Anyone here NOT believe that the brain is genetically controlled like any other organ

[The_Halfmoon]

that being said, check out the winners of the past math olympiads:

http://www.imo-official.org/year_in...total&order=desc&nameform=western&gender=hide

nearly all the top people are East Asian or Indo-European. Does this mean anything? well of course those countries tend to be wealthier... but note that Iran tends to finish in the top 15 and it is a fairly poor country. Same with Brazil (where almost all contestants are majority caucasian). Of course, note that the US teams tend to be heavily East Asian.

so if you want to argue about who's smarter based on abstract thinking ability alone, I think I would put my money on the Chinese.

 

[William Joyce]

I read a very elaborate peer reviewed paper which claimed:

a) the ashkenazi jews had undergone a mutation, giving them advanced intelligence
b) this mutation had been spread amongst this group in an isolated manner, due to the few intermarriages between jews and gentiles of the time.
c) it went on to name all the great ashkenazi thinkers (einstein, Freud, etc.) as well as IQ tests (ashkenazi jews, as opposed to Mizrahis, tend to score higher in IQ tests than non jews)

now this scientific study was nothing more than jewish masturbation, but it clearly proves something: science can be quite easily used to prove any racial differences because of the inherent difficulty in proving/disproving biological differences between groups

This doesn't make any sense. It's fairly easy to demonstrate biological differences between groups, and almost as easy to demonstrate differing IQ patterns.

Ashenazis do, in fact, have the highest IQ's in the world.

Aborigines of Australia apparently have the lowest... even lower than blacks.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

I read a very elaborate peer reviewed paper which claimed:

a) the ashkenazi jews had undergone a mutation, giving them advanced intelligence
b) this mutation had been spread amongst this group in an isolated manner, due to the few intermarriages between jews and gentiles of the time.
c) it went on to name all the great ashkenazi thinkers (einstein, Freud, etc.) as well as IQ tests (ashkenazi jews, as opposed to Mizrahis, tend to score higher in IQ tests than non jews)

now this scientific study was nothing more than jewish masturbation, but it clearly proves something: science can be quite easily used to prove any racial differences because of the inherent difficulty in proving/disproving biological differences between groups

This doesn't make any sense. It's fairly easy to demonstrate biological differences between groups, and almost as easy to demonstrate differing IQ patterns.

Ashenazis do, in fact, have the highest IQ's in the world.

Aborigines of Australia apparently have the lowest... even lower than blacks.

it's true, I didn't mean to say IQ was not measurable

I meant drawing the line between where a race starts and ends. With the ashkenazis, such as the bahmin and parsis in India, it is easy because they themselves don't intermix with their surrounding neighbors of different ethnicity.

with "Germans" for example, well you're looking at a giant mix of people of Slavic, Celtic, Nordic, Mediterranean, Jewish and even Turkic background that have put their genes in German bloodlines... so what's a German IQ? it's a Geographic and national measure of IQ.

Although there are ethnically "pure" enough people like the ashkenazis to measure, almost everyone they're measured against is just looked at geographically as opposed to "racially"

that's why I like the math olympiad way for example. if you look at the teams and their members, you see that East Asians and Indo-europeans are by far the most represented group, even in mixed countries such as Brazil and the US.

 

[IanC]

yet another recent article on brain structure and intelligence

Neuroscientist Paul Thompson is one of those researchers studying brain structure and IQ, but that wasn't what he planned on when he started his lab at UCLA: he focused on the wave of changes in the brain that characterize Alzheimer's and schizophrenia. Because serious cognitive deficits accompany both of those diseases, however, Thompson and his collaborators tested cognitive function in their subjects. When they began to look more closely for variables that correlated with brain structure, they found that intelligence seemed to be among the most significant. "IQ came in as a key factor that determines how the brain looks," Thompson says.

Scientists who study intelligence typically define it in comparative terms, as a general cognitive ability measured against a mean. A quantifiable "general intelligence factor," known as g, can be statistically extracted from scores on a battery of intelligence tests. While some people clearly have particular areas of talent, those who score well on one test are likely to score well on others as well, reflecting a higher g.

Researchers have yet to find a simple neural explanation for g. In 2001, Thompson showed that it is correlated with volume in the frontal cortex, a result consistent with a number of studies that have linked intelligence to overall brain size. But size is a crude measure: while larger brains may be smarter on average, it's not clear if that's because they have more nerve cells, more connections between cells, or more of the fibers that carry neural signals. Any of these factors can result in a larger brain or thicker cortex, but neither of these things is necessary for great intelligence.

Technology Review: Intelligence Explained

BTW whites as a group have faster response times than blacks as a group in ECTs (elementary cognitive tests). bigger, faster, more efficient brains; on average of course.

 

[The Baiter]

I laugh at the notion that blacks are supposed to en masse admit they are less intelligent than other human beings.

 

[IanC]

I laugh at the notion that blacks are supposed to en masse admit they are less intelligent than other human beings.

I laugh at the notion that women are supposed to en masse admit they are less aggressive than other-sexed human beings.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Interesting that you say there are FIVE main races. I remember it as THREE main races.

Not to disagree but I always thought of one race - the Human race.
As for the ludicrous notion that "Brain Size" is relevant to a particular Human's intellect, I will point, as it were, to the brain of Albert Einstein, which was, as I recall reading, as I never actually weighed the great man's brain, a bit under average size. If someone wants to Wiki the subject and find I'm wrong go ahead. Show me that Al had a big brain.

 

[IanC]

Interesting that you say there are FIVE main races. I remember it as THREE main races.

Not to disagree but I always thought of one race - the Human race.
As for the ludicrous notion that "Brain Size" is relevant to a particular Human's intellect, I will point, as it were, to the brain of Albert Einstein, which was, as I recall reading, as I never actually weighed the great man's brain, a bit under average size. If someone wants to Wiki the subject and find I'm wrong go ahead. Show me that Al had a big brain.

anecdotes again?!? how often does it have to be pointed out that exceptions don't disprove general rules?

let's look at a simple example that doesn't carry the racial baggage. height is correlated to weight, but not perfectly. tall people are heavier than short people, but not always. does pointing out that one short fat person is heavier than one tall skinny person disprove the trend? no of course not.

the same thing with brain size. bigger brains have more neurons usually, more brain connections, more intelligence. are there other factors? of course, linkage and conductivity are two. but just like how fat and muscle ratios affect the trend of taller people being heavier, brain factors also even out when you measure large amounts of people.

and make no mistake; huge numbers of people have been tested for intelligence. SATs, IQ, AFQT, LSATs, MCATs and so on. Black have individuals at all levels of intelligence but the average for the group is lower. so what? does your group average limit you as an individual in any way? it's just the way nature made things.

but group averages have certain predictive qualities. lower average group intelligence predicts lower educational attainment as a group. it is undeniable for the group but not for any specific individual.

do you believe smoking causes lung cancer? the correlation between smoking/lung cancer is small compared to the correlation between measured intelligence and education. why don't you read about intelligence and what is actually known about it? could it hurt you? right after 'The Bell Curve' came out, 50 experts in the field of intelligence sent a letter to the Wall Street Journal to correct the inaccuracies that were (and still are) in the media.

Racial Differences in Intelligence: What Mainstream Science Says.

 

[Diplomat21]

This is a very interesting way to be project or give insight on how one certain race feels 'genetically' superior to others. Your perspective seems to reflect that of the Hitler, and the search for a theory to enslave or promote injustice towards other races and cultures. Neuroscience and the brain is not an indifference of intelligence between races, it is the study of how the brain operates. Your theory is not based in research but ridiculous ignorance. Please consider the following words by the late, great Albert Einstein to 'think' on when considering you claim: "Great Spirits have always faced violent opposition from mediocre minds." Your evidence is not supported and you should find research to support your claim. Otherwise, you may want to reference Brain Based Leaning, “New Paradigm of Teaching”, by Eric Jensen, to learn how learning and the brain are affected by one's environment.

 

[IanC]

This is a very interesting way to be project or give insight on how one certain race feels 'genetically' superior to others. Your perspective seems to reflect that of the Hitler, and the search for a theory to enslave or promote injustice towards other races and cultures. Neuroscience and the brain is not an indifference of intelligence between races, it is the study of how the brain operates. Your theory is not based in research but ridiculous ignorance. Please consider the following words by the late, great Albert Einstein to 'think' on when considering you claim: "Great Spirits have always faced violent opposition from mediocre minds." Your evidence is not supported and you should find research to support your claim. Otherwise, you may want to reference Brain Based Leaning, “New Paradigm of Teaching”, by Eric Jensen, to learn how learning and the brain are affected by one's environment.

is there anything in dip21's comment that makes sense? jews and asians would be the superior ones, if someone was looking to declare a winner. bringing up hitler just means you don't have an argument. enslave and promote injustice? what kind of drugs is he on. brain studies don't analyze brain structures and intelligence? tell that to the researchers. the Einstein quote in this context is baffling. which piece of evidence is not supported? and how many more research papers should I quote?

 

[IanC]

Just another stupid educational fad, Feb 16 2003
By A Customer

This review is from: Brain-Based Learning: The New Science of Teaching & Training (Paperback)
It is an unfortunate tendency of people who review books to use any and every error in a book as an excuse for bashing the book, so I have to stop and make sure that I am not falling into that trap. Yet this book is truly awful: it has, literally, hundreds of grammatical and stylistic errors, and there is probably not a page that doesn't have some type of error. Here's just one of the innumerable examples, which contains an error in punctuation and grammar: "The brain sits in a state of stress; and the learner's self-esteem, confidence, and peer acceptance is at stake," (p. 300). What is more astounding about the horrible state of the text is that this is the "revised" edition of the text, which makes one wonder what the first edition was like. All the errors--which, by the way, a high school freshman should know how to correct--make me wonder about the integrity of Jensen's knowledge of the science of the brain--how careful a scholar is he likely to be, when he shows so little familiarity with standards in scholarship? On page 186, for example, he claims that if you look up and to the left, you will have superior access to stored pictures in your brain, while if you look downward and to the right, you're experiencing feelings. Up and to the right is where your eyes go to create new images, he claims. Yeah, right. In another book of his, he claims that students are taking Nimidopine as a memory drug, a statement that has to be absolutely false. What else can one expect from him when in a list of people who have made great contributions to the world he lists, between Steven Hawking and Mother Teresa, Eddie Murphy? That he is very popular among educators and is giving teacher in-services across the country is truly troubling.

hahahahaha. I think I'll pass on this great scientific work

 

[Charles Stucker]

anecdotes again?!? how often does it have to be pointed out that exceptions don't disprove general rules?

the same thing with brain size. bigger brains have more neurons usually, more brain connections, more intelligence.]

Whales have brains far larger than humans, so do elephants.
Elephants have prehensile trunks which allows them the ability to use tools.
Neither seems smarter than humans, despite their big brains.

Have you taken out your brain to weigh it, just to be sure you're not actually an idiot?
Because your posts point that direction.

I have yet to see a study of intellect and academic performance which controls outside factors (income, family status, etc) that shows the 'huge' gap in ability you claim is fundamental to race.

Do you know that some recent research indicates that IQ can be increased by certain types of, call it mental exercise?

All you are is an unswerving racist searching for validation by denigrating another race.

 

[IanC]

anecdotes again?!? how often does it have to be pointed out that exceptions don't disprove general rules?

the same thing with brain size. bigger brains have more neurons usually, more brain connections, more intelligence.]

Whales have brains far larger than humans, so do elephants.
Elephants have prehensile trunks which allows them the ability to use tools.
Neither seems smarter than humans, despite their big brains.

Have you taken out your brain to weigh it, just to be sure you're not actually an idiot?
Because your posts point that direction.

I have yet to see a study of intellect and academic performance which controls outside factors (income, family status, etc) that shows the 'huge' gap in ability you claim is fundamental to race.

Do you know that some recent research indicates that IQ can be increased by certain types of, call it mental exercise?

All you are is an unswerving racist searching for validation by denigrating another race.

whales don't have a bigger brain in proportion to their bodies, neither do elephants.

the weight of my brain would only be of interest if I was involved with a study.

controlling for SES, education, etc does narrow the gap. simply because income, education and status are affected by IQ. in california, white children from poor families had better school achievement than black children from affluent families. how do you explain that? I don't care what level of intelligence blacks have, they deserve to live the best life that they can manage. what I do care about is that group outcome disparities are used to 'prove' white racism. I'm not trying to say that there may not be white racism but it is NOT the main reason for black failures. different average intelligence is.

another example of the IQ gap is the yearly SAT exams. dirt poor whites score higher than black families with $100,000+ incomes. obviously you haven't thought through the question with the overwhelming available information. I can't really blame you because the media puts a large slant on the issue and every one sees what happens when a scientist describes reality in public, like Summers, Sanders, Watson, Rushton, Jensen, Murray, and most instructive of all Bruce Lahn. Lahn studied genes that have only recently evolved. initially there was great excitement but when the research showed only asians and caucasians had the genes there arose a great stink and Lahn was persuaded to change his area of research and the whole thing went down the memory hole.

 

[IanC]

Do you know that some recent research indicates that IQ can be increased by certain types of, call it mental exercise?

I have heard about all sorts of programs that claim to increase IQ. they always claim initial success and then the increases fade away to nothing.

what is the latest fad that you are describing? I really am interested.

 

[Cryptick`]

please put down your opinion first. and ask for a specific citation. which of my claims do you think need clarification and why. they seem to be reasonable and obviously supportable, at least to me. do you have some proof that they are not?

Why do people always do this?

You can't argue your way into convincing us, we want proof. lol so give it

 

[IanC]

please put down your opinion first. and ask for a specific citation. which of my claims do you think need clarification and why. they seem to be reasonable and obviously supportable, at least to me. do you have some proof that they are not?

Why do people always do this?

You can't argue your way into convincing us, we want proof. lol so give it

I, at least, put down my thoughts and add links that support my statements. people arguing the other side usually do neither, they just say they don't agree.

 

[Cryptick`]

^ true.

but my nig, what you saying is mad interesting. But means nothing with no evidentairy support

If what you're saying is indeed true, 'then show me the light!'

 

[IanC]

true.

but my nig, what you saying is mad interesting. But means nothing with no evidentairy support

If what you're saying is indeed true, 'then show me the light!'

what part of my chain of thought do you want more detail about? your general 'prove it' means nothing. except that perhaps you haven't bothered to read what has already been said.

 

[Cryptick`]

I don't have time to go through 8 pages of bullshit to find it you proved it or not.

But in a matter of words from this thread i get the idea that you're trying to say that there are more superior races then others and that science supports this.

before i get ahead of myself and say that is what you're trying to say, let's comfirn if that is accurate or not.

so, is that what you are trying to say or what?

 

[IanC]

I don't have time to go through 8 pages of bullshit to find it you proved it or not.

But in a matter of words from this thread i get the idea that you're trying to say that there are more superior races then others and that science supports this.

before i get ahead of myself and say that is what you're trying to say, let's comfirn if that is accurate or not.

so, is that what you are trying to say or what?

like I said. you're too lazy to read what's already written but you're sure that you disagree, and you want me to do all the work of describing and supporting. typical!