Races

[Einherjar86]

I understand and agree with Einherjar somewhat except the problem in America is not racism, its cultural, its the urban environment, its the black attitude. Those that want to break out of that can and do. I will never fall for the racism card. THey have the schools, the teachers and the books, they also have some very bad influences and role models, not the fault of whiteman.

Exactly what I mean when I say the resistance of black youth. Some people questioned what I meant by the influence of black culture, but this is what I mean. The modern black attitude (especially in more urban areas) doesn't place much emphasis on the idea of education. However, this is because of conditioning which is the result of hundreds of years of racism. I agree, razor, that racism today is probably much less than it was even fifty years ago. People today claim to not be racist, and I believe most of them. However, we cannot deny that the effects of racism have been long-lasting, and will continue to last. The "black attitude," as we've dubbed it, is in fact a result of racism. They aren't inherently born with such an attitude. You'll find no such attitude among tribal African blacks. The "black attitude" in America has been created and nurtured by a history of racism.

 

[Blowtus]

IQ tests fail to measure the intelligence of blacks in a different culture. IQ tests are created by western standards of intelligence which do not necessarily translate across cultural bounds.

Intelligence is a created notion, IQ is an attempt to quantify it. The culture of the creator is of no relevance to it as a measure - do kilograms measure differently for black people too? You can argue the measures relevance and cause all you want, but 'different culture' is a useless fucking cop out. May as well argue 'different person', as interpersonal differences are often larger than interracial.

If we changed the name of the test from 'intelligence quotient' to 'pattern recognition' I imagine there would be far fewer objections raised to it.

Why would we expect those with notably different biological makeup would function 'equally' on a specific cognitive measure? What if I argue that retarded folk are not really 'lower intelligence' but are simply suffering the biased effects of a test created by non-retards? Anyone who suggests it could have anything to do with their biological foundations is clearly just a bigot

 

[razoredge]

SO what is an IQ test ? I never took one that I recall, it meant little 30 years ago, before the book learned got uppity and the high tech industry entourage decided to drive yet another dividing wedge into society.

 

[Einherjar86]

Intelligence is a created notion, IQ is an attempt to quantify it. The culture of the creator is of no relevance to it as a measure - do kilograms measure differently for black people too? You can argue the measures relevance and cause all you want, but 'different culture' is a useless fucking cop out. May as well argue 'different person', as interpersonal differences are often larger than interracial.

A kilogram would measure differently/incorrectly for a different culture if they didn't understand how to use it.

It's not a cop out, and I find it suprising that you would say so. Intelligence tests are designed from a completely different cultural standpoint than, say, that of tribal Africans with no written language. Surely, even a tribesman who was taught how to read and write would fare poorly on the exam. The areas of intelligence favored on the test might not be favored by his culture. They cater to a western breed of education.

 

[Blowtus]

It is still a reasonably accurate reflection of their ability to perform certain tasks, and at least somewhat correlated with the western view of intelligence, which is what it is trying to measure. Basically, if tribespeople do worse on the test, it is because they are not as intelligent - for a certain understanding of the term intelligent.

 

[Einherjar86]

It is still a reasonably accurate reflection of their ability to perform certain tasks, and at least somewhat correlated with the western view of intelligence, which is what it is trying to measure. Basically, if tribespeople do worse on the test, it is because they are not as intelligent - for a certain understanding of the term intelligent.

Right; it measures a "western view of intelligence." Intelligence varies across cultural bounds. What we deem as intelligence factors may be completely unnecessary to someone of a different culture. Therefore, just because an African tribesman fares poorly on the test, it doesn't mean he's less intelligent.

 

[Vimana]

Yes, the IQ is just another test. Bad grades don't mean stupidity. And the environment is a huge factor, I heard about a black guy who went out of the bad parts of DC and went to college and the reason why was because he frequently went to tutoring and had mental stimulation. You're not going to find much mental stimulation in the inner city, and even less in Africa.

So basically a white guy who lived 20 years out in a tribe in Africa and was taught to read and write would score higher?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Not a good answer.

Intelligence is more environmental. There is no evidence that there is an intelligence gene. Black people and Hispanics (now) come from environments that are not mentally stimulating. All these misconceptions are just from the way people see blacks and Hispanics today. The Chinese thought the Europeans were stupid before. When a lot of Europeans were barbaric there were city building civilizations in Africa and South America with leaders and law.

And I agree with Ein's point. There were African kingdoms, and there were barbaric European places. The barbarians became civilized and that shows that all humans have the same capabilities on average.

Knowledge is environmental but intelligence refers to the innate mental capacity to learn, remember and apply that knowledge. It has been firmly established that this capacity is inherited, and that environment can only affect it within the confines of what is inherited. For example, we inherit our looks. Some people are natuarally more beautiful than others, but if the environment makes them sick or they become unfit and obese they do not make the most of their inherited capacity. Meanwhile someone born ugly can't naturally become as beautiful as the naturally beautiful person had the potential to be.

So someone naturally brainy has the potential to exhibit more intelligence than someone born with genes for being stupid. These endowments are not haphazzard. Everything we are has to have a genetic component involved.

Regarding barbarians and civilisation. All civilisations are founded by barbarians, and the effect of living in civilisation is dysgenic, increasing the number of parasitical and weak people. This is a process equivalent to domestication of animals. They cease to be wild (barbarians) and become unable to cope with life outside of the protection and support civilisation offers. Far more ideal to remain a barbarian and hold civilisation at arms' length. Then again, theoretically a civilisation could be designed that incorporates spartan-like martial spirit and eugenics so that we could be barbarians yet also develop scientific knowlege and innovation. All other forms of civilisation decay and die - as history repeatedly shows. The kind of useless criminal class that develops within civilisation are not barbarians btw.

 

[monoxide_child]

Right; it measures a "western view of intelligence." Intelligence varies across cultural bounds. What we deem as intelligence factors may be completely unnecessary to someone of a different culture.

Inteligence varies across the cultural bounds WITHIN the united states
blacks, hispanics, whites, orientals all have different cultures WITHIN the physical place boundries of a single city, and thus score differently on the "inteligenge" testing, the things that are the most important in the black culture are the things the least important in the white culture, and vice versa, so 2 kids growing up literally next fucking door to each other could have vastly different scores on an standardized test even though neither of them really truly has any classifiable learning disability, they just learned different things, but the amount of things that they learned was the same

 

[monoxide_child]

Knowledge is environmental but intelligence refers to the innate mental capacity to learn, remember and apply that knowledge. It has been firmly established that this capacity is inherited, and that environment can only affect it within the confines of what is inherited.

"knowledge" is definately environmental, the blacks learn different types of things than the whites,

there are lots of psychologists/therapists/sociologists who would say that the "intelligence" of black people is lower than the "inteligence" of white people (given the definition above), but most of the people on this board seem to disagree with that idea
what we need to do here is to go to http://www.blackplanet.ca/?bp=2
and find a large number of black people to start posting on this thread

 

[Blowtus]

Right; it measures a "western view of intelligence." Intelligence varies across cultural bounds. What we deem as intelligence factors may be completely unnecessary to someone of a different culture. Therefore, just because an African tribesman fares poorly on the test, it doesn't mean he's less intelligent.

When we speak of 'intelligent' we speak as to our understanding of it, not some unknown absolute entity. Thus, the tribesman must be considered by us 'less intelligent'. What the term 'intelligent' is held to mean in their own culture, is up to that culture. We cannot, and nor should we try to, alter all our uses of terminology to suit all possible peoples and times - our language and its uses are for *us*, *now*.

 

[razoredge]

OK, how do I word this ? Has anyone ever known a highly intelligent person that in many ways is awkwardly ? foolish ? absent minded ? just cant grasp some of the simplist of things ?

I've pondered this intelligence thing from time to time during my life and when you get into the realm of genious you find some very puzzleing circumstances.

One of my great friends growing up was genious, skipped a grade, still graduated valedictorian, we skied together and did all sorts of adventurous boy stuff in the summer, he was tons of fun. He also had perfect pitch, photographic memory, could play classical piano like no ones business. He was German, in fact was born in Germany.

Yet at times it was like... "dude, WTF are you doing !"

My sister is married to a genetics professor, he's up there pretty good, runs whatever the department for plant genetics is at the University of Tennesee, great guy, but man sometimes......... I just dont know. My one Uncle, a engineer called him the absent Minded Professor.

Of my group of life long friends, we have one that has been a computer wiz since the 70's before computers were cool. Hes smart as hell but sometimes we could just choke him for his other bone headed characteristics.

I just find this cut and dry intelligence thing quite curious. Then here we are talking about Blacks and I think of the mind it takes to play basketball with the finess that blacks show. I think about the development of jazz music and how they can improvise as they do. I think about the wit they possess. I think about actors like Sidney Portier, James Earl Jones and Denzel Washington. I think about my favorite bass player Stanley Clark. I think about the depth of mind that was in Jimi Hendrix a black/native American cross. I think about the guitar player I met a Berklee that knew nothing about "music" yet had everyone, even the instructors intimidated, I hung with that guy all summer and he was some DEEP shit let me tell ya, besides the education and growing up in the city culture he appeared to me to be every bit as intelligent as my German friend.

So... once again... I ponder... this intelligence issue

 

[Vashti]

ah okay. This thread isn't offensive at all. I'm actually half black and I can see where you come from. I don't know about the things being tried as a hatecrime or anything...but I know that there is a double standard. If a white person were to wear a shirt that says "proud to be white" they might be looked at like they are hitler. But if a black person wears a similar shirt, it's okay. I guess because Black people were oppressed before so people feel it's okay for them to wear such things without being racist because it's their way of uplifting themselves out of the oppression feeling THOUGH most of the black people wearing them have NEVER been oppressed in their lives. only 60-70 years ago there was segregation and still racism, and unequal laws....but some people act like they live around 200-300 years ago and were in actual slavery. which they weren't.
soo I agree with you, it's unfair. but I just ignore it and I really don't care about the shirt thing....but as for the crimes...well that is just not fair but there's really nothing you can do until people see it for themself.

 

[Einherjar86]

When we speak of 'intelligent' we speak as to our understanding of it, not some unknown absolute entity. Thus, the tribesman must be considered by us 'less intelligent'. What the term 'intelligent' is held to mean in their own culture, is up to that culture. We cannot, and nor should we try to, alter all our uses of terminology to suit all possible peoples and times - our language and its uses are for *us*, *now*.

I disagree. If we use our own language and cultural measures to try and gauge other cultures, we're being unfair. We must take such a bias into account. When we measure the intelligence of such a culture, we deem them to be "less intelligent." This is automatically interpreted as a negative aspect by most westerners. People need to realize that we're measuring them by units completely unknown to them. As you said earlier, a "kilogram" measures the same amount for them. But they don't use the kilogram, so they don't understand what we're talking about.

 

[Blowtus]

Is it unfair then to compare a child from a wealthy family to a child from a poor family - they grow up in different cultures and have differing levels of education available. It seems if your thoughts are taken to a realistic conclusion, you would have it that no comparison between people is possible - once everything is accounted for, there is nothing left!

 

[Vashti]

Blowtus that makes sense. I do think it's unfair to compare a child from a wealthy family to a child from a poor family though

 

[Blowtus]

When would a comparison between different people ever be 'fair' by this standard of 'fair' then?

 

[Einherjar86]

Is it unfair then to compare a child from a wealthy family to a child from a poor family - they grow up in different cultures and have differing levels of education available. It seems if your thoughts are taken to a realistic conclusion, you would have it that no comparison between people is possible - once everything is accounted for, there is nothing left!

Incorrect. They don't grow up in different cultures. They each grow up in a different social strata of the same culture. They do receive different levels of education, but this is not as prohibiting as a completely separate culture.

 

[Vashti]

ah, I see both sides of this. I will just stay quiet now

 

[Blowtus]

Incorrect. They don't grow up in different cultures. They each grow up in a different social strata of the same culture. They do receive different levels of education, but this is not as prohibiting as a completely separate culture.

You would draw your arbitrary cultural lines on a map huh? Or do you need different skin colour to experience different culture?