Intelligence/brain size differences among race/sex.

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

I use the word ‘race’ very lightly, I don’t ‘think’ there is enough deviation in humangroups for the word race to be scientifically real (think because the current state of science could be wrong)

I’ve heard these claims of differences between whites, blacks and asians (and ect) were superficial, cultural, or otherwise. Most scientists that I have read and educated myself with have provided devestating arguements against the idea, like, that human brains evolve too slowly for intelligence differences not to be species typical (and I guess for the large part they are)

However upon reading “Evolutionary cognitive neuroscience” (a book that greatly details many neuroscientific discoveries/knowledge) provides a devestating case that this IS INDEED the case.

I haven’t yet provided you with the ‘evidence’ that this chapter is saturated with, i’m still pretty stunned. Its somthing I don’t want to believe and my final judgement isn’t in yet, but what a bewilderingly powerful case it provides.

One of the things it points out is (at great great great length) are the types of correlation between brain-size and intelligence (a very convoluted and not straight-forward correlation, and then goes on to show differences in cranial capacity, adjusting for bodysize, among peoples).

Females have slightly smaller brains as well adjusting for bodysize but the researchers were unsure as to what effect it had if any, and essentially chalked it up to different adaptive pressures, with males not really having a significant spike in iq.

2

Oh and I know I sound like a stupid racist by making these claims, but consider I fought tooth and nail against them as scientifically unfounded until just recently, and I shall fight tooth and nail trying to explain away these facts cited by the book, but what a compelling fucking arguement.

(think of being convinceed of somthing you never wanted to admit because of the evidence, or at least the amount of evidence that is suggestive)

3

I haven’t read the book but I look forward to your posts on this matter.

(could you please post the reference for the book?)

4

What do you mean? At the end of each chapter they provide like 3/7 pages of references and sources for the quoted material, so, WHICH ones!?

:astonished: :stuck_out_tongue:

(Its going to be a bit difficult to find the parts i want as i want to read the next chapter or so before i fill out this post)

I usually add sticky notes to navigate a book for its experimental results/dizzying explanations that are hard to re-count as quickly as they do in the book

I added almost no little markers to find spots from the chapter on racial intelligence/brain-size correlations because I originally thought the chapter was racist nonsense.

Two stickies, one was “Wtf is with this chapter”

Hah, so i might re-read it, note the significant studies and experimental results before i fill them out, here, 2-3 hours prob.

5

Adjusting for body-size theres a difference in cranial capacity (that repeated tests in numerous different ways keep showing)

20,000 subjects:
averages:

asians:1415
whites:1362
blacks:1268

cm3.

weighing brarins at autopsy show whites with heavier brains, larger frontal lobes, and more convolution.

black/white men from 18-60some have an average brain weight difference of 80g

these brain differences show lower intelligence among racial groups wherever their shown to exist (or higher intelligence) the brain correlation I mean, on top of that economic and societal factors were largely controlled for.

(asians raised by whites still did better, blacks raised by whites still did worse)

thats just a fragmentary begining and I can tell you where all the studies came frfom (some of them are the largest done to date)

6

I have to say that I am educated about the claim whether intelligences differs in races or not, i’ve read a lot of evolutionary science, cognitive science and neuro-science, in all the science that I have read, never have I seen a real reply to this chapter, infact, never have I seen a real scientific attempt to say that there is a difference in the bell-curve, most was based off of psuedo-scientific claims.

Unnerving, if this is true.

7

As in the full title, author, publisher, date of publication for the book you are using.

8

What is the definition of intelligence? Is that definition objective/universal? Are there tests for this trait? Who administers these tests? From where did the values implicit in such a test originate? If ‘blacks’ statistically behave differently than ‘whites’, or if they statistically answer questions differently, why is it so? What is genetics? Are genetics permanent? Are ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ two separate things, or are they the same? Should we create laws to correspond to differences in peoples? How come on Star Trek when they find ‘life’ on other planets, ‘life’ is implicitly defined as ‘similar traits to our own’? What is the reason for a thread like this? Does is serve a purpose? What is that purpose? Are there political ramifications? Personal ramifications? When I drive through a ‘black neighborhood’ and pedestrians take their time crossing the street, what can I conclude? What is the definition of intelligence? Can I see how everything relates to each other? Every person’s personal histories? Can I judge a person? Can I judge a culture? To what purpose? Surely I’m not God dividing people into the heaven-bound and the hell-bound? Individual people are murky and slippery, but surely a culture is a real thing. I mean, we can create statistics and all… :unamused:

Damn it feels good to be a beta.

9

The chapter goes on about this at length, i’ll explain it later.

Thats part of the explanation, that the chapter anwsers.

