Intelligence, race and related issues.

[Half-Life]

I know the pre-programmed NPC response from the leftists.

"Other countries take over Africa and use it for their benefit and Africa is not tough enough to fight back!"

I'm not a leftist though.

Ok, I'll start. The first big factor, way back, was melanin. Melanin is essentially what gives skin and other bodily features a dark pigmentation. If you had lots of it, then it was either because you lived in a hot, sunny country, or the other way around (that you lived in a hot sunny country because you had lots of melanin). Either way, it meant that you could stay outdoors longer. White people, on the other hand, had to stay indoors more and this was much more conducive to reading books and that sort of thing. A general pattern gradually emerged, one which also helps explain why blacks are better at sports.

there are other reasons of course, but that's quite a big one.

But the positions in sports that require a lot of cerebral thinking (as opposed to physical attributes like running and jumping) are mostly held by whites. Basketball requires the least amount of thinking and it's dominated by blacks.

And if, as you say, Africans stay outside mostly because they can't get skin cancer as much, they would still be hot, right? This should have incentivized them to make air conditioning and being indoors more of a priority so they don't die of heat exhaustion, don't you think?

 

[ruby sparks]

But the positions in sports that require a lot of cerebral thinking (as opposed to physical attributes like running and jumping) are mostly held by whites. Basketball requires the least amount of thinking and it's dominated by blacks.

And if, as you say, Africans stay outside mostly because they can't get skin cancer as much, they would still be hot, right? This should have incentivized them to make air conditioning and being indoors more of a priority so they don't die of heat exhaustion, don't you think?

Sorry, I edited and added to my post while you were replying.

As I said, it's complicated. Blacks were generally better at sports, but as you say, it was mostly the ones where athleticism and not cerebral thinking were key. For example, in American football, the quarterback position may most readily suit a white person.

Regarding the air conditioning thing, bear in mind that they didn't need to go indoors, and may not have seen that as a priority. They probably adapted to the heat and in any case, they didn't have to be active all day. They could lie down in the shade too. There may even have been some who did this too much. Not all black people are sporty. Some tend to be quite inactive in fact. Even within one race you can get subtypes. But the thing was, because of the lack of urge (or need) to read or study, the non-active time was not filled by 'academic/learning' pursuits the way it generally was for white-skinned people.

 

[Patooka]

But the positions in sports that require a lot of cerebral thinking (as opposed to physical attributes like running and jumping) are mostly held by whites. Basketball requires the least amount of thinking and it's dominated by blacks.

Seeing as you like facts so much, show some that proves this idiotic claim. Or for any of your other bullshit opinions. Any peer reviewed research will do.

 

[ruby sparks]

Obviously I'm generalising. For example, not all white-skinned people could stay indoors most of the time. But there were just more of them that needed to, could and did. And when farming was invented, the surpluses that resulted meant that white-skinned people had more free time, so that those who had hitherto foraged and hunted could also spend more time on 'academic' pursuits, including back in the day, astrology, and working out calendars. Also making gadgets, such as clocks, or surgical instruments. Along the way, they invented writing, to assist in these things.

This is all very general of course. We are only talking about some basic trends.

And there are many other factors too.

For example, if a person or if people, spent more time inside dwellings, which of course were rather small, so that people were literally in closer physical and audible contact (less spread out, quieter conditions) it meant that conversation was easier, more convenient and appealing as a way to spend time, so that language skills and 'cerebral interactions' with others came more to the fore.

Now, as to the question of whether all this could be called nature (as in genetics) or nurture (as in environment) I think it could be looked at in different ways, but in the end, as regards (at least partly) how and why today's disparities may have originated, it sort of doesn't matter.

It might not even be completely amiss to say that one big problem about living in Africa was (and indeed still is) that it is just too sunny and hot.

At some point we could move on to consider other factors, such as European colonialism and the slave trade, and the adverse effects those had too, but they were later than the things I have described so far.

 

[steve_bank]

I have worked with people from around the world. From what I see anyone who has the general equivalent to our primary education are on the average no better or worse rhan anyone else.

There is a thriving Ethiopian immigrant community in Seattle. Those who come with basic education pick up English. Some go to college or trade schools. Those without the foundation have trouble picking up English and communicating. They are stuck in low wage jobs.

I'd say culture matters more than any generic variation.

The problem with statistical studies is isolating all relevant vsaribles.

In the JFK era the Moinahan Report showed that the biggest factor affecting kids performing in school was income and family stability. Race was not an issue. Controversial at the time. Further it was said welfare was destroying black families exacerbating the problem.

This is what Republicans have been saying all along! Democrats giving out handouts to blacks in ghettos just incentivizes them to do nothing all day. Trump is now taking away food stamps from about 70,000 Americans. The quote was, "The best welfare system is getting a job." This will now force people in poverty to work for their money. This means less money spent on drugs, booze, and cigarettes, which means they should be turning a corner in their lives.

I've heard plenty of poor complaining about how they can't pay their bills this month. But, I've never seen any complaining about how they can't afford their cigarettes or booze or weed today.

Actually in the day the southern dems were the racists. LBJ went against the grain.

When Obama got elected congressional republicans clearly considered him an 'uppity house Negro'. They were put off by the image of a black man as an equal or a better.

Conservatives are against all social programs, except corporate welfare.

 

[Trausti]

Obviously I'm generalising. For example, not all white-skinned people could stay indoors most of the time. But there were just more of them that needed to, could and did. And when farming was invented, the surpluses that resulted meant that white-skinned people had more free time, so that those who had hitherto foraged and hunted could also spend more time on 'academic' pursuits, including back in the day, astrology, and working out calendars. Also making gadgets, such as clocks, or surgical instruments. Along the way, they invented writing, to assist in these things.

This is all very general of course. We are only talking about some basic trends.

And there are many other factors too.

For example, if a person or if people, spent more time inside dwellings, which of course were rather small, so that people were literally in closer physical and audible contact (less spread out, quieter conditions) it meant that conversation was easier, more convenient and appealing as a way to spend time, so that language skills and 'cerebral interactions' with others came more to the fore.

Now, as to the question of whether all this could be called nature (as in genetics) or nurture (as in environment) I think it could be looked at in different ways, but in the end, as regards (at least partly) how and why today's disparities may have originated, it sort of doesn't matter.

It might not even be completely amiss to say that one big problem about living in Africa was (and indeed still is) that it is just too sunny and hot.

At some point we could move on to consider other factors, such as European colonialism and the slave trade, and the adverse effects those had too, but they were later than the things I have described so far.

Your thoughts are . . . interesting. On the other hand, a reason the people of sub-Saharan Africa lag behind may very well have been due to environment. But environment more in the sense of disease and proximity to large and predatory animals. Until colonization, diseases and local fauna kept these populations low - which corresponded to high fecundity and gives us Africa's present exploding population. This made any attempt at close urbanization rather hazardous. There is a stark lack of ruins in Africa by comparison with the rest of the world. Add to this having to deal with lions, elephants, and whatever, then cities and large scale agriculture would be difficult to maintain. Selective pressure for higher cognitive function would be low to absent. Without agricultural growing seasons, traits favoring future planning and delayed gratification would not be under selective pressure. However, Africa is a very big place with much human biodiversity. Some groups engaged in behaviors that probably did select for higher cognitive function. Like the Igbos.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which doesn't mean there are substantial differences between populations. Especially as the "differences" go away after a few generations in a more advanced culture.

But how do those heritable differences “go away”?

That's the point--they aren't heritable. The differences were cultural & environmental, not genetic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the point is that most of them are not heritable. They are learned, or they are the result of growing up with better nourishment, etc. Take a random baby from an isolated remote tribe of primitive humans (few remain today) and I bet you few of us could tell once they reach adulthood. Not exactly an ethical experiment, but it would show some answers.

I dunno. The science seems pretty consistent that parents pass on traits to their offspring. Intelligence, self-control, exercise behavior, etc. Adopted children take after their biological parents. Siblings/twins reared apart are remarkably similar. It’s not incorrect that as you age you become your parents.

Yes, but that doesn't say that the initial population had actual genetic differences.

An experiment out of Mexico. They took a village that still lived as it had before Columbus. They provided half a cohort of kids with multivitamins for 10 years. (Presumably the other half got placebos but what I read didn't go into that level of detail.) The difference between them and the others was tremendous.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think the point is that most of them are not heritable. They are learned, or they are the result of growing up with better nourishment, etc. Take a random baby from an isolated remote tribe of primitive humans (few remain today) and I bet you few of us could tell once they reach adulthood. Not exactly an ethical experiment, but it would show some answers.

