What's the difference between racism and xenophobia?

[fsuman110]

in japan's case xenophobia would mean fear of foreigners or that which is foreign in general right? racism is the marginilization or outright hatred of a particular race, or the thinking that one race is superior to another. while these sound different in definition, i fail to see the difference when it is broken down into experiences or everyday activities.

take me for example. i am a white male and i was denied access to a gift shop in kyoto because i am a "foreigner". well in this context, being a foreigner is synonomous with being "white", and foreign is any and all who are not japanese. therefore, one can say that i was denied entry to that gift shop because i am white, which is racsim.

i apologize if this is coming off as harsh. let it be known that i love japan and that one bad experience was about the only negative encounter i had in 6 months of living there. that said, i'd like to talk a little about why i made this topic. i see people defending xenophobia in japan like it is acceptable or something. there is no doubt that japan is very homogenous, but that it no excuse in my opinion. the world is globalized enough to the point where people should know the proper way to treat other people and not hide behind the fact that one's culture was closed off to the world for 250 years, so it's ok to discriminate or even worse, fail to acknowledge a problem at all. and again, i'm not saying the usa is perfect because that is far from the truth. i'd just like to know why some people think it is acceptable for japan to remain xenophobic. in my opinion, it's a choice, not a mere circumstance.

sorry for the rant, i really hope i didn't alienate myself from anyone and hopefully we can get a good discussion going on the matter.

[fsuman110]

oh sorry, i forgot to mention that of course i do not think that all japanese are this way, or even the majority for that matter. as the saying goes, " it only takes a few to ruin it for everyone"

[Matthew C. Perry]

You could sue the shop, and possibly even win. This woman did in a similar situaiton in 1999...

.http://www.migrationint.com.au/news/scotland/dec_1999-14mn.asp (http://)

It might be satisfying to at least go back to the shop, with a Japanese copy of the article and tell them they'll be sued, and lose a lot of money if they keep it up.

[fsuman110]

that's interesting. well, i guess it's a bit of a comfort knowing that it was acutally illegal to deny me access. but the thing is, is that i hear of that sort of thing going on all the time in japan. i've had friends denied access to clubs because they're not japanese (i'm sure it was not a dress code or any other standard kind of thing), as well as friends who couldn't go to certain onsens in hokkaido.

i'm not really interested in getting money though. if i went after that small business, then i would be reinforcing their negative image of foreigners which caused them to post that sign in the first place. i'm not saying that they're right or anything, because they're not. it's just that if i want to be somewhat accepted into that society in the future, i'm gonna have to play by their rules (at least for a while and to a certain degree).

does anyone have anything interesting to share or discuss? i'd love to discuss some people's theories as to why some japanese choose to remain xenophobic in a quickly globalizing world. and here's another question i'll throw out - what is more important, preserving an ancient society at the cost of racial equality, or striving toward equal rights no matter what the consequence? sounds like it'd be a no-brainer, but some of you may be surprised.

[Mandylion]

I'll sit down with your questions if I can get the time in the next few days. You have a good thread here - don't let it die under an avalanche of anime and J-pop :)

One question though; do you mind telling us the name/location of the store you were denied access to in Kyoto? I don't plan to picket the place or anything, I'm just curious. I also understand of you would rather not.

Sorry you had a bad experience, but thanks for keeping a cool head about it. -M

[fsuman110]

the store was somewhere in the pontocho area of kyoto. as far as i know the district only has a coule streets and the shop itself is facing the river.

i really hope that i haven't come off as too harsh though. again, that was one bad experience among thousands and thousands of wonderful ones. it did nothing to ruin my overall image of japan, and if i had the chance to go back, i'd be there in a heartbeat. but as i believe you said in another post, people like to blow off steam and talk about these things every now and them.

[Matthew C. Perry]

Originally posted by fsuman110

does anyone have anything interesting to share or discuss? i'd love to discuss some people's theories as to why some japanese choose to remain xenophobic in a quickly globalizing world. and here's another question i'll throw out - what is more important, preserving an ancient society at the cost of racial equality, or striving toward equal rights no matter what the consequence? sounds like it'd be a no-brainer, but some of you may be surprised.

