Is there any evidence that the natural average intelligence among the races is about equal?

I have never seen any good scientific evidence of this. I think it's an important question. We know that there are plenty of smart and stupid people among all the races, but I don't think we can expect equal outcomes in the long run if the groups differ in intelligence as a whole even if it's a small amount like a 100 vs. 95 natural IQ score. I know intelligence isn't everything for a person, but as a group it's sort of like Blackjack. Sure, that 48% means you can win a hand against the house, but if you play a billion hands the house is just about mathematically guaranteed to win.

 

You say this is an important question, but why is it an important question when we believe in individual liberties in this country?

Anyway, the OP's question doesn't make sense to me. If you believe in the idea of "race," the intelligence quotient can't mean the same thing across races because each "race" is different. For example, one race's people with IQ of 60 can mean people who need social workers to ensure they survive while another race's people with IQ of 60 are hunters and gathers and don't need assistance to survive.

 

The measure of IQ is ARBITRARY!

It does NOT measure actual INTELLIGENCE at all!

Instead it measures nutrition and the value that a society places upon what western nations regard as formal education.

There are scientific studies that show that childhood malnutrition leads to lower cognitive skills regardless of race.

https://www.nature.com/news/poverty-shrinks-brains-from-birth-1.17227

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041117005027.htm

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nure.12102

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-40142006000300015&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en

Given proper nutrition all brains can develop fully and have similar cognitive skills.

The western IQ tests do not take childhood malnutrition into account when scoring tests.

As far as education goes that very much depends upon the environment in which you are raised. Learning what is edible and what is poisonous is a crucial survival skill in some parts of the world and a formal western educated individual might have a high IQ test score but would not be able to use that education to keep themselves alive. IQ tests do not evaluate the kinds of knowledge that is essential in these other parts of the world. Applying those western IQ tests to the individuals who live there would give results that can be misinterpreted by those with an agenda.

To use an analogy imagine that you are flying a plane through dense fog on a moonless night and the only working instrument that you have is an altimeter. It might tell you that you are 5000' up but it won't stop you flying into the side of a 10,000' mountain.

The IQ test is nothing more than a single instrument that tells you very little without putting it into the context in which it is used and taking into account all of the other variables that will impact the results.

 

IQ is biased. It's a well established fact. That's why I said "natural IQ". What I meant by natural IQ is what their IQ would be if bias was removed and they were all raised under the same conditions. I can see that some people in different parts of the world may be better skilled. There are obvious physical differences that have to do with adaptability. Some believe that the increased cognitive ability (as tested through IQ tests) among Ashkenazi Jews are a result of centuries of needing to adapt to certain roles in society. It wouldn't surprise me that there are different strengths and weaknesses among the races. It actually seems almost certain. We see this in various sports where genetic differences in body structure play a role. However, there are certain abilities that increase people's earning power in this country. Maybe they're not as important in other countries that depend more upon survival skills. What I'm saying is, if the skills correlated with earning potential aren't equally distributed it would make sense that there would be a natural difference in earning potential even if there's no discrimination. If that's the case, then expecting us to achieve equal outcomes in the near future without continuously subsidizing them is probably unrealistic. In the future I do think there will be no differences due to constant racial mixing and the fact that our adaptation to our environments is becoming increasingly similar. However, that's likely centuries if not millennium down the line.

 

I probably should have been more clear. It's about having the natural ability to adapt to American society in our economic system. I admit IQ is biased and flawed. I should have been more specific when I said "natural IQ".

 

The ability to adapt to American society isn't "race" specific though, which is why I don't understand the importance of considering "race" in the first place. If a person is ambitious enough they will naturally do fine in American society.

Moreover, we shouldn't have group-based policies in the first place, so it doesn't make sense to care about "group IQ."

 

I disagree with the idea that if somebody is ambitious enough they will naturally do fine. It's a combination of factors. Ambition, intelligence, where they started from, who they meet, etc. Our society is loaded with group-based policies specifically targeting what are considered "protected classes". Race gets emphasized because of its historical significance. However, people become outcasts for various reasons in society. Society is always judging people based on gender, race, height, weight, general looks, etc. Without the help of the government it's ideal to be a tall, fit, good looking, straight, white man. Not that they won't face judgement from others, but they have the highest probability of getting ahead without merit. How much should the government correct for deviations in this? Regional demographics would certainly have to play a role. Do you want the government to try and correct this? I don't think I do.

 

With all the points you've made, the strongest one is that race gets emphasized because of its historical significance. Race is directly tied to socioeconomic status here in the United States as race was coded into law as to which race code (color) stood where in society. So, trying to discuss natural intelligence as if it is somehow tied to race in the US is not something we can do honestly as it was one's color code that determines how they are perceived, proximity of opportunities they have access to, and how far they can go successfully. Nevertheless, despite colors being tied to status, many people in the inferior/colored position excelled or adapted well enough in American society and many considered superior/white didn't amount to much.

Regarding the government trying to correct issues, sure I don't see a problem with this at all. When society hurts certain people living in it, it's best to repair damage like many modern civilizations have done.

 

In which case you are not referring to IQ at all.

