posted
Guys, if I may diverge from the general purpose of this forum for this one inquiry. I apologize, it's just you guys have unique perspective on things.
What is your take on the issue of intelligence? We all originated from one "race" but as we morphed over time physically, is it incorrect to suppose that perhaps things like "intelligence" or cognitive suitability changed to be more adaptive to the immediate environment for some populations in the same way their phenotype did?
In every measure of "intelligece" (namely IQ) there are members of all "races" that score on the highest and lowest points. The difference is in distributions between socially defined race (because we're all related making "race" cutoffs purely man-made). At the same time, do you think that when we move across the "spectrum" of man in North and South regions of the world, that general intelligence or predispositions in aspects of intelligence may vary? Maybe it's never something that can be put into absolutes because you'll always find members who perform the same, but generally speaking maybe some are more equipped differently than others on average?
I realize this is an intellectual/academic debate with little real world application because people will live with and mix with who they want. But on a purely scientific introspective basis, does this have any merit? This is what racial proponents like Lynn are always nagging at (he's been doing this type of research for 30 years non-stop).
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
IQ is an ARBITRARY measurement and has NOTHING to do with innate intelligence. There is a difference between INTELLIGENCE and world view or culture. Meaning that JUST because some people live in "primitive" conditions, does not mean that they have LESSER intelligence. History SHOWS us that civilization is a LEARNED trait. Most ancient civlizations are near one another and this is because CULTURAL traits and CULTURAL developments are as much a factor in the development of civilization as INTELLIGENCE is. Bottom line, Europeans want to play games with FACTS in order to reinforce an ABSURD world view that says Europeans are the MOST intelligent people on the planet. But this is because THEY are the ones DEFINING what intelligence is and intelligence in their minds is REALLY culture and WORLD VIEW. Therefore, people who DONT look at the world and man's position in it and man's PURPOSE in life the same as they do are LESS intelligent and in reality it all boils down to propaganda: us good, everyone else bad. But that is ONE side of the story. The OTHER side is that there IS no scientific basis for this point of view. If Europeans were the SMARTEST or most ADVANCED people on the planet, then they would have produced the FIRST civilizations on the planet SEPARATE from EVERYONE ELSE. But they didnt. European civilization was a LEARNED trait, mainly due to the incursions of the Islamic Arabs and Africans into Spain, which set off a chain of events that led to the Rennaissance, slavery in Africa and the discovery of the Americas. If Europeans were SO ADVANCED and had such a SUPERIOR intelligence, then they would not have NEEDED such an event to spur their "civilization". They would not have NEEDED a "rennaissance" to bring Greek "culture" to Western Europe.
As I said, civilization is a LEARNED trait based on CULTURE and there is NO DOUBT that Western European civilization is based on the Greek and Roman "culture" of civilization more than anything else. And, in turn, the Greeks and Romans learned "civilization" from Africa, Babylon and India, but INFUSED it with their OWN cultural characteristics and it is these CULTURAL traits which Europeans MOST emulate in the modern world as opposed to "pure" intelligence. The Greeks culture was the source of the culture of so-called pure RATIONAL thinking (as opposed to superstition or religious knowledge ) and from the Romans they acuired the cultural trait of SENATORIAL governance. Neither of these traits were REALLY signs of intelligence, since ALL ancient civilizations are admired for their organizational capacity as well as their intellectual acheivements. However, Europeans have identified these two traits as cultural traits UNIQUE to the West, even though for MOST of their history, Europeans were ruled by KINGS and did NOT persue knowledge for the sake of LEARNING. THIS is why, during the age of the Greeks and Romans they were considered BARBARIANS. So, in reality, Western countries are REALLY LYING about being part of a tradition that they really only RECENTLY have started to put into practice. It has been only been within the last 100 years that the West has TRULY developed "democratic" governments and only within the last few hundred years that they have TRULY become rigorous enough in their approach to knowledge to be considered TRULY scientific. Yet this was STILL at least 1000 years after the Greeks and Romans had LONG departed, not to mention the Muslims, Asians, Africans and Indians who ADVANCED learning based on the works of the ancients PRIOR to Western Europe and its "rennaissance".
Basically what we call "civilization" is a world view that places the aquisition of as much KNOWLEDGE about the inner workings of the everyday world for the purpose of building better "things" as the ULTIMATE development of mankind. This is a CULTURAL perspective because many OTHER cultures had OTHER ways of looking at the development of knowledge and put PHYSICAL knowledge below the development of spiritual understanding and natural harmony. India is a GOOD example of this trait and Indians are considered UNQUESTIONABLY as some of the most INTELLIGENT people on the planet. Yet and still MOST Indians live in very PRIMITIVE conditions in India even though they have one of the OLDEST civilizations on earth. Therefore, culture is the real basis of civilization, not intelligence and intelligence is NOT always a factore of PHYSICAL development.