I dunno. The science seems pretty consistent that parents pass on traits to their offspring. Intelligence, self-control, exercise behavior, etc. Adopted children take after their biological parents. Siblings/twins reared apart are remarkably similar. It’s not incorrect that as you age you become your parents.

Yes, but that doesn't say that the initial population had actual genetic differences.

An experiment out of Mexico. They took a village that still lived as it had before Columbus. They provided half a cohort of kids with multivitamins for 10 years. (Presumably the other half got placebos but what I read didn't go into that level of detail.) The difference between them and the others was tremendous.

Not surprising. I think it should also be noted that people living a primitive life in the jungle doesn't mean they are less intelligent. They may be MORE. They may still have significant evolutionary pressures on them to bump up intellect. For those of us living in modern society, and especially in the west, being more intelligent does not increase breeding rate. In fact, its the opposite.

 

[Jarhyn]

Obviously I'm generalising. For example, not all white-skinned people could stay indoors most of the time. But there were just more of them that needed to, could and did. And when farming was invented, the surpluses that resulted meant that white-skinned people had more free time, so that those who had hitherto foraged and hunted could also spend more time on 'academic' pursuits, including back in the day, astrology, and working out calendars. Also making gadgets, such as clocks, or surgical instruments. Along the way, they invented writing, to assist in these things.

This is all very general of course. We are only talking about some basic trends.

And there are many other factors too.

For example, if a person or if people, spent more time inside dwellings, which of course were rather small, so that people were literally in closer physical and audible contact (less spread out, quieter conditions) it meant that conversation was easier, more convenient and appealing as a way to spend time, so that language skills and 'cerebral interactions' with others came more to the fore.

Now, as to the question of whether all this could be called nature (as in genetics) or nurture (as in environment) I think it could be looked at in different ways, but in the end, as regards (at least partly) how and why today's disparities may have originated, it sort of doesn't matter.

It might not even be completely amiss to say that one big problem about living in Africa was (and indeed still is) that it is just too sunny and hot.

At some point we could move on to consider other factors, such as European colonialism and the slave trade, and the adverse effects those had too, but they were later than the things I have described so far.

Your thoughts are . . . interesting. On the other hand, a reason the people of sub-Saharan Africa lag behind may very well have been due to environment. But environment more in the sense of disease and proximity to large and predatory animals. Until colonization, diseases and local fauna kept these populations low - which corresponded to high fecundity and gives us Africa's present exploding population. This made any attempt at close urbanization rather hazardous. There is a stark lack of ruins in Africa by comparison with the rest of the world. Add to this having to deal with lions, elephants, and whatever, then cities and large scale agriculture would be difficult to maintain. Selective pressure for higher cognitive function would be low to absent. Without agricultural growing seasons, traits favoring future planning and delayed gratification would not be under selective pressure. However, Africa is a very big place with much human biodiversity. Some groups engaged in behaviors that probably did select for higher cognitive function. Like the Igbos.

It wasn't the wildlife that created the problem. It was largely the lack of harsh winters.

You don't need to build the earlier technologies, the technologies of animal husbandry (complex buildings) and agriculture (tilling, plows, complex woodwork -> animal husbandry) if you have no need to regularly move your civilization long distances or stockpile food for months on end.

Disease, the major issue of living in such a climate, isn't actionable with technology beyond herb lore until way later in a civilizations n's technological advance, and without the intermediate elements, it is not attainable.

A lot of it comes down to the fact that when the people of Africa found no need to take the first steps down the road of high technology, this largely results in never even starting the journey.

Also interesting is that the tools of tribal life still require the mind to solve problems. It just isn't turned towards problems which cause a technological build.

 

[Trausti]

I think the point is that most of them are not heritable. They are learned, or they are the result of growing up with better nourishment, etc. Take a random baby from an isolated remote tribe of primitive humans (few remain today) and I bet you few of us could tell once they reach adulthood. Not exactly an ethical experiment, but it would show some answers.

I dunno. The science seems pretty consistent that parents pass on traits to their offspring. Intelligence, self-control, exercise behavior, etc. Adopted children take after their biological parents. Siblings/twins reared apart are remarkably similar. It’s not incorrect that as you age you become your parents.