You are referring to natural ABILITY which is a better way to describe what you are saying.

Let me see if I can clarify why natural ABILITY is the term you should be using.

I suck at sports relating to balls because I lack a decent sense of timing. On the other hand I can ride a motorbike at speeds that others can't because I have the eye to judge speeds and distances. In the former my natural ABILITY to hit a ball is lower than average and in the latter my ability to control a vehicle at speed is higher than average. Neither of those natural ABILITIES have anything at all to do with my IQ which remains constant in both activities. Increasing my IQ won't improve my ability to hit a ball and neither will decreasing it.

Now go ahead and apply natural ABILITY to everything else you are talking about. Some people have a better natural ability to sell products than others, some have a natural ability to create movies, some have a natural ability to organize or program computers or teach, etc, etc. It is not related to their IQ but rather their natural ability in that field.

So if you take what you are trying to say and substitute natural ABILITY it will make a great deal more sense.

 

equal outcomes goes by many names, but its really all just communism. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

IQ is subjective and flexible(it can change during a lifetime)...IQ tests results are influenced by cultural biases... "race" absolutely does not exist, biologically we are all the same, so linking something as cultural sensitive and flexible as IQ to a biological classification that does not exist is as scientifically valid discussion as tarot cards and horoscopes

 

Exactly. Saying races have different brains is like saying women have different brains: it is something people think in order to feel superior, but it in no way exists as far as intelligence.

 

How equal is “about equal”? The same person can take the same form of IQ test on different days and get results that are several points different so I’m not convinced single-figure average difference between massive groupings is at all significant.

I’d also suggest that any social expectations of lower intelligence on the basis of a flawed racial stereotype will do infinitely more harm to individual prospects that any actual small deficit from average they might have.

Finally, who said anything about equal outcomes?

 

I've also come across the argument concerning women not being as intelligent as men because they have smaller brains. Despite the fact that women on average have better academic scores better than men and have always done so. I don't believe women are any smarter than men it's just that they're generally more focused academically than men/boys. The counter argument was "then why are most nobel winners and great scientists of the past always men" Obviously because women weren't allowed to take part because of male dominated social hierarchies.

Cultural biases and myths play a strong role in these erroneous beliefs. Like linking skin colour to intelligence brain size is not a factor in intelligence, even Einstein had only an average sized brain.

 

IQ scores for women have a narrower distribution curve which means that women are less likely to be on both extremes. There are both more mentally challenged and genius men than there are women according to IQ results.

 

lol...misogynist delusion is strong within you

 

To be blunt but not rude, I find that most of the 'stupid' people are the ones with education and those without education as the less stupid. Well, at least without having to take written tests. Stupid is as stupid does.

I'll give an example. If someone was to say a person was being 'stupid' or behaving 'stupid', this of course is not even proper english to begin with, the uneducated might understand why while the educated ones might not.

The word stupid was not always used with negative connotations. A doctor could have made a note to self about the stupidness of the patient who fell from a tree and hit his or head in his notes.

'The patient showed signs of stupidity. They may have arisen from hitting his head on the ground too hard'.

'The patient appeared out of focus and his verbal responses were stupid.'

'Not only was he dumb and regained speech, but he also lost the stupidity and was able to rationalize and think properly'.


So intelligence and being stupid are not always interchangable.

 

my emphasis
What are "the races" you talk about? Are you talking about all the different "races" in the continent of Africa alone, because there is more diversity there than in the rest of the world combined.

There is only one race, but the diversity is greatest in the one place racists like to target. How ironic? Just speaking generally, not trying to imply anything about you personally, other than the thing about there only being the one race.

 

The real question is whether there is evidence that real IQ among the races is significantly different or that human intelligence significantly evolved after leaving Africa.

 

I agree, and I have made that same argument before, that we don't need identity politics. However, I think there is still a need.

Did you see the Vox documentary about walking while black in Jacksonville. It basically replicates the driving while black results from the New Jersey I-95 study.

 

What about alchemy? LOL

 

I could make an argument against that. Just for the heck of it, take a look at the Iroquois Nation as a matriarch, and also look at how much the Articles of Confederation are similar to the Great Law of Peace of the six nations of Iroquois. Most people are not aware of it, but the women were in charge of pretty much everything other than hunting, fishing, and war parties. This all started about 5-700 years ago, correct me if I am wrong about that, in a time when the 6 tribes were in a state of perpetual warfare. The Great Law of Peace was adopted, ending the wars of retribution and significantly empowering the clan mothers.

I think what this says is that as a country at perpetual war, maybe we need to listen to our mothers a little more than we do.

This video tells it pretty well:



Gender Roles among the Iroquois By Katsithawi Ashley Thomas
https://www.vaniercollege.qc.ca/tlc/publications/native-circle/native-circle-2003/ashley-thomas3.pdf

 

The problem with laws like these is that they leave far too much room for selective enforcement. The documentary even shows that cops break the same laws they want to arrest others for but there is no one to arrest or ticket them. Common sense should be built into the laws and targeted groups should sue the police until they are forced to become even handed in how they enforce the law. Identity laws aren't needed here.

 

matriarchal societies are rare