All humans have generally the same amount of intelligence. All humans have the capacity to learn and create, as can be seen in the fact that MOST ancient pre European civilizations had MANY varied and diverse artistic and utilitarian "guilds" that produced a wide variety of cultural artifacts. Therefore, this whole idea of IQ as a measure of Intelligence is PURELY fake. The IQ test is as much a test of CULTURE as it is of BRAIN capacity and really doesnt determine a person's intelligence at all. This and the fact that there are SO MANY factors that determine a person's ability to perform in tasks measuring various abilities, that there is no TRUE standard for measuring intelligence as a FUNCTION of genetics. Many would say that IQ is partly a result of culture, learning, environment, history, social conditioning and OTHER factors. So it is NOT truly a gauge of a RACES innate intelligence on the biological level. Once again, IQ is a BOGUS concept especially when it comes to race. There is ONLY one human race and one human species. Therefore, ALL humans have had the same biological capacity for INTELLIGENCE since modern humans FIRST arose in Africa. Like I said, it is not so much that the first humans were LESS intelligent than MODERN humans, but that they had to LEARN the things that we now take for granted today. No human is a walking encyclopedia and therefore humans dont STORE knowledge in their genes. Man is a LEARNING creature not a ROBOT preprogrammed with INFINITE KNOWLEDGE. So man has to LEARN in order to gain knowledge and it isnt a simple process of osmosis. So the reason it took so long for man to develop "civilization" is that it took man that long to LEARN the traits that would LEAD to what we call civilization. I am almost sure that if you took a person from 10,000 years ago and put him into a MODERN classroom, he would do JUST AS WELL as any MODERN human.
So what does this all mean? It means that MAN comes with the INNATE ability to learn and adapt to his environment. This is a FUNDAMENTAL aspect of ALL HUMANS. Therefore, ALL humans have the same basic IQ in general. What DIFFERENTIATES one group of humans from another is ACCESS to knowledge outside of the things that a group has LEARNED on their own. Another factor that differentiates one group from another is how much of a priority they PUT on learning. ALL people do not place as much IMPORTANCE in learning NEW THINGS as others, which is more of a CULTURAL trait than a reflection of intelligence. This is why, even today, many TRADITIONAL peoples STILL reject modern conveniences, because they dont SEE those things as being very important. Yet that wouldn't stop them from being able to learn just as much as and just as quickly as anyone else.
Finally, let us not forget that Europeans provide their own contradictions about intelligence and race. They often tout IQ and other measures of intelligence and race as a basis for their superiority. However, at the SAME time, they ALWAYS make sure that OTHERS have LESS access to learning than Europeans do. THEREFORE, this CONTRADICTS the idea that various peoples of the world have LESS intelligence than others. What it points out is that Europeans use KNOWLEDGE as a weapon, as part of their world view of Cultural, political and economic superiority over others. So in reality what they are DOING is JUSTIFYING holding others BACK from learning so that THEY can move ahead at all costs.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug that was an interesting read. I agree with what you're saying:
1) All people have created advanced civilizations, and non-Europeans were the first to do so.
2) IQ is culturally weighted/biased and is not a holistic measurement of intelligence nor necessarily applicable to creativity, formation, and advancement of civilizations. IQ test results suggets that Asians and Jews have the highest intelligence, yet neither of these "races" came to rule the world the way Europeans did.
3) Culture (includes sub-cultures, religion, tradition, priority, training, self image) and environment (toxin exposure, access, racism) are just as important if not more important to the creation and maintenance of civilization than arbitrary intelligence scales.
Given these realities my inquiry may be a misnomer. However, if we put all the IQ tests and tools for testing intelligence aside and focus on the hypothesis, do you believe there is any possible merit in it? The hypothesis suggests that since populations who were isolated developed external changes to make them adaptable to their environment, perhaps internal changes occured too. I'm not pre-supposing an answer because it's not even clear to me that the external and physical differences we observe (person with dark versus light skin) have any demonstratably significant benefit over the other. Many point to the Black American athlete to assert athletic superiority, yet training, priority, access, and diet may determine these disparities considering that Black Africans typically don't dominate in any sports at all.
But back to the point. For example, if we look at Bantus and Pygmies, we see a clear physical differencea. In the old "racial" view, they're considered members of the same race, but being that race is a social construct, we could for the sake of argument denote them as seperate races. One population is tall and the other is short. I'm using these populations because they are small, isolated, and easily distinguished from each other physically. When we consider that Bantus are taller, they have a physical advantage for some tasks over Pygmies and likewise Pygmies may have an advantage over other types of tasks (mind you, it would be negligable because human problem solving skills would allow a Pygmie to find a way to achieve what a taller Bantu could). Still, since we see clearcut physical differences, could we also conclude that perhaps some cognitive faculties are different between these populations?
Although it may be difficult or maybe even impossible to categorically locate or measure these differences using our tools, is it possible that some slight differences in intellect differs (we can accept that there are even myriad forms of intelligences). Could members of one population excel at some forms of intelligences generally more than the others due to genetic cognitive differences that have resulted from their unique environment over thousands of years? In other words, if our exterior (eyes, hair), bones structures, and blood types can change due to environmental pressures, is it logical to assume that internally we've changed ever so slightly also? Is it logical to suggest that although populations have clearly changed in appearance (form) over thousands of years, that all faculties (functions) have remained the same?
Please feel free to elaborate on how you feel this applies to eugenics in and of itself, but also as it was apparently applied to Black slaves in America. I've heard (never read about it myself) that Europeans selected for certain types of physical traits in slaves. Obviously larger, stronger slaves would probably have been ideal for the rigurous labor that was required. Is selective breeding in humans a reality and if so, does this lend credibility to the possibility of general genotypical differences among natural populations?
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My answer is that Lynn is silly, and time wasted on him is either amazingly misguided, or intended as a desparate advertisement for a racist loon:
posted
rasol, that is exactly what I'm getting at. There are practising scientists such as Lynn who actually believe in Eugenics. He's misguided but he's also incredibly articulate and careful. One would expect to read the type of sentence you quoted from a mad man rather than somebody who conducts scientific experiements and has contributed to the field (he's studied and investigated more than just matters of race). While it may seem silly, I would like to remove any basis for his suggestions and am seeking a scientific rebuttal to his hypothesis. What's more remarkable is that people like him did put into practise a system of Eugenics in Nazi Germany. As far fetched as his ideas are, they did garner support in the past so we're clearly not immune to these types of men and their philosophies.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:IQ is culturally weighted/biased and is not a holistic measurement of intelligence nor necessarily applicable to creativity, formation, and advancement of civilizations. IQ test results suggets that Asians and Jews have the highest intelligence, yet neither of these "races" came to rule the world the way Europeans did.
But why did the Europeans who are the most "developed of all humans" never create anything that might be basis on their "uniqe" "civilization". This untill other people influenced them?? I mean everything basis on European civilization is borrowed. Shouldnt the Germanic humanoids be the natural originater on everything according to them since they arer superior?? But unfortunatly The alphabetic system used by Germanic people originates from the Phonecians who were not Germanic or Europeans.
The numerical system has it's source from India through Muslims, also not original European.
And the greatest European religion comes from the Arabian peninsula.
Now how did strictly/pure real European ideology(if it ever existed) ever rule the world? European lifestyle IMO seems to be total borrowed and by time eventually Europised, So are you still sure none of these people you posted(Jews etc) have yet to rule the world as the real Europeans,lol
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Indeed. Don't forget the weapons technology and fire-power that Europeans used to dominate others i.e. guns and cannons were 'borrowed' from the Chinese.
Yet ungrateful European descended jerkwads like this guy dare calls non-European societies and overall people of color as "incompetitent cultures" that need to be "phased out"!
LOL Yeah, good luck with that!
Posts: 26320 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
So do you guys think that it is circumstance and life chances that allowed Europeans to dominate in the past 600 years. Perhaps the knowledge and technology borrowed combined with their unique situation and outlook produced an impetus to improve or perfect what was availale and this process necessitated further innovation. And with each new innovation further innovation is facilitated. For example, once the printing press was created, men from all around the globe who could read and write could record their thoughts, ideas. The transmission of ideas sparks further inquiry, investigation, and so forth.
The thing is, even is population distributions differ with regard to any form of measured intelligence, this is something that is constantly in flux and at the mercy of breeding patterns and the environment (for example, a disease can wipe out a whole cohort of "smart" members of a "race"; also nutrition and culture could help or hinder the expression of whatever biological abilities exist).
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^Indeed. Don't forget the weapons technology and fire-power that Europeans used to dominate others i.e. guns and cannons were 'borrowed' from the Chinese.