Genes as in the genes you have or the study of genetics, nature means what is innate and nurture means environment, there is a ugly nature/nurture debate in social science that has already been largely resolved. Nature enables flexibility to the environment, but its like a car/wheel analogy, both do their part and are interconnected very strongly.

and they all interact, genes can cause behavior, but behavior can cause changes to the genes. For example, social signs can cause neurological changes in some fish which will lead to physical changes and strat changes (bigger fish, larger gonads, non territorial or territorial) and they can switch back and forth.

Not in inherent general intelligence because the differences wouldn’t be so vast, as to your second question, it doesn’t.

Lots of people claim blacks are dumb without scientific justification or less intelligent on average then whites, until recently, I was along with everyone else saying that a bell-curve for biological reasons was absurd and didn’t exist, however, I encountered massive amounts of evidence which made the concept far from some silly racist notion. I guess truth-value is important, but other then that it doesn’t serve a purpose and I do think that if this is actually true that racists will have a stepping stone to bigotry, and that i’m not exactly excited about, but, if its true its true.

There would be political ramifications as there is with anything, i don;'t know what you mean by personal, I don’t think it serves as a stepping stone to judge individuals or even groups, opposed to a scientifically observab le phenomonen that needs some explaination.

10

The question for me is who cares? Why would I want to be in the business of determining if black people are dumber than white people? It’s pure hypothetical, theoretical, abstract, speculative B.S. and the politics behind the whole thing (whether you perceive your interests as political or not) are highly questionable. If you’re hiring someone and you think the white person is smarter than the black person then hire him/her and be done with it. Everything beyond that is useless, unless you have ulterior motives.

11

So what the idea that the earth moves around the sun is theoretical and it is true, other then that it is not speculative BS. The politics behind the whole thing are rank and the scientists envolveed with many of the tests i’m talking about are neutral about whether or not blacks/whites/asians show intelligence differences.

Sciencec doesn’t constrain itself to politically correct questions, if blacks are less intelligent and have smaller brains science wants to know why because it COULD provide insights INTO our EVOLUTIONARY PAST, or highlight other questions in science we COULD ask.

Thats a personal and nonsensical comment, we could look for genes regulating this kind of stuff with neurogenetics and it could highlight many questions or provide many insights into how the brain operates and or how those genes regulate the brain differences envolved.

I don;t really care if you care or not, but its more then just a political tool, infact, as a political tool i’d rather a bellcurve difference didn’t exist.

12

So politicians determine nature?

Is nature just an abstract theory? How do you get to the theory without first having a measurable, physical reality to theorize about?

13

Ok sorry I’m probably just in a bad mood.

“Intelligence” is a broad, imprecise, subjective statement and is therefore meaningless in the context of any scientific endeavor. You might as well have ‘scientific’ studies regarding the existence of God.

14

Intelligence isn’t measureable.

15

The brain is a physical organ, just like any organ of the body. Any mind it gives rise to is thus rooted in the measurable, physical world.

Would you say that our belief that the liver cleans the blood of toxins is just a meaningless, subjective statement? Is this phenomenon unworthy of scientific investigation? Is this behavior measurable?

It is.

Intelligence is an evolutionary adaptation to the environment and to competition with other human groups for lands and resources. Considering our lack of claws and fangs it has proved essential to our survival and to our growth.

It certainly is measurable in a number of ways.

16

Intelligence is a value judgement overlaid onto observable and measureable phenomena. Evolutionary adaptations don’t carry inherent value.

17

Its not just a ‘value judgement’

Yes. And with proper controls/definitions of what type of intelligence we’re talking about it can make headway. If you want to say intelligence is meaningless you might want to explain why people with socio-economic high status (who weren’t born with it) score higher on IQ tests and have bigger brains, you might want to explain why the IQ tests accurately predicts future education and economic accomplishbments (to some rough degree)

And etc.

Its not a subjective statemnt just an imprecise one that needs proper definition/controls, we can talk about ape/cetacean(sp) intelligence and what types they have and how they evolved.

So its not just some fairy-tale.

18

Yes it is.

Because that is what IQ tests measure obviously. IQ tests measure the propensity of a person to have socio-economic high status. If those people have bigger brains then maybe there is a correlation between bigger brains and socio-economic high status.

Who provides the definition/controls?

19

If we wanted to talk about ability to understand numerical values, some tribal groups or hunter/gatherer groups have 1, 2, many. Others can manipulate numbers in the billions in the most complex mathematical/abstracted tasks imaginable, person A you can’t count to 3 and person B have a different ‘intelligence’ level concerning that one aspect of intelligence, there are many and it is hard to define.

But thats after they already show the relationship between brainsize/bodysize at depth (the convoluted relationship). And again, you’d still be talking about an aspect of ‘social intelligence’.

hundreds of different scientists who peer review each others work?

20

It is an unscientific assumption to link current ability (which is likely linked with practicality) with innate ability.

Not sure what you’re saying here.

This is irrelevant to my argument. Scientists can study observable and measureable phenomena all they want. When they make value judgements about the phenomena it isn’t science anymore.