What is intelligence?

you clearly were talking about races of people. People of African dissent and people of Asian dissent.

So an Egyptian is the same race as an Ethiopian? Africa is a pretty big continent

Actually, there is only 1 race of humans. However, racists tend to ignore the facts and divide humans into races that aren't based off of science, but based off of people that look different or from different cultures than their own.

http://www.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123

In a whisper: Thank you.

1 Like

Lol well if that's what you believe than I guess this thread is done. Is gender a social construct too? Is everything a social construct? Why even have names if were all the same.

well if you (and the others) stopped derailing this thread then perhaps it [the thread] could continue?

i'll tie the two together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

The Dunning Kruger effect. "is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is."

scientists say there is no race. I acknowledge that i have limited knowledge on the matter, so while i acknowledge they are human, and our understandings are limited and they could be wrong, i do not make the claim that they are wrong. _hill thinks he knows better than genetic scientists, who spent their lives and whose professions are studying genetics. Unless he has similar qualifications to make such a judgement; this implies that he believes he has a superiority over them.

1 Like

Sorry you're talking about social science. Which is probably the most prone to political opinion. Actual geneticists wouldn't be caught dead saying race isn't real. If it's not real what the hell is it???

The article you shared is from a creationist source with an agenda. To deny race is real is to laugh in the face of human history.

How the hell did an innocent topic about the nature of intelligence turn into this?

Anyway, I feel like I have to school you all. As a person of superior intellect I can tell you with 100% certainty that there are only two races of humans - the ones with an innie belly button and the ones with an outie. And outies are freaks. They barely pass as humans, actually. We should ostracize them.

Ah... waking up to a 10K+ word opinionated excerpt formed on a basis of multiple anecdotal assertions. Three coffees and 25 minutes later, I learned roughly zero valuable information.

The author starts off by asserting that evolution has not ceased! Eludes to the idea that absorbing, retaining, and utilizing large data sets makes you smarter! Did you know that economic prosperity, and security, affects how people interact with one another?!?

OMG revelate! What a joke.

I never thought about it before but the author has enlightened me to the idea that when I want to make claims about human genetic evolution, I should ask a freaking economist and use him as my primary source for those claims.

Can I ask you a question? I am going to assume, yes:

Should we allow ignorance based bigotry to be normalized throughout this forum with absolutely no challenge to that ignorance?

This is, in fact, a thread titled: What is intelligence?

That Hill guy needs help and although I (or anyone else here) will not be able to help him fix his world view, his garbage should not go unaddressed. Hill has consistently shown a prominent bias that he has committed to in error; over and over again. His latest post can be used against his very argument to a degree that I dare not attempt to commit to. It would not be worth the effort.

This actually was looked at decades and decades ago. I would dearly love to see some of the work on the topic. It's like going back and seeing research on canine anatomy where researchers literally cut open live dogs. I mean, it's fucking horrifying because they're cutting open live animals. But it's very interesting to see how the researchers convince themselves that these animals don't actually feel pain. Or you could head out to the lake with any avid fisherman, and they'll likely just straight up tell you that fish don't feel pain.

So goes "research" into the idea that there is a genetic component to intelligence. It gets branded as racist pretty damned quickly, and 9 times out of 10 because it is inherently racist in nature. I mean not like mother earth nature, but the core concepts behind getting the research started are racist.

See the thing is that in order to study something as broad a concept as intelligence, we really need to narrow down our criteria. Once we narrow down what we're looking for, we need to narrow down groups of humans (or animals if we can determine their progress along our criteria), hopefully one of which could be a control group. This actually becomes harder as time goes on, because of populations crossing larger and larger distances (and their reasons for doing so).

We'll take a look in just a second, but first I want to get something out of the way.

Watch out for statements like this. I can find a lot of facts, and string them together to come up with some pretty stupid conclusions. While nothing that I say would be untrue, I would still be massively in the wrong. Kinda makes me wish I remembered the string of facts that leads us to the conclusion that we know there is hemp on one of Jupiter's moons. That was a good one.

Anyways, carrying on.

Okay so this is a really really loaded question. Let's break it down.

The assertion I am to presume is that "behind" means "behind in general intelligence," just based off of this thread. This is a great assertion to throw out because it says a lot about what Mr Underhill (btw, is that a LotR reference? Because it would be really cool as a LotR reference. ) thinks of Africa. That is that Africa is somehow "behind," and that they shouldn't be because they're rich in resources. This is just a few, plausible deniability points above just saying,

"Well jesus, why can't Africa look like this?

"

To which we'd just reply, "It does. That's Cairo, Egypt... Y'know, in Africa."

Which cuts right down to the core of why your question is fractally broken. Why are you comparing an entire continent to an island country? If I wanted to answer your question at face value without bringing genetic intelligence into the picture, I'd point out that there is research that suggests that a lack of resources hones peoples' creativity. I could also talk about different, isolated nations in Africa, which is maybe what you're thinking of when trying to draw this comparison. I could talk about the occupation of Africa by Europeans.

What we come down to is that there are a number of human events that need to be accounted for before we can just up and say that "Africans aren't as smart as East Asians." I mean, you can jump right to that if you want to believe in pseudo-science like Phrenology...

... Oh... Well, here's the Wikipedia page on Phrenology if anyone wants to read up on what science was like prior to the turn of the 20th century (spoiler alert: It was based a lot on what people wanted to be true rather than what was actually true). As with all science, we need to keep moving forward, record what worked, as well as what didn't work, so that we don't make the same mistakes again.

Back to Africa vs Japan though. You've really got no leg to stand on here. If you want to throw out some crazy-ass ideas like how the size of someone's lobes affects how intelligent they are, first and foremost I have bar space to rent to you on Deep Space 9, I bet you'd make a killing there. Second, I work with a day trader (well, many, but I'm referring to one in particular). She's five foot nothing to my six foot two. My head is huge by comparison. If we can assume that brain size is relative to head size, why can she do crazy mathematical calculations in her head faster than I can start the calculator app on my phone?

Is that a dumb question? Spoiler alert: yes, yes it is. And the reason it's dumb is because brain size does not correlate to intelligence like that.

2 Likes

Intelligence is not using AssCreed character handles while trying to ham-fistedly discuss philosophy with a bunch of misanthropic, autism spectrum internet nerds, you weeping sack of fermented offal

Like you said, it would not be worth the effort. During the election I tried to tell people that Donald Trump is not who he says he is. It's actually mind boggling that they couldn't see it. Despite the overwhelming evidence that he's even worse than the politicians who work for people like him, most people on this website weren't smart enough to do what's in their own best interest. They thought that voting for one man will fix all of their problems. They didn't even take into account the entire structure that goes along with that man and what makes them their worst enemies. They easily fell for fake news from propaganda machines like RT, Info Wars and various other shitty websites for stupid people. And even 4chan. I shit you not, they regularly posted conspiracy theories from fuckin' 4chan. And now they'll have no net neutrality, maybe no health care, their food, water and soil will be poisonous because corporations won't be regulated and observed, the cops will be free to harass people, private prisons will get even richer, the government is once again going after the medical marijuana and the big banks and businesses that everyone hates will be able to do all those things that they always do when Republicans are in charge without anyone trying to stop them. Which will probably lead to another recession in the next four years. On top of that the US has never been closer to a disastrous war with North Korea. And as far as Syria goes nothing has changed. They're literally doing the same thing that Obama did. Because it's not about winning the war, it's about making it last longer so that private contractors could get richer as well. And it's only been a 100 days. And I'm willing to bet that not a single Trump supporter on this website changed their opinion despite everything that has happened in the last 100 days.

So what does all of this mean. It means that people here are either too young and therefore inexperienced to know better. And as most young people they're too emotional which prevents them from thinking rationally. Which isn't that bad because they have time to learn. But it could also mean that they're just that fuckin' dumb. At any rate, it's futile to try.

And maybe, just maybe they're all outies. In which case we should do something about that.

Fuckin' outies with their stupid belly buttons...

2 Likes

Scary. :wink:

What is intelligence.?

Dobt know.
Need to see an example first.

Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more?

1 Like

Intelligence=knowing what threads to avoid:)

2 Likes

That's related to education, not genetics per se.
The variable genetic determining factors for intelligence exist, but they are not the reason why peoples had different levels of technological development. This is not how technological development works.

The genetic factors that actually play a role in the development of intelligence are also a minority of the vast number of factors that as a whole determine intelligence. People who are genetically slightly predisposed to have "higher" intelligence can, and often do, grow up to be less intelligent than people who did not have that slight predisposition. There is no actual causation between those slight genetic predispositions and the differences in racialisation or even social classes.

Also, yeah, properly learning about those things would be an effective way to dispel the racist beliefs that one might hold.

Lacking knowledge does not make one less intelligent, but it does make one's opinion wrong.

To me, if you can't problem solve, you're not intelligent. Everyone has their own areas of expertise, of course, but some level of deductive reasoning is required for me not to see someone as a potato.

1 Like

"As it turns out, scientists say, the human species is so evolutionarily young, and its migratory patterns so wide, restless and rococo, that it has simply not had a chance to divide itself into separate biological groups or "races" in any but the most superficial ways.

"Race is a social concept, not a scientific one," said Dr.

J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corporation in Rockville, Md. "We all evolved in the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonized the world."

Dr. Venter and scientists at the National Institutes of Health recently announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race -- the human race. "

https://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/082200sci-genetics-race.html

these people are not social scientists. And your source is not a scientist.

1 Like