Speaking of which we have:
Gunpowder:
The Chinese knew gunpowder in the 11th century, but didn’t know the right proportions of getting explosions and didn’t achieve the necessary purification of potassium nitrate. The first Chinese book, which details the explosives proportion, was in 1412 by Huo Lung Ching. [1]
Al-Rammah’s book is the first to explain the purification procedure for potassium nitrate and described many recipes for making gunpowder with the correct proportions to achieve explosion. This is necessary for the development of canons. Partington [ 3] says “the collection of recipes was probably taken from different sources at different times in the author’s family and taken down. Such recipes are described as tested.” Al-Razi, Al-Hamdany, and an Arabic-Syriaque manuscript of the 10th century describe potassium nitrate. Ibn Al-Bitar describes it in 1240. The Arab-Syriaque manuscript of the 10th century gives some recipes of gunpowder. It is assumed that these were added in the 13th century.
The Latin book “Liber Ignium” of Marcus Graecus is originally Arabic (translated in Spain) gives many recipes for making gunpowder the last four of which must have been added to the book in 1280 or 1300. “Did Roger Bacon derive his famous cryptic gunpowder in his Epistola of ca. 1260 from the crusader Peter of Maricourt, some other traveler or from a wide range of reading from Arabic and alchemical books”. References [1], [3], and Joseph Needham, doubt the correctness and effectiveness of the recipe of Bacon.
The German scientist Albert Magnus obtained his information from the “Liber Ignium” originally an Arabic book translated in Spain.
Evidence of the use of gunpowder during the crusades in Fustat, in Egypt, 1168 was found in the form of traces of potassium nitrate. Such traces were also found in 1218 during the siege of Dumyat and in the battle of Al-Mansoura in 1249.
Winter mentions, “the Chinese may have discovered saltpeter (gunpowder) or else that discovery may have been transmitted to them by the Muslims whom they had plenty of opportunities of meeting either at home or abroad. Sarton is referring to Arab-Muslim traders to China, as well as Arab inhabitants in China. As early as 880 an estimated 120,000 Muslims, Jews and Persians liven in Canton alone.”
Canons and Rockets:
There are four Arabic manuscripts (Almakhzoun manuscripts; one in Petersburg, two in Paris and one in Istanbul) in 1320 describing the first portable canon with suitable gunpowder. This description is principally the same as for modern guns. Such canons were used in the famous battle of Ain-Galout against the Mongols (1260).
The Mamlouks developed the canons further during the 14th century.
In Spain, Arabs used canons defending Seville (1248), in Granada 1319, in Baza or Albacete 1324, in Huescar and Martos 1325, in Alicante 1331 and in Algeziras 1342-1344. Partington says, “ the history of artillery in Spain is related to that of the Arabs”.
J.R. Partington mentions, “Arabic accounts suggest that the Arabs introduced firearms into Spain, from where they passed to Italy, from there to France, and finally Germany.”
“The Arabs, in any event, appear to have been the first to inherit (and possibly) originate the secret of the rocket, and it was through Arabic writings, rather than the Mongols -- that the Europeans came to know the rocket. The two notable examples of Arabic knowledge of the rocket are the so-called “self-moving and combusting egg” of the Syrian Al-Hassan Al-Rammah (d. 1294 - 1295), details of which may be found in Willey Ley’s popular “Rockets, Missiles, and Space Travel” and physician Yusuf ibn Ismail Al-Kutub’s description (1311) of the saltpeter (“they use it to make a fire which rises and moves, thus increasing it in lightness and inflammability”). - Frank H. Winter
Sources: Courtesy of FSTCPosts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Thanks for the info. Either way Europeans had nothing to do with its development but just adopted the technology and improved it for their uses.
What about fireworks? Do you have any info on that?
Posts: 26320 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Domination and origination (as in origin) have no relationship except that domination gives the impression that it created something when in reality, it did not. Even those who have originated culture and are being dominated would like to dominate but thier energies are different.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Yonis, I agree.
So do you guys think that it is circumstance and life chances that allowed Europeans to dominate in the past 600 years. Perhaps the knowledge and technology borrowed combined with their unique situation and outlook produced an impetus to improve or perfect what was availale and this process necessitated further innovation. And with each new innovation further innovation is facilitated. For example, once the printing press was created, men from all around the globe who could read and write could record their thoughts, ideas. The transmission of ideas sparks further inquiry, investigation, and so forth.
The thing is, even is population distributions differ with regard to any form of measured intelligence, this is something that is constantly in flux and at the mercy of breeding patterns and the environment (for example, a disease can wipe out a whole cohort of "smart" members of a "race"; also nutrition and culture could help or hinder the expression of whatever biological abilities exist).
I think it is PURELY the desire of Europeans to CONQUER the world in the name of European culture and make Europe the most powerful Empire EVER in history. In one sense, the European empire is just a consequence of evolution, since almost ALL ancient empires have tried to dominate the areas around them in the name of their own culture. Therefore it is inevitable that at some point people would have the capability to "rule the world" literally.
However, racism and ideas of differences in intelligence based on race are only justification for such an act. Therefore, European DOMINATION of the world has nothing to do with INTELLIGENCE, since it relied MORE on savagery and COLD HEARTED MURDER than pure INTELLECT. That is the reason Europeans ALWAYS try and put IQ, intelligence and CULTURE forward as the basis of their "superiority" over others, so they can HIDE and OMIT the fact that it is based on OUTRIGHT injustice towards other people. Since, injustice and cruelty are signs of man's savage, primitive nature, Europeans do EVERYTHING they can to push their own SAVAGERY towards other people under the rug while promoting nonsense about intelligence and culture.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, I agree that the purpose of showing differences is to justify conquest and/or the maintenance of social power and dominance.
On the same note, do you believe as Lynn suggests, that it is possible for differences to exist between groups on average? Many critics of him suggest that his evidence is superflous because it gives many studies equal weight in calculating IQ. His response is that every study, done by hundreds of scientists, show virtually the same result.
Whether one believes IQ is any reliable measure of "intelligence" or not, do you believe that there is a general difference in IQ between groups? If so, perhaps there may be general differences in other spheres? Can morphological and genotypical changes sometimes, but not always coincide? His hypothesis to me seems fair on an intellectual level. However, it seems completely irrelevant in the real world. People with high IQs can be lazy or murderers. People with low IQs can be good productive citizens. The list goes on and on and when you consider the amount of overlap between groups and the fact that members of all groups score at the top, trying to discern or parse out people on some measurement of IQ (whatever IQ truly means or represents) seems like an exercise in futility.
Even if we take the assumption of IQ, it obviously isn't a pre-requisite to create civilization if we assume that ancient egyptians would have similar IQ measures to those of present day North Africans.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Doug, I agree that the purpose of showing differences is to justify conquest and/or the maintenance of social power and dominance.
On the same note, do you believe as Lynn suggests, that it is possible for differences to exist between groups on average? Many critics of him suggest that his evidence is superflous because it gives many studies equal weight in calculating IQ. His response is that every study, done by hundreds of scientists, show virtually the same result.
Whether one believes IQ is any reliable measure of "intelligence" or not, do you believe that there is a general difference in IQ between groups? If so, perhaps there may be general differences in other spheres? Can morphological and genotypical changes sometimes, but not always coincide? His hypothesis to me seems fair on an intellectual level. However, it seems completely irrelevant in the real world. People with high IQs can be lazy or murderers. People with low IQs can be good productive citizens. The list goes on and on and when you consider the amount of overlap between groups and the fact that members of all groups score at the top, trying to discern or parse out people on some measurement of IQ (whatever IQ truly means or represents) seems like an exercise in futility.
Even if we take the assumption of IQ, it obviously isn't a pre-requisite to create civilization if we assume that ancient egyptians would have similar IQ measures to those of present day North Africans.
I already answered your question. There IS no such thing as IQ being a measure of intelligence. Intelligence is a BROAD term with different definitions according to DIFFERENT people. Therefore, there IS NO WAY to quantify IQ or "intelligence" for different races. It is a MYTH to even suggest that such a thing is possible. What you SEEM to be saying and repeating is the idea that THOSE who did not build complex civilizations are LESS intelligent than those who did. By THAT definition, then Northern and Western Europeans are LESS intelligent than the Greeks and Romans and Arabs and Africans because they ALL had civilization before Europe and Africa had the EARLIEST known civilization in the world. Egypt is IN Africa, ancient Egyptians ORIGINATED in Africa and their culture CAME from Africa. All continents in the world had CIVILIZATIONS of some sort when the Europeans arrived: America, Africa, China, Japan, South Asia and the islands ALL had some form of civilization. Therefore, the idea that civilization is LIMITED to Europe or ORIGINATED there is as RIDICULOUS as the idea that Europeans are the ONLY people with any sort of "intelligence".
We have answered your question so stop asking the same thing over and over again. It does look like you are TROLLING for Eurocentrism.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic