Hacker News Reader

Comment by mynameishere | Hacker News Reader

vast socioeconomic factors

Snore. Sub-sahara Africa has been near-100 percent black for many millenia. There's no one else to stick the blame on, even if you want to bring up "society" and "economics". Hell, the only country whose socio-economics can be traced to white people is the only one with a decent economy. And, what do you know, another one, Zimbabwe, took a nose dive right after its ethnic cleansing of whites. Shock. Horror.

Thanks for revealing what you believe.

I believe the facts, sure. If there is anybody here who thinks that blacks and Jews are genetically equivilent in intelligence, raise your hands. Please, I beg you. But you have at least 2500 years of evidence fighting against you, so bring some counter-evidence first...unlike pius.

View on HN

If there is anybody here who thinks that blacks and Jews are genetically equivilent in intelligence, raise your hands. Please, I beg you.

Ooh, this is getting nasty. A smart guy once told me when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. I'm black and even I can figure out how to heed that advice! This is instructive though, so keep doing what you're doing.

Sub-sahara Africa has been near-100 percent black for many millenia.

Most African countries had robust cultures and economies before they were plundered by the European imperialists. For example, as hard as it is for you to believe, the first great libraries (pre-dating even the one in Alexandria) were in Africa. I guess you think that because Native Americans were successfully conquered, subjugated, and impoverished they must not have been very bright either.

There's so much to say, but again you're really doing a great job sinking your own ship. It's hard not to respond to you, but for the sake of my coding, I'm gonna try to keep my finger off the reply button for the rest of the night.

Again, if you want to take this cultural discussion further, do feel free to post a new thread and I'll address it at length tomorrow or so, I promise.

you're really doing a great job sinking your own ship.

You realize this isn't much of an argument, don't you?

The reason I brought up Jews was because I'm not Jewish and so I consider myself neutral in the matter. I have nothing to gain from whatever inborn virtues jews might have. But the evidence still stands... I also have nothing to gain from whatever inborn virtues the Chinese might have. But the evidence still stands... I'm also not offended by the Parsis or Armenians or Brahmans or any of them, despite their achievements. What does it cost to be honest? People are different, and if we deny it, we make mistakes...

Most African countries had robust cultures and economies before they were plundered by the European imperialists.

It's just a cop-out. Every piece of land in this world (with a few exceptions) has been overrun and plundered and ravaged time and time and time again. People just can't get over those evil European colonists. No one ever complains about the Turks or Tatars or Mongols or Huns or Aztecs or Arabs or a thousand others...all monstrous in their time.

You realize this isn't much of an argument, don't you?

That's because I'm no longer arguing with you. You haven't pieced together much that's cogent enough for me to debate and your conclusions are nearly as despicable as they are preposterous. You're trying to argue that black people are biologically less intelligent than whites and other races, a view controversial enough that the burden of proof lies with you. Let's review how you've set out to prove it.

You tried to discredit Gladwell's article with fuzzy math and attacking the strawman; I exposed it. You failed.

Then you tried citing other people's research into IQ to support your views. Unfortunately there's no serious research that supports your world view, so you were left citing "studies" that have been widely discredited and debunked. (For example, "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" literally concludes that most of Africa is functionally retarded.) Reductio ad absurdum, you fail.

Then you gave up citing research into IQ and g, and started citing cultural phenomena that clearly are not relevant to the biological innateness topic at hand. Even the cultural phenomena you bring up aren't particularly compelling. (For example, you're comparing the plight of cultures conquered by the Ottoman empire that fell in the 1600's to that of African nations occupied and conquered by the British empire, which didn't leave in many cases until the late 1960's and, in the case of Zimbabwe, until 1980.) Failed again.

Finally, you got frustrated and started blurting out that it's "trivial" to conclude that blacks just aren't intelligent as other races, figuring that a few upmods on YC.News will make you seem right without proof. Fail.

I'm sure you're going to find another flawed study funded by known white supremacy groups to justify your beliefs. Or maybe you'll start citing phrenology or Nordic theory. I don't know what you'll pull out next, but I can assure you that I won't care, unless it's got some legitimate scientific basis.

You're making a fool of yourself.

It's often the dumb ones who take the stance on discussing other people's intelligence. There is a wealth of circumstances and complexity of the issue that never crosses this posters mind, yet he is quick to make definitive claims of such gravity. Racism has the interesting tendency of exposing the fools even amongst the most educated individuals.

Oh, where would I start... The structure of the brain? Our understanding and concept of what is "intelligence"? Nonexistentent genetical variation between the so called "races", which are themselves based on fallacious premises? The theory of races after all started in Germany as measured by the differences in the shapes of skulls, and was mainly categorized as an issue of beauty. With Germans obviously appointing themselves (aryans) the most graceful and beautiful "race" of them all. And now people are trying to retrofit genetic explanations on such an old theory based purely on pseudo-science? There is at maximum 5-15% genetic variation between the continental populations, and note that this is not the same as our naive notions of "race". There is less genetic variation in humans than in any other mammalian species. Worldwide genetic variation in humans is less significant than in 2 closely related chimpanzee species having evolved closely together in western Africa, to give you some magnitude for comparison. 90% of the genetic variation occurs on a local level as opposed to globally, if you can wrap your head around what that means? And every instance of "child genius" that has been studied has boiled down to no innate ability, but rigorous practice from an early age. Meaning that "intelligence" is largely learned, mind is an empty plate of neurons waiting to be connected. The only thing conceivably affecting their training are chemical balances, malnutrition, toxicity of the environment, and so on...

Basing your theories directly on empirical evidence about the economies of the world obviously can't factor in all the relevant facts. You say that all the African countries with no whites are poor? Did you know that a lot of them have been paying the debts created by the colonialists ever since they were "liberated"? Do you know how the West still sponsors guerillas and pays diamond merchants in many parts of Africa? Only a secluded mind could have such delusions of grandeur. I recommend debating with some intellectual and educated black scholars.

At the current state of research, nobody claims to know enough about how the brain works to conclude that the mind is "an empty plate of neuron waiting to be connected." Trisomy 21, or Down Syndrome, can be classified as mental retardation, and you might call it an abnormal lack of mental capacity. This is a completely genetic abnormality. Obviously, they go through the same stages of neonatal development, neuron pruning, etc., but their ability to form neuronal connections, like yours and mine, is limited, at birth.

I picked a rather extreme example just to illustrate the point. I don't disagree with everything you wrote, but it is a mistake to believe early manifestations of genius have nothing, or even little, innate roots. Daniel Tammet is your living example. If his brain were a bit different, he'd be just another Kim Peek. It will be very hard to argue that this is due to rigorous practice from an early age. Kids with autism don't just gradually lose their aptitude to comprehend emotions by lack of practice. They are born with a dysfunctional empathy circuit. Kids with epilepsy don't just develop their symptoms. They are testable and predictable, and heritable.

I'm not saying what you say is wrong -- it depends on what you mean by intelligence. But you're being unspecific about "intelligence" while being specific about how it is related to genetic, inborn traits. This opens the door wide to attacks like mine -- just pointing it out.

One more thing. The statement "The theory of races after all started in Germany" evaluates to false. I assume you're referring to early 20th century Germany. It started with the European colonialists, which wasn't even such a German thing. That's also the Eurocentric interpretation of the word. I'm sure other cultures had their own ideas of race dating to much earlier. The Chinese always called the people outside their country borders barbarians. And Orthodox Jews consider themselves the chosen people. Take that interpretation, then I'm among the unchosen barbarians, or race, whatever.

The genetic diseases you mentioned are significant mutations leading into strong dysfunctionalities in how the brain is supposed to function. Leading it not to function correctly. This is far from evolutionary path leading one population of people into some sort of mental retardation, especially when evolutionary selection would be against it. In addition most of the mentioned diseases are recessive which is the only reason they have survived, as any offspring with the disease won't survive to pass the genes on.

Autism is a different case because it's not necessarily genetic (although I'm not sure if there are also genetic cases). In fact autism cases have exploded in recent history, so environmental factors are likely a contributor. One such theory is the vaccines containing mercury which is a strong neuro-toxin decaying neuron connections which would result into the observed behavior. I'm not going into that discussion however.

I'm being unspecific about intelligence because it's inherently a very ambiguous concept, which is one of the fallacies of the IQ testing and the arguments given by the racists like in this thread. I can see short comings and non-objectiveness in almost every IQ test I have seen. And that without even taking into account the fact that they're "adjusted" periodically to reflect the norm which obviously means they're not perfectly objective to begin with.

I was referring to 18th century Germany and for example theories created by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blumenbach

There are lots of points to address in your post but I choose not to. Thanks for the Blumenbach post; it was very interesting (but nevertheless does not show Germany to be the origin of the concept of race).

Anyhow, I saw this on reddit and found it related, and interesting in general:

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/mit-corrects-inherited-retard...

"The MIT study found that FMRP and mGluR5 are at opposite ends of a kind of molecular seesaw." These kinds of "molecular seesaws" are everywhere in the body. When things are only slightly out of balance you _may_ get drastic effects. Emphasis on may, because at this point nobody knows exactly what and how much of it is required to achieve what effect. But there you have it -- once it is identified, it is manipulable. The more important point is, many symptoms are graded in severity, and as this study shows, autism could be found to be less disconnected from normal than you may think.

And every instance of "child genius" that has been studied has boiled down to no innate ability, but rigorous practice from an early age.

Completely laughable, and completely unverifiable. The only passable tests of such things that I am aware of are studies of separated twins, which have indicated quite clearly, time and time again, that variance in intelligence is attributable in great part to inheritance. There's no arguing around such tests--bring up as many chimpanzee breeds that you want.

Meaning that "intelligence" is largely learned, mind is an empty plate of neurons waiting to be connected.

The oldest error in the discussion. Start your elementary education in the subject here:

http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/06...

Pinker spends an enormous amount of time bowing down to the antique emotionalisms of the age, and so the book shouldn't be too offensive to the weak-hearted.

EDIT:

user: politrix

created: 1 day ago

It seems pretty blindingly obvious that intelligence is both genetic and environmental. They're not exclusive.

I've been saying that over and over. Maybe you should say that to someone else.

Obviously intelligence has a genetic factor, there is no question about that. Why is cat's intellect different from humans? Due to its DNA. But that is not the point, when it comes to humans, there is no significant enough variation that could lead into large scale intellectual differences. Likewise due to the genetic mixing you couldn't label one traditionally understood "race" as one or the other. Furthermore it makes little sense from evolutionary perspective.

The child genius comment is not laughable. A genius is always tied to a particular skill given in a cultural context. For example playing a piano, or juggling. It is possible that a child is born with certain innate physical qualities that help him in whatever he practices. Like being fair, or strong, tall, etc... But to assume that any 5 year old learned to play piano as some kind of a genetic gift is far more ludicrous. It takes hard practice to perfect your body and mind to work in unison for any particular task, approximately the same for everyone bar perhaps the effects of personal motivation and rigor of the exercise.

With the exception of people with disorders that in some way may make them amazingly good at certain tasks, like having eidetic memory.

I'm not sure if there is a standard emoticon for raising a hand. But that looks sorta right.

And your evidence?

Good luck.

Anecdotal.

I've made more than enough mistakes in judging individuals. Doing it based on the colour of their skin is just the most egregious.

I've met white slackers, I've met chinese pot heads and I've worked with black men who humble me with the grasp of subjects I'm considered an expert in.

It's just a stupid (and I don't use that word lightly) way to judge someone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com