I think eventually Japan will begin to recognize the principle of equal protection under the law, and the authorities will crack down on shops, landlords, etc. that openly discriminate. Still, I don't think the country will ever fully buy into the Western belief, mythical in my view, that individuals and population groups are equal in their abilities and potentialities.

[Glenn]

Originally posted by Matthew C. Perry
Still, I don't think the country will ever fully buy into the Western belief, mythical in my view, that individuals and population groups are equal in their abilities and potentialities.

Is that the Western belief? I thought that it was just that people are people, and everyone deserves a certain level of respect. I certainly do not believe that everyone has the same abilities and potentialities, so I guess that I just assumed that most people thought so as well. Is there an example to which you could point to show that the Western belief holds "that individuals and population groups are equal in their abilities and potentialities"?

[Uncle Frank]

exist. I went to a nice Japanese Resturant with a guy in the Navy nicknamed Animal. He'd had a few drinks before I met him. He started grabbing handfuls of food off people's plates, growling like an annimal, and gobbling the food down like in Animal House. He scared the hell out of the poor people and grossed me out. Next day, there was a sign on their door, no gaijens.
Again, military guys at a going- away party at a small Japanese bar. They trashed the place; and when the little ol mama-san objected, a group of guys stood on the bar and took turns urinating on her. After it rebuilt & re-opened it had the sign on the door, no foreigners !!
I'm sure these stories get around among business owners and they decide they don't want anything bad happening to their business; so up go the signs. Like all situations, their are 2 sides!!

Frank


:bow:

[Keeni84]

Exactly, Frank. I understand what you're trying to say. That poor
mama-san. I could understand why they would put "no-foreigners" or "no military" on their doors. Not that I condone it. Every person should be given their fair chance. However, I understand why.

[Matthew C. Perry]

Originally posted by Glenn
Is there an example to which you could point to show that the Western belief holds "that individuals and population groups are equal in their abilities and potentialities"?

You've heard of "No Child Left Behind", right? ...the Bush Administration program which penalizes schools if they don't "close the gap" in the performance of all the various population groups? The assumption is that blacks, whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc. should all be performing at the same level academically. There is also the "underrepresentation principle" whereby it is argued that if, for example, there are disproportionately fewer black doctors in the population, then racism must be the root cause. The reality of group average IQ differences is ignored.

[fsuman110]

Frank, i understand what you are saying but that is still no excuse in my opinion. That's like McDonalds putting up "White Only" signs because they had a few bad foreign customers. That just doesn't fly anymore, and it shouldn't. But in no way am I trying to justify or rationalize the actions of those soldiers, what they did was disgusting and wrong and they should have been arrested immediately. But to deny an entire world (excluding the Japanese) access to your restaurant because of some bad experiences is flat out wrong. And while I don't wish for this topic to turn into a discussion about the military and what they should and should not be able to do, I think it'd be a better idea to deal with them separately, not punish the world for something a few idiot drunken sailors did. I can see their point, and it's easy to put myself in their shoes, but it's still wrong in my opinion.

It's interesting that you brought up the "No Child Left Behind Act" Matthew C. Perry. I personally think it has its merits, but overall, I think it's a disaster waiting to happen. Did you know that it is estimated that in 12 years, there will not be a single school in the United States that meets the standards of the act? Pretty crazy huh? I've taken a few classes on multicultural education and this act will do little if nothing to minorities as well as students with learning styles that vary from the norm. It could quite possibly even widen the gap that they are trying to close. Anyways, that's my rant, sorry about the length.

[Glenn]

Originally posted by Matthew C. Perry
You've heard of "No Child Left Behind", right? ...the Bush Administration program which penalizes schools if they don't "close the gap" in the performance of all the various population groups? The assumption is that blacks, whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc. should all be performing at the same level academically. There is also the "underrepresentation principle" whereby it is argued that if, for example, there are disproportionately fewer black doctors in the population, then racism must be the root cause. The reality of group average IQ differences is ignored.

