Does race determine your attributes?

[pop 0]

Here is article on a guy who is being labeled racist at the moment: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/19/uk.race/index.html

Here is a quote out of the article: "The controvery began with an October 14 interview Watson gave to the Sunday Times, which quoted him saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really."

Watson also asserted there was no reason to believe different races separated by geography should have evolved identically, and he said that while he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."



Let me pose this question to you. If you take a look at pure breed dogs you will quickly find that while they are all dogs, the breeds determine certain qualities about the animal. Such qualities include physical, mental and behavioral attributes.

Do you think humans, much like dogs (or other animals such as monkeys), have different attributes that are not only determined by the fact that they are human, but also by what "breed" of a human they are?

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[speedy 0]

Well as my Dad used to say "They are fiendishly clever, those Chinese". He seemed to think the Chinese had more intelligence than the Brits.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[vortexring 0]

Different races and cultures have differing attributes! This seems obvious enough to me.

I couldn't honestly say whether I believe Black African's to be less intelligent than White people though. I always thought White Americans were the dumbest.

Seriously though - I just don't accept Black people on average are less intelligent than White people. I'd certainly like to have a look at the testing involved to see how they came to this somewhat troubling conclusion.

I think it's something more likely he's said out of hand.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,601]

Quote

The biologist apologized "unreservedly" Thursday for his comments and said he was "mortified" by the words attributed to him.

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said," Watson said during an appearance at the Royal Society in London. "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways that they have."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 4]

Quote

Do you think humans, much like dogs (or other animals such as monkeys), have different attributes that are not only determined by the fact that they are human, but also by what "breed" of a human they are?

Treading on very dangerous ground here as just about any responce will be highly controversial.

That said, yes, I do believe that, for instance, some races are "taller", some are "fatter" and some are more prone to certain diseases. This is simply undeniable if you look at statistical data.

The question then becomes, how much does it matter? How far away from the center does "this" particular race's average stray?

If you took the entire population of the planet and found one race was +0.1% more intelligent and another -0.1% less, would that really make any difference in the grand scheme of things? On the other hand, if the difference was +5% and -5% that might have rather large implications.

I certainly don't think there's anything even suggesting the spread is that large, but to deny the possibility that there could actually be a difference of some sort is silly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,167]

Quote

Different races and cultures have differing attributes! This seems obvious enough to me.

I couldn't honestly say whether I believe Black African's to be less intelligent than White people though. I always thought White Americans were the dumbest.

Seriously though - I just don't accept Black people on average are less intelligent than White people. I'd certainly like to have a look at the testing involved to see how they came to this somewhat troubling conclusion.
.

I don't see how you can tell. By the time a kid gets old enough to have any standard "intelligence" test administered he or she has already been influenced by upbringing.

I had dinner with Watson some 10 years ago. He is certainly an outspokenly opinionated sexist.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Do you think humans, much like dogs (or other animals such as monkeys), have different attributes that are not only determined by the fact that they are human, but also by what "breed" of a human they are?

Yes, to some extent. But I don't think that there are many "pure breeds" of humans left, so it would be difficult to assume which attributes a person might have without knowing their personal genetic make-up (and what that means).

Quote

. . . which quoted him saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really."

Hmm, I'd like to defend him and say that what he really meant was that their way of thinking is different than ours (which it likely is, in a general sense), but after reading some of this other quotes (such as aborting if the baby is determined to be homosexual), I'm a bit disappointed in Mr. Watson.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Black athletes are pre-eminent in such a broad range of sports today. African-Americans make up 65 percent of the N.F.L. and 80 percent of the N.B.A. The world's top sprinters and marathoners nearly all trace their ancestry to Africa. Blacks have excelled even in sports where, for reasons of culture or geography, they are unlikely competitors -- bobsledding, for instance. Could it be that they have some sort of physical advantage, one that evolution encoded in their genes?

This conclusion has been embraced, more or less recklessly, by sports figures ranging from Al Campanis and Jimmy the Greek to O. J. Simpson and Carl Lewis. It has also been promoted by a somewhat marginal group of scientists, who have accumulated a body of genetic and physiological evidence that, they claim, lends it support.

In ''Taboo,'' Jon Entine, a journalist, brings this evidence together to make a painstaking case that race and genetics are indeed ''significant components'' of the ''stunning and undeniable dominance of black athletes.'' The book, a highly readable blend of science and sports history, had its origins in a 1989 NBC television documentary on black athletes that Entine wrote with Tom Brokaw. That show drew charges of racism when it was broadcast,

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Do you think humans, much like dogs (or other animals such as monkeys), have different attributes that are not only determined by the fact that they are human, but also by what "breed" of a human they are?

Sure.

Watch a major running race and you'll see long-legged light-weight Kenyans running like smiling gazelles in front while the rest of the pack suffers far behind.

Like other animals there are environmental issues too. Poor nutrition doesn't help.

While one can argue about the applicability of IQ tests, Euro-American biases in them, and specific reasons for the differences (they're starving), the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is 70.

Aids prevention and birth control programs may need to take that into account to be effective.

