Re: Race, intelligence, and anti-racist prejudice
Mr. Nice Guy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
16 Feb 1995 23:14:15 -0700
In article <email@example.com>,
firstname.lastname@example.org (David A. Johns) wrote:
>In article <tlathropD3ws2z.Ku7@netcom.com> email@example.com (Tom Lathrop) writes:
># What I am trying to do is force you to retract the assertion that
># the different human populations have separated too recently for
># significant differences in intelligence to be possible, by
># pointing out that you haven't a clue as to how much time *would*
># be necessary, and that in fact there is good reason to think that
># the amount of time required would not be all that large. (Not
># that I actually expect you to retract anything, since I suspect
># that for you as for many others this is more a matter of religion
># than science).
>I think I agree with you on this point, but not because of "speed of
>evolution" arguments. According to the data presented in The Bell
>Curve, the black bell curve is entirely contained within the
>white/Asian bell curve, at its lower end. Whatever accounts for the
>difference, there is no need to evoke evolution, since selective
>pressures (if there could be such for stupidity) would only have had
>to weed out the smarter members of the population. The situation
>would thus be similar to breeds of dogs, where each breed simply
>exhibits a subset of the total variation of the species.
>But I think it's significant that American blacks are bunched at the
>low end of the white/Asian range. If you want to play the natural
>selection game, you have to ask how that might have happened. Was
>stupidity selected for either in Africa or in the United States among
>blacks? It seems hard to imagine how that might have occurred. Were
>smart genes selected for all throughout Eurasia without similarly
>affecting Africa? Not likely. Did a smart gene arise in Eurasia but
>not filter back into Africa? How could that have happened, since
>there was always contact between the populations?
The African Americans in this country were captured in Africa.
They may have been the poorer fighters, slowest runners, or had
the worst leaders, at the very least they were in the wrong place
at the wrong time. They may not be typical of the population were
they were captured.
Most whites and Asians chose to came to America to better
themselves. It is possible that they were more ambitious, hard
working or adventurous than the group that stayed at home. It is
quite likely that the whites and Asian that decided to come to
America are not typical of the population in Europe or Asia.
It is possible that those Europeans and Asians who decided to come
to America had a somewhat higher IQ than those who did stayed in
Europe and Asia. This could explain why in the US that the whites
and asians have higher median IQs.
>On the other hand, environmental explanations seem much more
>reasonable. There are (almost?) no external influences that can raise
>a person's functioning above what we consider normal, but there are
>many that can suppress it, either temporarily (alcohol, lack of sleep)
>or permanently (poisoning, malnutrition, etc.).
Rod Anderson aka Mr. Nice Guy o o
firstname.lastname@example.org _/\-\__/* \\__/\___
(*) o (*) * o
Lightning P-38 DeFelice