All ethnic qualities are genetic. It's generally acceptable to say that Africans commonly have white skin and Europeans commonly have white skin. It's also okay to say that Africans are generally taller than Europeans, who are generally taller than Asians. It's also acceptable to say that Africans have a higher risk of being born with sickle-cell anemia, and that Europeans posses a lower resistance to malaria than Africans. However, it's not okay to say that Africans and Europeans do not posses the same degree of intelligence.
IQ can't necessarily be used to measure intelligence on a "high-low" scale. Comparing an autistic person to a "normal" person on a traditional IQ test would yield results suggesting that the autistic person is, in comparison to the "normal" person, mentally inferior. However, if one administered a test dealing exclusively with spatial reasoning problems, the results might suggest that the "normal" person is mentally inferior to the one with autism. If two people receive different scores on an IQ test, the person with the higher score is not necessarily more intelligent. However, the two people are mentally different.
Numerous studies have been conducted separating identical twins from birth and placing them in families with different ethnical, social, and economic backgrounds, and barring injury inflicting serious mental trauma, the twins' IQ ratings will be within several points of each other. So it would not be incorrect to say that IQ is, to a large part, genetically influenced. There are many genetic qualities that are partially influenced by environment. For example, shorter height for Asians may be linked to Asian diet as well as Asian genes. However, nearly all physical characteristics are genetically determined. (I'm counting mental capacity as a physical characteristic, since it relates to the human brain, which exists within the realm of our universe. The human brain is tangible.)
The main reason that I can see for opposition is that many people believe that if we are not all regarded as equals, there will inevitably be a group which regard themselves as "superior." And that would have negative consequences, as Hitler showed us. The proposed solution, then, is to disregard our differences and claim that everyone, regardless of disposition or circumstance, is the same.
However, I feel that greater damage can be done by assuming that we are all equals. Looking at the facts objectively, Africa's population tends to score roughly twenty points lower than most people in western countries. Does this mean that Africans are intellectually inferior? Not necessarily, because IQ is not necessarily an accurate reflection of mental capacity (as discussed in the autism example). But does it mean that people hailing from western nations think differently from Africans? I believe that the answer is yes. And, because they are different, we can not assume that what is best for westerners is best for Africans. For example, western democracy works great in the US and Europe. Can we assume that it would also work in Africa? If one assumes that all humans are created equally, then the answer is yes. But I don't believe this to be the case.
What I don't understand is why this line of thinking is considered so heretical or slanderous. It seems almost socially unacceptable to claim that members of different races may possess different mental capacities. James Watson made this claim, and was forced to retract it, offer a formal apology, and nearly lost his Nobel Prize over it. What is wrong with pointing out potential links between race and intelligence?
IQ can't necessarily be used to measure intelligence on a "high-low" scale. Comparing an autistic person to a "normal" person on a traditional IQ test would yield results suggesting that the autistic person is, in comparison to the "normal" person, mentally inferior. However, if one administered a test dealing exclusively with spatial reasoning problems, the results might suggest that the "normal" person is mentally inferior to the one with autism. If two people receive different scores on an IQ test, the person with the higher score is not necessarily more intelligent. However, the two people are mentally different.
Numerous studies have been conducted separating identical twins from birth and placing them in families with different ethnical, social, and economic backgrounds, and barring injury inflicting serious mental trauma, the twins' IQ ratings will be within several points of each other. So it would not be incorrect to say that IQ is, to a large part, genetically influenced. There are many genetic qualities that are partially influenced by environment. For example, shorter height for Asians may be linked to Asian diet as well as Asian genes. However, nearly all physical characteristics are genetically determined. (I'm counting mental capacity as a physical characteristic, since it relates to the human brain, which exists within the realm of our universe. The human brain is tangible.)
The main reason that I can see for opposition is that many people believe that if we are not all regarded as equals, there will inevitably be a group which regard themselves as "superior." And that would have negative consequences, as Hitler showed us. The proposed solution, then, is to disregard our differences and claim that everyone, regardless of disposition or circumstance, is the same.
However, I feel that greater damage can be done by assuming that we are all equals. Looking at the facts objectively, Africa's population tends to score roughly twenty points lower than most people in western countries. Does this mean that Africans are intellectually inferior? Not necessarily, because IQ is not necessarily an accurate reflection of mental capacity (as discussed in the autism example). But does it mean that people hailing from western nations think differently from Africans? I believe that the answer is yes. And, because they are different, we can not assume that what is best for westerners is best for Africans. For example, western democracy works great in the US and Europe. Can we assume that it would also work in Africa? If one assumes that all humans are created equally, then the answer is yes. But I don't believe this to be the case.
What I don't understand is why this line of thinking is considered so heretical or slanderous. It seems almost socially unacceptable to claim that members of different races may possess different mental capacities. James Watson made this claim, and was forced to retract it, offer a formal apology, and nearly lost his Nobel Prize over it. What is wrong with pointing out potential links between race and intelligence?