Outside that case, it's not too relevant. You're looking for people that exceed the norm in relevant areas - smarter engineers, more charismatic sales people, faster athletes. Race is is irrelevant.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Yes, to some extent. But I don't think that there are many "pure breeds" of humans left, so it would be difficult to assume which attributes a person might have

POW - right on the money. That coupled with Quade's comment that, even if we could show some kind of mean difference between races in whatever measure you want, that the overlap of the distributions likely makes it a moot point.

I suspect any study of IQ that concludes differences would have faulty stastical analysis from lack study of the sigma, to not considering strong environmental influences

This guy's efforts are so unimportant, I'm totally underwhelmed.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AWL71 0]

I think a person's enviroment is what makes the difference. It is true that certain races have certain traits but it comes down to what you have to work with. A smart, motivated driven person in America has many opportunites. Put that same person in a third world country and the same opportunity does not exist.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

This guy's efforts are so unimportant, I'm totally underwhelmed.

Well, to be fair, some of this guy's efforts have been just a little bit important.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Well, to be fair, some of this guy's efforts have been just a little bit important.

Sorry, In the spirit of Speaker's Corner Standard Operating Procedure (SC-SOP) - If I don't like one thing this guy did, then I automatically must protest against everything he's done.

==>>

"My, this is lovely filth"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[champu 1]

Race is an attribute. Your parents determine your attributes. However, culture plays pretty heavily into the reasons people get together and have kids, so it's definitely possible for different societies to produce pockets of people with particular enhanced traits right out of the starting gates.

That said, whether you're talking about strength, intelligence, or charisma, you still have to grow these attributes as the individual grows if you want them to amount to anything. This is where the second, and larger imho, round of your culture's influence comes into play. Some societies are better equipped to grow different attributes than others.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Do you think humans, much like dogs (or other animals such as monkeys), have different attributes that are not only determined by the fact that they are human, but also by what "breed" of a human they are?

Obviously. Check out appearances.

From an intellect standpoint, no way. I believe the potential is there for all races. What matters is how the brain is exercised from childhood, and the sort of education and sensory experiences given to children.

The earliest examples of homo sapiens and some of the earliest examples of civilization are found it Africa. Human society started there, but at times it seems to have not progressed too far.

But there is variation within Africa itself. Gabon and Equatrial Guinea do well, in part due to offshore oil. Eastern Africa is poor, and getting poorer. There is wealth in Ghana, but half the population lives off of less than a dollar a day. Central Africa is in terrible poverty - often in Africa whatever wealth is there is horded by a few with the power and ammo to keep power. The rest have practically nothing.

So due to society, the innate intelligence is not developed out of a sheer need for survival. Asians are steretypically bright, in part to the culture here in America. And frankly, we typically only see the best and brightest from India, China, etc.

My opinion is that any difference in the intelligence of different races would not amount to a significant figure. Those things that can be less quantified, like culture and society, will have a greater impact.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Royd 0]

Quote

or other animals such as monkeys),

You mean, like cheese eating, surrender monkeys?

[kallend 2,167]

Watson resigned.

www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/science/26watson.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,123]

>Do you think humans, much like dogs (or other animals such as
>monkeys), have different attributes that are not only determined by the
>fact that they are human, but also by what "breed" of a human they are?

Of course. Some races are more or less resistant to UV radiation, and are on the average stronger, taller, shorter, fatter etc etc.

Those are the easy ones - the physical attributes. But mental? I am sure there is some average variation (normalizing for environment/upbringing) but selection bias almost always swamps that out.

Take an example. Say there is an island with no one on it. Some blue people decide to leave their homes, find a new island with no one on it, and make a new life. Many die, but the smartest (defined in this case as "people who can find an island on an ocean better than anyone else") find the island, settle on it, and start a society.

These people decide they need some slaves. They raid a nearby island and capture some green people. Needless to say, the captured people are not the smartest of the green people if you define smart as "able to evade kidnappers."

They bring the green people back. At that point, which color people are going to be smarter? You could make a case that the blue people would be smarter; their ocean voyage has "selected" them for intelligence and the kidnapping have "selected" the green people on the island against intelligence.

The two caveats there would be 1) that does not mean ALL blue people are smarter than green people (it's only valid on that island) and 2) that does not mean that in 100 years it will still be true. Inbreeding, random genetic recombination and the portion of intelligence influenced by upbringing will eventually level things out again.

[FreeflyChile 0]

This is not a comment directed at any poster here, just my impression of the topic in general:

I find it particularly intriguing how in discussing a topic such as this, it's not too much of a stretch to imply that yes, racially there are physical differences that may be characteristic of one race and not of another, but that it's much trickier to insinuate a difference in "natural" intelligence because of the connotations of racial superiority and inferiority that it implies.

If anyone thinks I am oversimplifying this, please let me know, but the way I see it is this: obviously, we know that there are races that are more likely to have certain characteristics that other races do not have as much (as has been mentioned - pigmentation, weight, size, etc). If the brain is a physical thing, is it that hard to think that perhaps certain races have a predisposition to be smarter than others on physical traits alone? how is being different in the brain any different from differences in pigmentation, digestive characteristics, etc?

As has been said, I'm also of the mind that societal and upbringing influences on the individuals pretty much levels the playing field, as there are smart and dumb people of all races, but I do think that there's gotta be something different....