Races

Oh hum. OK first of all its been proven that the first few years of a childs development are the crutial mold for ones life. So if we apply this to cultural or environmental or social or economic conditions... what do we have ?
 
You would draw your arbitrary cultural lines on a map huh? Or do you need different skin colour to experience different culture?

No, I would use the anthropological definitions of culture. You didn't specify anything, so I assumed you meant a child from a wealthy white family, and a child from a poor white family, both living in America. According to anthropology, cultures usually share a region (or country), language, religion and common social constructs. It is most likely that the children you speak of share these attributes.
 
Oh hum. OK first of all its been proven that the first few years of a childs development are the crutial mold for ones life. So if we apply this to cultural or environmental or social or economic conditions... what do we have ?

Ohhh.... HUM ! :rolleyes:



:lol:
 
No, I would use the anthropological definitions of culture. You didn't specify anything, so I assumed you meant a child from a wealthy white family, and a child from a poor white family, both living in America. According to anthropology, cultures usually share a region (or country), language, religion and common social constructs. It is most likely that the children you speak of share these attributes.

Ok, I'm sure you're right in some sense of the word culture. But why stop there? Surely the environment someone has grown up in impacts their ability to do the test? Not to mention their genetics.

I've conducted a worldwide iq survey, taking into account environment and genetics. Interestingly, everyone scored 100 :lol:
 
Ok, I'm sure you're right in some sense of the word culture. But why stop there? Surely the environment someone has grown up in impacts their ability to do the test? Not to mention their genetics.

Surely, it does. I won't deny that. But the fact remains that there are far more social/cultural barriers between a poor white family living in America and a tribesman somewhere in Africa than two American families, even if they are from two different social strata. Two Americans, no matter what their economic status, are far more likely to score similarly on an IQ test than an American and a tribal African.
 
Sure, but why draw the line at large differences and ignore the smaller ones? Everything contributes, is my point... when we talk of intelligence, we don't talk of how intelligent someone would be if such and such, we just talk of how intelligent they *are*.
 
Well, I'm very intelligent. Not sure about the rest of you... :cool:

I would think possibly, but with that answer I am now unsure, because the key word in the question was "we". :)

I suppose this could actually be another topic, but I probably shouldnt go there, it would be too jaw dropingly awe...some
 
Ok, I'm sure you're right in some sense of the word culture. But why stop there? Surely the environment someone has grown up in impacts their ability to do the test?

But then why do studies of adopted children show that, by adulthood, adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers?
 
I guess that what IQ is supposed to messure is how intelligent you are by genes and how much you have learned in school. Then the environment you grow up, and the stimuli from your home would determine how high an IQ you can get.

Mensa is an organization for people of high IQ. They say that there are different tests, each country do their own tests, and kids under 16 can not use the regular tests.

http://www.mensa.org/index0.php?page=10

Why do they have different tests for different countries and for people under 16? Because of environment and learning.

Edit: and instead of making yet another post in this stread :)

We have a lot of people in my country with different upbringing. Usually the problem is their language skills. If they can't understand the language well enough they will have problems later on.

This "Race" issue is SO american. I don't even understand what you are talking about. For me "Race" is something the nazis experimented with during the war. I will not use the term. It makes me sick.
 
According to what I have heard in Bio the only thing that really separates different races is what determines things in appearance like facial structure, pigmentation, and build.
 
The use of the term race becomes silly when you put an afrikan from Africa in the same group as an american of african decent several generations back.

If one of each came here I would call them african and american. Culture is the major issue here not genes.

Another thing is of couse the issue of differences within Africa itself. Africa is a big continent with many different people. I have talked to a few afrikans, and they make fun of me when I talk of afrikans as one group.
 
According to what I have heard in Bio the only thing that really separates different races is what determines things in appearance like facial structure, pigmentation, and build.

So you're suggesting that natural selection caused the races to differ in their physical characteristics (skin pigmentation, cranio-facial morphology, musculature) but not in their mental traits (intelligence, personality, temperament)?

This is a bit odd though, seeing as most academics currently agree that genes play the more important role in the formation of an individual's intelligence and personality. So, if racial differences are the result of differences in genetics, and individual differences in intelligence and personality are due primarily to differences in genetics, then the racial differences in intelligence and personality must be at least partly down to genetic differences. This would also explain why racial differences in personality exist in new-born infants, for example.
 
Haukrinn. Homo sapiens comes from Africa, so that would make the africans the most original "race", and all others separated from them many, many years ago.

... and racial differences in personality? What is that. What determines if a personality is more to do with black or white people? In new-born infants ... according to mormons kids have no personality before they are 6 month old.
 
So you're suggesting that natural selection caused the races to differ in their physical characteristics (skin pigmentation, cranio-facial morphology, musculature) but not in their mental traits (intelligence, personality, temperament)?

This is a bit odd though, seeing as most academics currently agree that genes play the more important role in the formation of an individual's intelligence and personality. So, if racial differences are the result of differences in genetics, and individual differences in intelligence and personality are due primarily to differences in genetics, then the racial differences in intelligence and personality must be at least partly down to genetic differences. This would also explain why racial differences in personality exist in new-born infants, for example.

so, you agree with me that "black" americans act differently than "white" americans (at least partially) because of genetic differences between the races affecting personality, i tried to say this earlier in the thread
 
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.

the black guy wearing a "black pride" shirt is definately NOT okay, IMO because of the fact that all those guys wearing them wanna talk about some ancestor that "was a slave", i don't feel any obligation to treat black people nice just cuz they're black. the reason i don't feel this need to be nice to black people is because of the fact that all the people that were slaves are already dead, the "civil rights" movement was called the "civil" rights movement instead of the "black" rights movement because the civil rights movement didn't happen untill the 100th aniversary of the begining (or maybe ending?) of the "civil war" i can understand the old black guys that don't like white people because he can actually remember what it was like before the civil rights movement, but i have a problem with those old guys failing to acknowledge how much better he had it than the slaves, and i have a problem with that old guy's teenage grandkid walking around pissed off at the teenage white kids because of some horror story about his great-grand-father getting beat up by white supremisists, if you're gonna treat somebody like crap, treat them like crap for what that individual person has actually done himself, instead of treating all white people like crap for what a bunch of dead white people did a whole hundred years ago
 
Monoxide. Stop spewing bullshit. There is no evidence that different races genetically have different personality traits and your stupid misconceptions are not good evidence either.

You just look at what's going on without taking anything else into account and just say it's biological. Oops I stubbed my toe. Looks like I'm genetically predisposed to it. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that it was midnight and there were no lights on.

Blacks here act differently because of different culture and environment. If your stupid genetic theory were true then my African friend who was raised all his life by white people would have grown up inarticulate, badly behaved and violent like you think all black people are.