This is looking dangerously close to a "whites are smarter than blacks" sort of thing. The fact that there are disproportionately fewer black/hispanic/etc. doctors/lawyers/etc. than white ones does hint at a social problem.

Whites are far more likely to go to college in this country (United States) because they are in general wealthier, and the proportion of wealth to secondary education is direct (i.e. wealthier people go to college at a higher rate than poorer people). You may put forth the argument that scholarships are available to everyone if they have performed accordingly. I would say that this is most definitely true. However, the difference lies in the group of wealthy average white students versus the less wealthy average minority students. Average white students are more likely to go to college because they are wealthier. You may say that an average student could not become a doctor/lawyer. On that I may have to agree with you. However, it is not the case that all doctors/lawyers are good, and many may have been average students. I have not looked into the matter, though, so I cannot say for certain.

The fact that the wealth distribution in this country is so unbalanced has less to do with ability than it does history. Minorities in this country's rights are relatively new to them; they only got equal rights in the past 40-50 years, and it takes a while to change. While there certainly are more minorities in the more prestigious lines of work (CEO's, doctors, lawyers, etc.) than in the past, they still have not been able to penetrate such fields in such a way as to even out the numbers. In the next 50-100 years perhaps things will be more proportionate. That there are still people who adhere to the way of thinking that was more common in the late 19th century today (inferiority of minorities, etc.), to me, shows that they still have not been given a fair shot to prove themselves.

Another question that I have is what exactly is the reality of group IQ? Have there been any studies on the matter? If so, what were the results? For example, are Eastern Asians the smartest population on the planet, or do they just work harder as a group than the other world populations (IQ is more related to mental processing power and ability to learn than it is knowledge)? Is that population genetically more likely to be intelligent? I would say that a population comparison would yield similar results in IQ throughout every population, but as I said, I have not seen any studies on the matter.

If you have any proof to corroborate/disprove any of the statements that I have made, I would be interested to know about it.

[fsuman110]

Another question that I have is what exactly is the reality of group IQ? Have there been any studies on the matter? If so, what were the results? For example, are Eastern Asians the smartest population on the planet, or do they just work harder as a group than the other world populations (IQ is more related to mental processing power and ability to learn than it is knowledge)? Is that population genetically more likely to be intelligent? I would say that a population comparison would yield similar results in IQ throughout every population, but as I said, I have not seen any studies on the matter.

Yes there have been studies and they almost always show what one would assume to be common sense. Ethnic groups do well on IQ tests that are created by and directed toward members of that ethnic group. For example, if we give a Mexican kid a Eurocentric IQ test, chances are they wouldn't do as well as an American or European. It's all relative, I think that's the main point. It's not fair to force kids of different ethnic backgrounds to take standardized as well as IQ tests that are not made for them, becaues that proves nothing about their individual itelligence. It is the same for Eastern Asians. No race is biologically smarter than another. There are several factors involved when looking at Eastern Asians. It's cultural, it's about social norms and infrastructure, it's about parental expectations and schooling. You get the idea.

But getting back to the original question at hand, what do people think about racism vs. xenophobia? Are they one in the same, with only slight and superficial variations? And what about sacrificing certain customs for the sake of internationalizing, will Japan be up for the task? One thing is for sure, they're going to have to do something. Their birth rate is alarmingly low and their percentage of senior citizens is among the highest in the world. Within the next few decades, it is certain that there will be an economic meltdown of extreme proportions unless Japan starts to face the facts.

[Glenn]

Originally posted by fsuman110
Yes there have been studies and they almost always show what one would assume to be common sense. Ethnic groups do well on IQ tests that are created by and directed toward members of that ethnic group. For example, if we give a Mexican kid a Eurocentric IQ test, chances are they wouldn't do as well as an American or European. It's all relative, I think that's the main point. It's not fair to force kids of different ethnic backgrounds to take standardized as well as IQ tests that are not made for them, becaues that proves nothing about their individual itelligence. It is the same for Eastern Asians. No race is biologically smarter than another. There are several factors involved when looking at Eastern Asians. It's cultural, it's about social norms and infrastructure, it's about parental expectations and schooling. You get the idea.