Yes, but that doesn't say that the initial population had actual genetic differences.

An experiment out of Mexico. They took a village that still lived as it had before Columbus. They provided half a cohort of kids with multivitamins for 10 years. (Presumably the other half got placebos but what I read didn't go into that level of detail.) The difference between them and the others was tremendous.

Malnutrition is detrimental, yes. But there is no indication that access to good nutrition equalizes IQ or other cognitive behaviors between population groups/races. We should have seen that by now. But we don’t.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Circumstances"="natural selection" affect genetics.

But not nearly enough to cause the differences we observe.

How do you know that? Studies seem to suggest that differences are mostly genetic

But nothing indicates that there are differences between populations.

 

[Trausti]

How do you know that? Studies seem to suggest that differences are mostly genetic

But nothing indicates that there are differences between populations.

Except when you need an organ or bone marrow transplant. Or look at PISA scores.

 

[ZiprHead]

How do you know that? Studies seem to suggest that differences are mostly genetic

But nothing indicates that there are differences between populations.

Except when you need an organ or bone marrow transplant. Or look at PISA scores.

PISA is the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment. PISA measures 15-year-olds’ ability to use their reading, mathematics and science knowledge and skills to meet real-life challenges.

If you've received inadequate education in reading, math, and science, of course scores will be lower. PISA measures educations far more than intelligence.

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My brother worked for HISD when No Child Left Behind was born here. It is an ugly tale. Really, a few conversations with teachers who have taught at inner city schools, is an eye opener.

It has long been a problem with these schools with children utterly unprepared to go to school. Everything has to stop in the class room to deal with these children. Time is not budgeted for this by the powers that be. About 30 years ago in Texas, there was a bill "Values Clarification" to set aside time and resources to make sure all children are taught to be social in an elementary school setting. Many poor children come to school with absolutely no idea of how to behave in a setting with teachers or other children.

The far right here in Texas went berserk. Conservative conspiracy theories flew thick and fast and eventually, the bills were defeated. I remember being utterly gobsmacked by the truly insane BS that was used to kill this bill. The same forces went on a crusade against teaching evolution in Texas schools. We are still fighting all of this. After all, if you could make children into good citizens apart from conservative fundamentalist Christianity, who would need Christianity?

100% perfection carries extreme costs and ends up hurting everyone.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Africa's average IQ lags WAY BEHIND the rest of the world. Zimbabwe has been begging the white farmers to come back and farm for them because they can't even do that. The best country in Africa is South Africa, which has been run by whites. I said it before and I'll say it again. If we moved all Americans to Africa and all Africans to America, America would become Africa and Africa would become America.

Nothing but facts. Can't refute it.

It's not intelligence, it's skills. Zimbabwe fucked up horribly taking the farms from those who knew how to run them and handing them to cronies.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't now. Berserk sounds like just the place for the far right to be. It it were so we could send out people in white trucks carrying straight jackets and butterfly nets to capture these berserkers and haul them off to institutions where they would be among those of kind. The prevous are kind words from one of another kind.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think you mean world, not continent.



Yes. All I've got is a non-white civilisation that lasted and was way ahead longer than western white civilisation has been so far. I'm good with that. It's a bit more than a blip for your theory.

54 countries in Africa. You got Egypt and South Africa.

52 countries suck.

Right wing bullshit.

1) South Africa sucks.

2) Egypt isn't very good--but the problem is Islamists, not blacks.

3) You're missing one that actually seems to be doing decently: Botswana. Notably it's the one country that got an educated leader instead of a strongman in the post-colonial era.

 

[fromderinside]

Nothing but facts. Can't refute it.

It's not the facts. It's your interpretation of facts. For instance how about taking your scenario and applying it in a comparison between Singapore and the US?

Uh-huh. Welcome to Africa Half-Life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except when you need an organ or bone marrow transplant. Or look at PISA scores.

PISA is the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment. PISA measures 15-year-olds’ ability to use their reading, mathematics and science knowledge and skills to meet real-life challenges.

If you've received inadequate education in reading, math, and science, of course scores will be lower. PISA measures educations far more than intelligence.

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/

Exactly. We measure applied intelligence, not actual ability. Applied intelligence varies considerably based on how much it's developed. This is why a few generations in a new culture means abilities matching the new culture.