Race and IQ

[HMS Barham]

He's replaced "Islam is evil" with "Arabs are stupid".

And more embarrassingly, "Arabs are stupid becase they are Arabs".

Liar. Quote me where I said that.

[HMS Barham]

It certainly was by modern European standards.

Think really hard about this bit. It holds the key to becoming just a little bit woke.

China was a dirt poor country in 1990, with a total GDP less than that of the Netherlands, a country with about 1% the population.

If modern European diet and living conditions were responsible for modern European IQ advantage over Arabs, then we would expect Chinese IQ to be comparable to that of Arabs, and rising rapidly. Instead, we see it has consistently been about the level of Europeans, and is rising (in relative terms) slowly or not at all.

Again, China's history didn't begin in 1949. You're literally talking about the most ancient nation in existence.

I do not see your point. I am not sure you have one.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Think really hard about this bit. It holds the key to becoming just a little bit woke.


Again, China's history didn't begin in 1949. You're literally talking about the most ancient nation in existence.

I do not see your point. I am not sure you have one.

I think their point is that Ancient China was rich by the standards of their time, and it makes little sense to compare Ancient China to modern day standards, because modern day quality of life wasn't present back then either.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Strange, I was of the opinion that you thought Islam was incompatible with your worldview and therefore had to destroyed...

The topic of the discussion is how well societies work, not whether they are good or bad.

Except given what you've previously said in these rather off-topic discussion, the two are inextricably linked - i.e. the best functioning society is one that applies solely your ideals (and is therefore 'good', whilst all other societies are 'bad/communist').

[Liriena]

How do you personally distingish one race from another?

How do you personally distinguish the colours green and yellow?

I learned them, with a little help from the centuries of social, cultural and linguistic history leading up to the current conditions of production and recognition at play in the social semiosis of colour in my own very specific corner of the world. The key is that I am aware of the fact that these categories exist because a long series of human beings throughout history willed it so, and that while the colours themselves, such as they are, are natural, the words and the way in which we classify them according to those words are not. If nobody had told me otherwise, I would have never known to differentiate between blue and cyan, or red and magenta (and the same is true for human phenotypical differences). And the same goes for race: we can perceive phenotypical differences at first glance, but the way in which we classify those differences is not itself natural. And in the case of race, the classifications we most commonly use are based on obsolete theories made by men with fewer resources, political biases, and a far simpler understanding of the natural world than ours, rather than our current scientific understanding of phenotypical and genetic differences. Your IQ shtick is ultimately little more than a shallow excuse to preserve your anachronistic categories for political purposes.

[HMS Barham]

I do not see your point. I am not sure you have one.

I think their point is that Ancient China was rich by the standards of their time, and it makes little sense to compare Ancient China to modern day standards, because modern day quality of life wasn't present back then either.

Which makes no goddamn sense unless Liriena's argument is that the calorie requirement to sustain a certain IQ is somehow norm referenced to how historically impressive your civilisation was relative to other civilisations. If we are talking about non-magical processes that might actually lead to higher brain performance in the human body, all that should matter is the absolute nutritional quality regardless how it is obtained or how socially impressive it is in relative terms.

[HMS Barham]

How do you personally distinguish the colours green and yellow?

I learned them, with a little help from the centuries of social, cultural and linguistic history leading up to the current conditions of production and recognition at play in the social semiosis of colour in my own very specific corner of the world. The key is that I am aware of the fact that these categories exist because a long series of human beings throughout history willed it so, and that while the colours themselves, such as they are, are natural, the words and the way in which we classify them according to those words are not.

OK. So either you must now say that green and yellow don't exist, or are really somehow interchangeable, or you must admit that labels being socially constructed does not mean that the things being labelled have no underlying physical reality. To say that who is a member of a particular race is socially constructed is a non-rebuttal, totally irrelevant.

[Ostroeuropa]

White people are white because our ancestors lived in an area with low vitamin sources due to cloud coverage, and insufficient alternatives from the wildlife. You can make the argument that we're slightly better at space colonization as a result of needing less direct sunlight. Orcs don't go dark, they go white, it would seem, and Europes mordor atmosphere led to these developments.

Historically, darker skinned people turning up with sicken, and get the problems of vitamin D deficiency. (Unless they had access to luxury goods and the food typically reserved for the nobility.)
it would make sense for white people who didn't know this shit to just up and assume they were weak and stupid.
"You're dumb mr black man, you're weak, how come you can't survive on bread and clouds? We can."

These days we can supplement vitamin D from other sources for minorities living here.

That is the sum total of white supremacy backed by actual science.

[Eibenland]

I think their point is that Ancient China was rich by the standards of their time, and it makes little sense to compare Ancient China to modern day standards, because modern day quality of life wasn't present back then either.

Which makes no goddamn sense unless Liriena's argument is that the calorie requirement to sustain a certain IQ is somehow norm referenced to how historically impressive your civilisation was relative to other civilisations. If we are talking about non-magical processes that might actually lead to higher brain performance in the human body, all that should matter is the absolute nutritional quality regardless how it is obtained or how socially impressive it is in relative terms.

Your claims about IQ make little sense unless we can determine the average IQ in China, Europe, and the Middle East at various points in history. We could then compare those historical societies to examine your hypothesis.

[Liriena]

I do not see your point. I am not sure you have one.

I think their point is that Ancient China was rich by the standards of their time, and it makes little sense to compare Ancient China to modern day standards, because modern day quality of life wasn't present back then either.

My point was more along the lines of: if we accept the premise that there is a singular Chinese race (tell that to the over 50 ethnic groups that comprise mainland China's population), and that this Chinese race collectively maintained a high average IQ over the course of the 20th century despire deep social and economic problems, this could be explained based on the fact that China's long history before the 20th century was not one of complete, apocalyptic misery, and that the high average IQ could be explained as the long history of this people having enough weight on their genetic heritage for more recent events not to diminish that heritage too greatly.

My problem with this person's argument is that they seem to be working under the logic that the historical factors that might play a role in the current average IQs in different nations could only go as far as modern history, and beyond that it's all some sort of ahistorical biological essentialism.

[HMS Barham]

White people are white because our ancestors lived in an area with low vitamin sources due to cloud coverage, and insufficient alternatives from the wildlife. You can make the argument that we're slightly better at space colonization as a result of needing less direct sunlight. Orcs don't go dark, they go white, it would seem, and Europes mordor atmosphere led to these developments.

Historically, darker skinned people turning up with sicken, and get the problems of vitamin D deficiency.
it would make sense for white people who didn't know this shit to just up and assume they were weak and stupid.
"You're dumb mr black man, you're weak, how come you can't survive on bread and clouds? We can."

These days we can supplement vitamin D from other sources for minorities living here.

That is the sum total of white supremacy backed by actual science.

Europeans don't look like sub-Saharans even when you equalise the pigmentation.



There are systemic differences.

Even if there weren't, and the races were totally arbitrary social constructions, like assigning people to a race according to the date of their birthday, it would not follow that there can't be bulk differences between them.

[Liriena]

White people are white because our ancestors lived in an area with low vitamin sources due to cloud coverage, and insufficient alternatives from the wildlife. You can make the argument that we're slightly better at space colonization as a result of needing less direct sunlight. Orcs don't go dark, they go white, it would seem, and Europes mordor atmosphere led to these developments.

Historically, darker skinned people turning up with sicken, and get the problems of vitamin D deficiency. (Unless they had access to luxury goods and the food typically reserved for the nobility.)
it would make sense for white people who didn't know this shit to just up and assume they were weak and stupid.
"You're dumb mr black man, you're weak, how come you can't survive on bread and clouds? We can."

These days we can supplement vitamin D from other sources for minorities living here.

That is the sum total of white supremacy backed by actual science.

*two thumbs up*

[HMS Barham]

Which makes no goddamn sense unless Liriena's argument is that the calorie requirement to sustain a certain IQ is somehow norm referenced to how historically impressive your civilisation was relative to other civilisations. If we are talking about non-magical processes that might actually lead to higher brain performance in the human body, all that should matter is the absolute nutritional quality regardless how it is obtained or how socially impressive it is in relative terms.

Your claims about IQ make little sense unless we can determine the average IQ in China, Europe, and the Middle East at various points in history. We could then compare those historical societies to examine your hypothesis.

Why? We are talking about IQ differences today.

[HMS Barham]

I think their point is that Ancient China was rich by the standards of their time, and it makes little sense to compare Ancient China to modern day standards, because modern day quality of life wasn't present back then either.

My point was more along the lines of: if we accept the premise that there is a singular Chinese race (tell that to the over 50 ethnic groups that comprise mainland China's population), and that this Chinese race collectively maintained a high average IQ over the course of the 20th century despire deep social and economic problems, this could be explained based on the fact that China's long history before the 20th century was not one of complete, apocalyptic misery, and that the high average IQ could be explained as the long history of this people having enough weight on their genetic heritage for more recent events not to diminish that heritage too greatly.

So to be clear: you believe that before 1949 China had a standard of living comparable to 2017 Europe, integrated over most of its history?

My problem with this person's argument is that they seem to be working under the logic that the historical factors that might play a role in the current average IQs in different nations could only go as far as modern history, and beyond that it's all some sort of ahistorical biological essentialism.

Obviously I believe that historical factors have an influence on IQ: specifically I believe that IQ changes in populations on an evolutionary timescale. You believe that it changes within single human lifetimes, presumably within the time it takes for a baby to grow to maturity. You now seem to be conceding to my position that IQs do not respond to immediate economic conditions, but rather respond to long term differences in manner of living over many generations. You're trying to pass a concession as a rebuttal.

[Eibenland]

Your claims about IQ make little sense unless we can determine the average IQ in China, Europe, and the Middle East at various points in history. We could then compare those historical societies to examine your hypothesis.

Why? We are talking about IQ differences today.

Your claim is that societies with lower average IQ are poorer or less developed. Can you show that this holds true at other points in history? That is impossible.

[HMS Barham]

Why? We are talking about IQ differences today.

Your claim is that societies with lower average IQ are poorer or less developed. Can you show that this holds true at other points in history? That is impossible.

That is not my claim. My claim was that the Chinese are much smarter than Arabs despite being, at least very recently, about equally as poor.

[Liriena]

Your claims about IQ make little sense unless we can determine the average IQ in China, Europe, and the Middle East at various points in history. We could then compare those historical societies to examine your hypothesis.

Why? We are talking about IQ differences today.

Why not? If there is a causal link between IQ differences and "race", there should be little variation throughout the entirety of the history of all "races".

[HMS Barham]

Why? We are talking about IQ differences today.

Why not?

It's easy why not talk about the IQ of Chinese in 1500: we don't have any data on that. This is an attempt to claim there isn't enough data to decide the matter one way or another (rather an embarrassing climbdown for you just a few posts after asserting I'm so obviously completely wrong my position doesn't even warrant arguing with), but there is; we don't need the ancient data. It would be nice, but it's not necessary.

[Ostroeuropa]

White people are white because our ancestors lived in an area with low vitamin sources due to cloud coverage, and insufficient alternatives from the wildlife. You can make the argument that we're slightly better at space colonization as a result of needing less direct sunlight. Orcs don't go dark, they go white, it would seem, and Europes mordor atmosphere led to these developments.

Historically, darker skinned people turning up with sicken, and get the problems of vitamin D deficiency.
it would make sense for white people who didn't know this shit to just up and assume they were weak and stupid.
"You're dumb mr black man, you're weak, how come you can't survive on bread and clouds? We can."

These days we can supplement vitamin D from other sources for minorities living here.

That is the sum total of white supremacy backed by actual science.

Europeans don't look like sub-Saharans even when you equalise the pigmentation.



There are systemic differences.

Even if there weren't, and the races were totally arbitrary social constructions, like assigning people to a race according to the date of their birthday, it would not follow that there can't be bulk differences between them.

This is true, but it's also true for subsets of humans in sub-sahara and also in europe.
There are some differences between the races. I'm happy to go over the ones that are scientifically proven if you want.

[Liriena]

My point was more along the lines of: if we accept the premise that there is a singular Chinese race (tell that to the over 50 ethnic groups that comprise mainland China's population), and that this Chinese race collectively maintained a high average IQ over the course of the 20th century despire deep social and economic problems, this could be explained based on the fact that China's long history before the 20th century was not one of complete, apocalyptic misery, and that the high average IQ could be explained as the long history of this people having enough weight on their genetic heritage for more recent events not to diminish that heritage too greatly.

So to be clear: you believe that before 1949 China had a standard of living comparable to 2017 Europe, integrated over most of its history?

No.

Also, how would the standard of living in Europe today have anything to do with a people's historic development of IQ?

My problem with this person's argument is that they seem to be working under the logic that the historical factors that might play a role in the current average IQs in different nations could only go as far as modern history, and beyond that it's all some sort of ahistorical biological essentialism.

Obviously I believe that historical factors have an influence on IQ: specifically I believe that IQ changes in populations on an evolutionary timescale.

But the complexity of your belief doesn't seem to go beyond "this race naturally evolved dumber than the other". You don't appear to take into account the possibility that this was not a purely biological, unilinear phenomenon.

You believe that it changes within single human lifetimes, presumably within the time it takes for a baby to grow to maturity.

Not necessarily, or at least not necessarily in terms of massive changes.

You now seem to be conceding to my position that IQs do not respond to immediate economic conditions, but rather respond to long term differences in manner of living over many generations. You're trying to pass a concession as a rebuttal.

Long term differences on the political, economic, social and cultural levels, and factors both internal and external. Differences that cannot be accurately reduced to categories of "Arab", "sub-Saharan" or "European", or treated purely as a biological essence and used as an excuse for prejudice and discrimination.

[Liriena]

Why not?

It's easy why not talk about the IQ of Chinese in 1500: we don't have any data on that. This is an attempt to claim there isn't enough data to decide the matter one way or another (rather an embarrassing climbdown for you just a few posts after asserting I'm so obviously completely wrong my position doesn't even warrant arguing with), but there is; we don't need the ancient data. It would be nice, but it's not necessary.

I never asserted the underlined.

[Fartsniffage]

Why not?

It's easy why not talk about the IQ of Chinese in 1500: we don't have any data on that. This is an attempt to claim there isn't enough data to decide the matter one way or another (rather an embarrassing climbdown for you just a few posts after asserting I'm so obviously completely wrong my position doesn't even warrant arguing with), but there is; we don't need the ancient data. It would be nice, but it's not necessary.

What evolutionary pressure do you think there is for different levels of IQ across the races?

[Ostroeuropa]

It's easy why not talk about the IQ of Chinese in 1500: we don't have any data on that. This is an attempt to claim there isn't enough data to decide the matter one way or another (rather an embarrassing climbdown for you just a few posts after asserting I'm so obviously completely wrong my position doesn't even warrant arguing with), but there is; we don't need the ancient data. It would be nice, but it's not necessary.

What evolutionary pressure do you think there is for different levels of IQ across the races?

Low access to protein could explain it, or areas with frequent famines. Famine during pregnancy reduces the childs intelligence throughout life, but makes them more likely to survive subsequent famines.

It's possible, it's just not actually happened. Intelligence is too useful. If you upped the pressure on a specific group by worsening access to protein or provoking famines over a sustained period, more than is normally experienced elsewhere, intelligence would lose out, eventually. It just hasn't thus far.

[HMS Barham]

Europeans don't look like sub-Saharans even when you equalise the pigmentation.



There are systemic differences.

Even if there weren't, and the races were totally arbitrary social constructions, like assigning people to a race according to the date of their birthday, it would not follow that there can't be bulk differences between them.

This is true, but it's also true for subsets of humans in sub-sahara and also in europe.
There are some differences between the races. I'm happy to go over the ones that are scientifically proven if you want.

Not really, I'm well aware already. I thought you were trying to argue that there aren't such difference, but now it seems you're agreeing with me.

I note the irony of Liriena giving two thumbs up to your argument, which explicitly rested on there being real biological difference between definite races.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is true, but it's also true for subsets of humans in sub-sahara and also in europe.
There are some differences between the races. I'm happy to go over the ones that are scientifically proven if you want.

Not really, I'm well aware already. I thought you were trying to argue that there aren't such difference, but now it seems you're agreeing with me.

I note the irony of Liriena giving two thumbs up to your argument, which explicitly rested on there being real biological difference between definite races.

White skin is a specific trait that has evolved, it evolved for a reason.

Race is a social categorization, but trends can be observed. Arabs tend to have high rates of sickle cell anemia which causes health problems, but also makes them resistant to malaria and mosquitos, etc.

This isn't because they are Arabs per say, but because their ancestors lived in an area with a shit load of malaria. Same as white skin and cloud coverage.

Whites with ancestors who survived the bubonic plague tend to have slight resistance to the aids virus, etc.