This is pretty much the point that I was getting at. There is no superior race/population when it comes to IQ, so that saying, "There is also the 'underrepresentation principle' whereby it is argued that if, for example, there are disproportionately fewer black doctors in the population, then racism must be the root cause. The reality of group average IQ differences is ignored," would be pedantic. There is no difference of average IQ difference.

But getting back to the original question at hand, what do people think about racism vs. xenophobia? Are they one in the same, with only slight and superficial variations? And what about sacrificing certain customs for the sake of internationalizing, will Japan be up for the task? One thing is for sure, they're going to have to do something. Their birth rate is alarmingly low and their percentage of senior citizens is among the highest in the world. Within the next few decades, it is certain that there will be an economic meltdown of extreme proportions unless Japan starts to face the facts.

Xenophobia is the fear of things foreign, and is not limited to race. So fundamentally it is different than racism. It just so happens that the foreign thing in this case is people other than the Japanese, so the terms seem to be interchangeable in this case.

As for your other questions, I would say that Japan has to adapt, or they will apparently disappear. Of course, whether or not they do it is a different question, to which I do not have an answer.

[Matthew C. Perry]

Originally posted by Glenn
This is looking dangerously close to a "whites are smarter than blacks" sort of thing.

Dangerously close? Whites ARE smarter than blacks on average, at least in terms of the kind of smarts you need to score well on an IQ test, or a med school entrance exam.


Another question that I have is what exactly is the reality of group IQ? Have there been any studies on the matter? If so, what were the results? For example, are Eastern Asians the smartest population on the planet, or do they just work harder as a group than the other world populations (IQ is more related to mental processing power and ability to learn than it is knowledge)?
Loads of studies have been done on population groups and IQ. American blacks as a group score about one standard deviation below whites, and have ever since the inception of IQ testing in the early 1900s. If the white IQ is defined as 100, then blacks are at about 85. East Asians score a little higher than whites, and Jews are the highest scoring group of all, in the 110-115 range.

[Matthew C. Perry]

Originally posted by fsuman110
Yes there have been studies and they almost always show what one would assume to be common sense. Ethnic groups do well on IQ tests that are created by and directed toward members of that ethnic group. For example, if we give a Mexican kid a Eurocentric IQ test, chances are they wouldn't do as well as an American or European. It's all relative, I think that's the main point. It's not fair to force kids of different ethnic backgrounds to take standardized as well as IQ tests that are not made for them, becaues that proves nothing about their individual itelligence. It is the same for Eastern Asians.

I've read a great deal on this topic and have never heard of any such studies. Of course, people aren't going to do as well on verbally oriented IQ tests in their second language. Still, East Asian immigrants to America score slightly HIGHER, not lower than native born Americans on allegedly "Eurocentric" IQ tests. And they score much higher on average than native born blacks and Hispanics. There are also IQ tests specifically designed to be "culture free" which yeild the same results.

[Matthew C. Perry]

For anyone really interested in the topic of population groups and IQ, I would recommend taking 15 minutes to read this excellent summary statement, signed by 53 leading researchers in the field of human intelligence.

http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/intell/mainstream.html

[bossel]

Originally posted by Matthew C. Perry
American blacks as a group score about one standard deviation below whites, and have ever since the inception of IQ testing in the early 1900s. If the white IQ is defined as 100, then blacks are at about 85. East Asians score a little higher than whites, and Jews are the highest scoring group of all, in the 110-115 range.

Well, for what I know there are differences in average IQs between races, but when considered all circumstances (IE social environment) the differences are considerably smaller than suggested in the Bell Curve et al.

What you wrote above is a bit strange though. Jews are "white", they belong to the same race as "whites" (or "latinos", who some people put separately as well): all are caucasoid. If they show such a great difference to other caucasoid groups this is actually evidence for a non-racial origin of the difference.

