males could never show their faces again.
Er...yes it was. 'Amazonian indians'? When has the word black ever been used to refer to them?
If it does, it also refers to their descendants in America. That's who most of the tests are carried out on.But I do think that most would not have any idea that 'black' in this context referred specifically to 'sub-Saharan Africans'.
The only other black skinned race in the world, other than sub-saharan africans and their descendants, are aboriginals. And my contention is that we in England never use the word 'black' to describe (whom are now probably to be referred to as) native Australians.
So, black - quite prepared to use another term if anyone wants me to - pretty much = sub saharan africans, and not Maoris or Patagonians.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks