Human evolution, Females vs. Males

Post Reply New Topic

It matters because most western societies function using the premise that races are all of equal potential. When statistics regarding employment, education and achievement show one particular race "underperforming" it's assumed that is due to discrimination. So, what if it's not due to discrimination? What's the correct thing to do if, on average, those from a certain race have statistically less chance of gaining skilled employment and that is determined, to a large degree, at conception?

In what ways? In the sense that you can get a degree from university that's required for your job, and show that you are amiable and workable if they were to hire you? So what discrimination is there? If you made it past university, who cares about what race you're from? If you get along well with co workers and do fine at the interview, who cares if you're black? So suddenly, would you rather choose the white guy over the black guy, just because he's white, even though both are more or less the same in terms of skill, and have both gotten past unversity, but the black guy is more amiable with the other people? That makes no sense at all. Let people prove themselves, and screw the "averages" thing; there are still amazing people where you least expect them.

You're missing the point; try not to get too emotional about this, it might help! Getting through university requires a certain level of intelligence (not a great deal in absolute terms these days, but a certain level, nonetheless). If a certain group of people are less intelligent on average than another, then less of them are likely to end up with university degrees. At an individual level you may be almost as likely, relatively speaking, to bump into those of superior intellect from that group as you would from those in the higher intelligence group, yet when you examine statistics collated nationwide there may be a clear difference in the proportion of each group with university degrees. Of course, degrees are only one example, you could apply the same to earnings, or certain other achievments.

Governments collect statistics like this to pacify the PC lobby; it's then used to "prove" we're all racist. They then legislate to restrict our freedom of speech on the matter, and give preferential treatment to the "victims" of the "racism" at the expense of the rest of us. That helps nobody longterm. As Codarac mentioned:

That still doesn't make sense. Plenty of people die from cancer each year, people are blind or deaf, others have genetic diseases, and yet they still get helped. Yet you won't help a black person who might be considered intellectually inferior to others?

I sometimes wonder if I speak the same language as some of you people. I've not given any indication that I don't wish to "help" people. In fact I've shown that you can't help people if you are unable to get to grips with the real cause of the problem that puts them at a disadvantage in the first place. So discussing that problem in an environment unfettered by the chains of political-correctness is a necessary step toward administering whatever appropriate help is needed.

No, maybe I don't get what you're getting at, perhaps because you haven't posed any sort of solution to certain races being smarter or less smart than others, or because such information seems to be redundant.

But there are aid centers for students having trouble learning, tutors who are willing to help students struggling in school and there are already measures made for students who don't learn as well, despite their races. Nothing needs to be done. Besides, there is still no cure for cancer, and it's probably not well understood; there are lots of things we don't understand that don't have cures, but that doesn't mean you just stop there and leave it.

Why should I? I'm just commenting on how intelligence is genetically determined and how that intelligence can be correlated with race. I'm doing that in response to those who deny the importance of such a relationship. But anyway, I have suggested that the first step is for it to be accepted and discussed, not just ignored because it's politically inconvenient.


But that doesn't solve the problem. All the intervention in the world can't make a smart person from a dolt. You can't make a doctor from someone who is intellectually incapable of basic mathematics, can you? That's an extreme, but the principle still holds for smaller differences that are only noticeable in large samples.

If you want some sort of solution then perhaps it's in challenging the view that education and skilled work is the only socially-acceptable option. Perhaps if society rewarded those who do essential unskilled work adequately then everybody would be a lot happier, and the resentment felt by certain ethnic groups who currently may feel excluded from society would be reduced. Afterall, our society goes to great lengths to create the impression that discrimination against individuals because of skin colour, sex, or sexuality is unacceptable (all genetically pre-determined) yet it overtly discriminates against those who are of lower IQ (again genetically predetermined).

Male Chromosomes are actually decomposing.

I'm back, and I am here to say, we are all equally inferior to what humans should be. We are all eaully stupid, equally hatefull, equally violent, but we are all equally able to better ourselves . And ahayes provide your evidence, and provide evidence it is not something.

ahayes means that there is no refreshing for the Y chromosome through crossover. It goes more deeply than that, but its true enough.

Yes, but assuming that this theory of race being linked with statistical intelligence is true as a biological factor, assuming this is true, white people are behind asians and jews. So white people definately would not be at the top of the pyramid, we'd be like no. 3 or something.

Then what is the importance of that relationship? You concede that you don't need a solution to making people smarter, so why does it even matter about this relationship? You don't seem inclined to use it.



And there are plenty of white people who never end up being doctors either. I don't know. Why do these aid centers and tutoring exist? If they can't make a stupid person smart, why do they exist? If it doesn't work on a black person, why should you believe it works on a white person with a low IQ score?



I realize that society is irrational, but the fact that it doesn't discriminate against races but might discriminate IQ (although I would say that's an indirect and possibly inaccurate representation of people who pass university; some people pass it by attending help sessions and reading SAT books--and they actually work; they just don't make you smarter) is no contradiction because there are smart people in all kinds of races, even if there are more in some than others. The fact that they pick people that can display high intelligence regardless of their skin color means that they don't discriminate against races, but might be selective about intelligence.

First off, the connection doesn't need to be of obvious tangible use for me to assert that it exists. That's not a requirement for post content on this board. However, it is of use in a context that I've previously explained regarding underperformance of certain ethnic groups:


If intelligence can be correlated with race, then obviously any statistics used to "prove" discrimination should factor that in.


Did I say there weren't?


You need to separate intelligence, as a measure of how effectively our brains work, from knowledge which is acquired as part of the education process. The things you mention help with the accumulation of that knowledge, but the limiting factor will always be that innate level of intelligence with which you are born. Studying and tutoring help make the best of what you've got, but they can't make a genius from a moron. Does that make sense?


I never stated, or implied, it could!

...And? I'm afraid that I don't get what you're getting at because all you need to do is say that there are some differences in races, but people still hire others or continue treating others the way they should be treated because they prove themselves either by displaying or not displaying their intelligence; you need not generalize all people of a race as being smart or stupid as that's not always true of every person in a race. Race doesn't matter either way.



What's the point of your example then? There are black doctors and white people that don't end up being doctors. Race doesn't matter again.



Yes, I know that, but why does it matter that some people aren't born as smart as others, nevermind that there are people that are most likely smarter in one race than the other?



So these differences in race is meaningless. It doesn't really matter much if people knew that the races were different intellectually or not in general; they'd still treat people the same way.

Indeed, it appears not.

The importance is in averages. I'm not saying one race is stupid and one clever. I'm saying that if you take 1000 people from one race and 1000 from another then the average intelligence (measured by some IQ system based on a large sample of the world population) for each of those groups will be different. Now, if you separately use some other yardstick to measure achievement of individuals in those groups then the average will also be different between the two groups in a similar way to the intelligence average. This is because intelligence correlates with general achievement in society (work, education etc.).

The problem is that governments collect statistics on race and achievement. You'll often see things in the news like: "20% of the unemployed in the city are black" This may be given in the context of blacks, for example, only comprising 15% of the city population. This raises the question, in this example, of why there are more unemployed blacks (as a proportion). Inevitably it's put down to racism and discrimination. Nobody dare suggest it's anything else. But what if it is something else? What if it's the IQ difference I was explaining? Of course, governments don't collect statistics on IQ (at least not that they'll admit); perhaps they should!

Consider this (yet again):

Really? The government has laws to stop you from freely speaking? Then maybe you should tell us what you really think!

Statistics can be of some use in analysing trends or spotting phenomena. But (if you have read any of the Supreme Court cases on affirmative action), quotas and outright preferences are legal only to remedy a blatant pattern of illegal discrimination. For example, if a police department had a policy of not hiring blacks, then they could be ordered to hire X number of black officers before they hire any more whites, to make up for the previous discrimination and move the police force towards one that looked more like the community.

You are also assuming that there is a correlation between intelligence and being employed. Not sure that is a strong correlation. Motivation and opportunity seem to be more important IMHO.

It's like the old assumption that there is a correlation between intelligence and income. Yet there are plenty of very smart people that prefer a not-so-well paying job in academia, while average people with hustle can do quite well financially.

Within the last year or two, there was a study done where researchers answered ads for apartments. First they would have someone that spoke with a black accent call, and they would be told the apartment had been taken. Then someone who sounds white called the same number; surprise - the apartment was available. They sometimes had different people call the same number several days in a row, and the pattern was clear. If someone was determined or suspected of being black, they were told there was nothing available. This type of thing isn't limited to the geographic areas that were studied, and it isn't limited to the housing market. There is still widespread racism in America, and only an ostrich can't see it.