Race and IQ ARE RELATED.

This is completely backed up by speculation NOT facts. In China it's not that cold, it's actually pretty humid and hot. Mongolians lived in pretty flat land.....
Africans actually had a harder place to live because there were usually droughts and they lived in the Sahara Desert.

 

Okay - but don't you agree that the four -oids are distinct enough for *some* IQ disparities? 150000 years (what many sources date the existence of Homo Sapiens at) would be enough for a little divergent evolution, would it not? I wouldn't consider a difference of 100-105 for Mongoloid and 85-100 for Caucasoid to be bizarrely different, or even 60-80 for Australoid and Negroid.

I know what you're saying - but don't these races still have general 'regions' where they're considered to be prehistorically from and where they evolved into their modern -oids? Before colonization and the slave trade, for example, how many ethnic Africans could be found outside Sub-Saharan Africa?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLjovgiNZfE

Saharans are Semite Caucasoids, not Black people (who are Sub-Saharan).

See this

 

I think this is backed up by environmental manipulation. Your surroundings only let you use as much brain power as needed.

If you lived in dry areas with little rain, you would need to act on instinct more than judgment because of the situation you are in. If it is hot, you only need food and mainly water. If it is cold, you need the same, but under different conditions. The people in cold would need to be smart on how to trap animals rather than chasing after something to keep their body heat and not sweating. While in hot/dry areas, you could exert more energy than in a colder climate mainly for their being more animals living on the land. The harder it is to get something, the more you will need to think about it to achieve it.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Each of these four races has had varying amounts of *need* for intelligence to survive.

 

I don't think you understand how large these differences are. A person with a 60 IQ is considered mentally retarded, above 80 is a much larger percentile of people. I would not be surprised if all the races averaged approximately 10 points in actual intelligence. Another thing you have to consider is the inherent flaws of IQ tests - the environement, language, and culture play a large role in how they work. For example, IQ tests frequently incorporate vocabulary as a part of their overall score. If not exposed to it, how would one come to know it? That's a fatal assumption - they assume that the human brain is a sponge, and that we are exposed relatively to the same environment. They then try to test how much the "sponge" has absorbed. The intelligence "quality" they test is not a brain function test. For example, I am doubtful that large samples of Aborigines were given IQ tests in their language. When studying your data, have you considered the numerous sampling errors of the study, and the inherent errors involved? Furthermore, have you considered the political influence of the study? Many have often striven to prove a race's inferiority through skewed tests.

150,000 years would certainly be enough for some divergent evolution (Just look at our skin colors). You have to present the case that intelligence was a strong factor, and that environment is a very strong influence on intelligence. Both links seem weak.

General regions was not the differentiation, it was simply a matter of adaptive radiation at best.

I hope you aren't suggesting Lamarkian evolution.

 

Not at all. These are all merely how man handles his environment and has absolutely nothing to do with the further evolution of humans at all.

No. Everybody's DNA is so similar that genetically it is hard to tell people of one race apart from people of another race, as, while we may look different on the outside, we are still just man on the inside.

 

[ Natural selection occurs: dumb people are wiped out and only the high-IQ people survive to reproduce. The average IQ of the Mongoloid race is 100+

that is not natural selection!
natural selection is when a mutation occurs to a particular species or humanoid to help it adapt eg long eyelashes in camels so sand doesnt get into eyes..

 

Natural selection is survival of the fittest. The one adapted most to it's environment survives. One can also assume that intelligent people have a higher chance on success in life thus he will also get intelligent children.

 

In response to the topic:

I think there must be huge external factors if we want to justify the differences between different races. So not only living environment, but also culture, food and life habits are very important.

 

South Asian IQs average at 85? This is the fifth time I've seen "research" like this - I'm sure they fail to exclude the malnourished, impoverished majority (and possibly with Africa as well). The Global Bell Curve gives them an average of 92.

 

Yes, yes, I've heard this argument before - but I don't doubt the general trends shown. I've said that for nations and continents with high poverty (like India and Africa) it is difficult to be fair and choose viable subjects, but just look at what you see.

Sources:
Race, Evolution and Behavior

http://pluralism.org/news/article.php?id=6190

 

It depends on your need of intellect.

If you work at McDonalds for twenty years, then you really don't need much intellect to survive. You already know what you are doing, so why learn more?

As in if you are in some place where you are constantly being threatened by violence, may it be war or beatings if you don't do something right, there is a greater desire for knowledge.

 

Also the Slave Trade took away millions of young Africans to work like a slave. The Europeans only took the smartest, strongest, young people. This ruined the African Society itself. So of Course Africans aren't smart as Europeans because the young population was extremely low. The smart Africans actually came to South America and they invented stuff that actually only supported the Americas not where they came from. (Africa)

Also another completely stupid theory is that Aliens were white people and they were much more smarter. Lol This of course hasn't been proven. Also the Asians could of been aliens too, like white people. So this just shows to prove you there's a lot of theories.

 

Not true. The slave trade did not favor intelligent Africans. There was hardly any "African Society" before the slave trade, either. Were there ever any great Black African empires? No. Egypt is part of Semitic North Africa, not the Negroid Sub-Saharan Africa, so the Egyptian empire is not theirs.

The ancient world has had many great Mongoloid and Caucasoid civilizations. Greek, Persian, Egyptian, Indus Valley, Chinese, Japanese, Mongol, etc. Negroids and Australoids were not civilized until colonization.

 

Its all stereotypes -.-

 

I did watch it - a few weeks ago, actually - sure, there is a conflict of interest (because I am South Asian) but some things he says about the "South Asian race" are just plain wrong - first off, about Turkey: Turks assimilated the Mongols in the 1200s. Ethnic Turks are mostly Mongoloid today, yet he includes them as South Asians.

Saudi Arabia: Arabs are Semites, like Jewish people. Aren't American Jews supposed to have exceptionally high IQs? Wouldn't this be reflected in their Arab cousins?

 

While your at it, could you please post some basic credentials of this study? At the very least, I'd like to know:

Who funded it?
How was the data sampled (was it an SRS)?
How many were sampled?
What test was used to find IQ? (there are several tests)
How did the testers compensate for the disparities in language?