Anyway, individual IQ differs greatly in all races, average racial IQ therefore is not of much importance.

[Matthew C. Perry]

Originally posted by bossel
[B]Well, for what I know there are differences in average IQs between races, but when considered all circumstances (IE social environment) the differences are considerably smaller than suggested in the Bell Curve et al.
Yes. If you adjust for income and education level the gap decreases. This is stated in "The Bell Curve". But a large gap remains, and we don't know if income is more a cause of IQ level or a result. The latter seems more likely.


What you wrote above is a bit strange though. Jews are "white", they belong to the same race as "whites" (or "latinos", who some people put separately as well): all are caucasoid. If they show such a great difference to other caucasoid groups this is actually evidence for a non-racial origin of the difference.

Not necessarily, Jews are part of the caucasoid group, but they are a fairly distinct line, having married mostly within their tribe for the past 2000-4000 years. It is certainly possible, even likely, that the genes or combinations of genes behind intelligence occur in greater frequency within the Jewish population than in other groups. Of course, we don't know enough yet about genetics to claim this with certainty.

The term "Latino" refers to cultural heritage, and Latinos can be of any race. Mexicans, the largest Latino group in America, are of roughly 55% European, 40% American Indian, and 5% African heritage on average. Puerto Ricans and Cubans, on the other hand, are of almost entirely European and African heritage, with only a small fraction of America Indian ancestry.


Anyway, individual IQ differs greatly in all races, average racial IQ therefore is not of much importance.

I agree, it is not of much importance beyond scientific curiosity... unless you need to counter the argument that underrepresentation is proof of discrimination.

[Glenn]

Originally posted by Matthew C. Perry
For anyone really interested in the topic of population groups and IQ, I would recommend taking 15 minutes to read this excellent summary statement, signed by 53 leading researchers in the field of human intelligence.

http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/intell/mainstream.html

I stand corrected. Thank you for posting that link; it was an interesting read, and I must say quite different than I had expected. You were right in saying, "...the Western belief, mythical in my view, that individuals and population groups are equal in their abilities and potentialities." I did buy into that mythical Western belief, but I am glad to have conclusive data now on which to base my opinion, instead of conjecture.

[Golgo_13]

Originally posted by Frank D. White
exist. I went to a nice Japanese Resturant with a guy in the Navy nicknamed Animal. He'd had a few drinks before I met him. He started grabbing handfuls of food off people's plates, growling like an annimal, and gobbling the food down like in Animal House. He scared the hell out of the poor people and grossed me out. Next day, there was a sign on their door, no gaijens.
Again, military guys at a going- away party at a small Japanese bar. They trashed the place; and when the little ol mama-san objected, a group of guys stood on the bar and took turns urinating on her. After it rebuilt & re-opened it had the sign on the door, no foreigners !!
I'm sure these stories get around among business owners and they decide they don't want anything bad happening to their business; so up go the signs. Like all situations, their are 2 sides!!

Frank


:bow:


Thanks for sharing that story with us Frank-ojisan!

[fsuman110]

Matthew C. Perry, thank you for posting that interesting article. Some of the points were well taken, but at the same time, there are flaws to it.

Point 5 says that IQ tests are not culturally biased, and that there are other tests available for that participant. That is true, too bad they are not given those more appropriate tests when the data for the bell curve is gathered. Try looking up scores for Mexican kids who take Mexican IQ tests in Mexico. You'll find quite a shift I'm sure.

Point 9 says

9. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance. This is very important as it explains why Blacks tend to score poorly. Blacks are educated in a White-dominated society, which has proven to be very problematic. Generally speaking, member of other ethnic groups naturally have different ways of learning and must be taught differently in order to learn effectively. However, the fact that this is not really their fault doesn't change the fact that they still score lower on the IQ tests, so this one goes to you.

I recently completed a course in Multi-Cultural Education, which taught me a lot about these gaps. However, I still argue that it is all circumstantial. Blacks and Hispanics may show up lower on the bell curve, but I do not believe them to be less intelligent. Have you read the questions on some of these bias-free IQ exams? I have, and they are certainly far from bias-free. For example, in an IQ test given in a High School in Miami, Florida last year (keep in mind the high Hispanic population in Miami) there was a question regarding tobogganing. How are kids from Puerto Rica, the Dominican, etc. supposed to know what a toboggan is when they have never even seen snow? Believe me, it does not end there. This may or may not be relevant, but did you notice that among the 50 or so "experts" only 1 of them appears to have a degree above a bachelors. Granted the signitures are collected from schools all over the country I am quite sure there is much truth in that article, but even those people I would wager, are not concerned with the semantics surrounding our discussion.

All I'm trying to say is that there is too much uncertainty and too many extenuating circumstances involved in IQ tests, and I would certainly be wary of calling one race "more intelligent" than another. Are you familiar with Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences? This theory is gaining more and more acceptance and will probably cause the extinction of the old standardized IQ test. I'm not trying to imply either that IQ tests are inaccurate, because for what they set out to measure, they are truly among the most accurate tests out there. All I'm saying is the way they are presented and the definition of intelligence that these tests aim to measure itself, is questionable.

And Glenn, I don't mean to be rude, but I hope you weren't implying that my last post was mere conjecture, as I would take much offense to that. I am majoring Multi-Lingual and Multi-Cultural Education as well as Secondary English Education and while I have much to learn, I have learned enough to question the validity of these tests. As I said before, no one race is more biologically intelligent than another. If that last comment was not directed toward me, please accept my apologies.

Sorry for that excessively long post, but I really would love to get back to discussing the issues brought up about Japan. If anyone has anything to say about it or any experiences to share that would be great.

[Matthew C. Perry]

Originally posted by fsuman110
Matthew C. Perry, thank you for posting that interesting article
You're welcome. It is a very interesting topic.

Point 5 says that IQ tests are not culturally biased, and that there are other tests available for that participant. That is true, too bad they are not given those more appropriate tests when the data for the bell curve is gathered. Try looking up scores for Mexican kids who take Mexican IQ tests in Mexico. You'll find quite a shift I'm sure.

If this is what your profs are telling you, you are being badly misled. People who do IQ testing are well aware of the "cultural bias" issue, and go to great lengths to make sure that their tests to not suffer from that flaw. Have you heard of this book?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/027597510X/ref=ase_vdare/102-1621394-3569715?v=glance&s=books

The author Richard Lynn, one of the world's leading authorities on human intelligence, collected IQ studies done in countries around the world. Mexico has an average IQ of 87. And this is based on studies done in Mexico, in Spanish.

[Glenn]

Originally posted by fsuman110
And Glenn, I don't mean to be rude, but I hope you weren't implying that my last post was mere conjecture, as I would take much offense to that. I am majoring Multi-Lingual and Multi-Cultural Education as well as Secondary English Education and while I have much to learn, I have learned enough to question the validity of these tests. As I said before, no one race is more biologically intelligent than another. If that last comment was not directed toward me, please accept my apologies.

No offense taken. I was merely stating that I was basing my opinions on conjecture, and that having some empirical proof to contradict my opinions means that I should change them. I did not mean to suggest that your statements were conjectural in the least; in fact I found them to be insightful. This post only piques my interest in the subject more, and I am curious to see how this argument turns out. I, however, feel that I must step out of it, due to my ignorance on the subject, as I have never studied or researched any of these points. As I said before, my opinion had been based purely on conjecture. Please forgive my ignorance (it appears that I was the one being pedantic).:gomen:

[fsuman110]

Matthew C. Perry - It is quite possible that my professors have been teaching things in a misleading way. I am always learning more about the subject and truly appreciate your input. I hope that my last post didn't sound condescending or anything, it was very late when I typed it and I was quite tired. But it was in no way meant as a stab at you, it's just that I have some strict personal reservations about calling one race smarter than another. However, in reading the information you have provided, I will not be so closed-minded as to believe this to be an impossibility. Like Glenn, it seems that I just need to learn more on the subject.

Glenn, again I apologize for assuming.

[Matthew C. Perry]

Originally posted by fsuman110
This is very important as it explains why Blacks tend to score poorly. Blacks are educated in a White-dominated society, which has proven to be very problematic. Generally speaking, member of other ethnic groups naturally have different ways of learning and must be taught differently in order to learn effectively.
African Americans are the richest, most well educated large population of blacks in the world. And their average 85 IQ surpasses that of any African or black Carribean nation. Slavery was horrible, but as it turns out, black Americans have not been hindered by living in a white dominated society. On the contrary, they have benifited.


Have you read the questions on some of these bias-free IQ exams? I have, and they are certainly far from bias-free. For example, in an IQ test given in a High School in Miami, Florida last year (keep in mind the high Hispanic population in Miami) there was a question regarding tobogganing.
You can cherry pick and occasionally find a question that seems odd. But as a rule, the tests are not culturally biased.


This may or may not be relevant, but did you notice that among the 50 or so "experts" only 1 of them appears to have a degree above a bachelors.
As far as I know, they are all PhDs. Some of them are famous scholars.

Are you familiar with Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences?
Yes, somewhat. He includes musical and athletic ability as part of "intelligence" doesn't he? Seems a bit of a stretch, but it is interesting.

[Matthew C. Perry]

Originally posted by fsuman110
I hope that my last post didn't sound condescending or anything...

No, not at all.

[Golgo_13]

The Island nation of Barbados in the Carribean, which is predominantly black populated, has an average SAT score among their high school graduates higher than the average score of those in the U.S.

Please explain why.

[bossel]

Originally posted by Matthew C. Perry
Yes. If you adjust for income and education level the gap decreases. This is stated in "The Bell Curve". But a large gap remains, and we don't know if income is more a cause of IQ level or a result. The latter seems more likely.

I think, what I meant is not covered in "The Bell Curve". This is the study I thought of:
http://www.northwestern.edu/univ-relations/media/news-releases/*archives/*soc-policy/duncan.html
Excerpt:
"As in many other studies, the black children in the study had IQ scores a full 15 points lower than their white counterparts. Poverty alone, the researchers found, accounted for 52 percent of that difference, cutting it to 7 points. Controlling for the children's home environment reduced the difference by another 28 percent, to a statistically insignificant 3 points -- in essence, eliminating the gap altogether."

Sorry, I wanted to post it yesterday but couldn't find the link.
You have of course to be careful with all these studies for you never know the agenda behind, but I think this study bears at least some value.


Not necessarily, Jews are part of the caucasoid group, but they are a fairly distinct line, having married mostly within their tribe for the past 2000-4000 years.
This is not entirely true, I think. Due to the diaspora there are a lot of different genes in Jewish blood, they are not a very homogeneous group. I've found only a comparison of Y-chromosome haplogroup frequency in selected 72 eurasian populations, but I think, this already shows the heterogenity:
From Sephardic Jews to Ashkenazi Jews we have a genetic distance of 27, in between we find Italian(18), Turkish (20), Ossetian (20), Kurdish Jews (22), Greek (24), Muslim Kurds (24), Armenian (26), Cypriot (26).

Re Latinos: Sorry, my fault. When I think of Latinos, I always have the Mediterraneans in mind.

[Matthew C. Perry]

Originally posted by Golgo_13
The Island nation of Barbados in the Carribean, which is predominantly black populated, has an average SAT score among their high school graduates higher than the average score of those in the U.S.

Please explain why.

...because very few people are taking the SAT in Barbados. Only those who were good enough students to get into top high schools in the first place, and with the means and ambition to attend American universities. In America, depending on the state, MOST kids will take the SAT. If only the best students in America took the SAT, the average would be much higher.

[Matthew C. Perry]

Originally posted by bossel
[B]I think, what I meant is not covered in "The Bell Curve". This is the study I thought of:
http://www.northwestern.edu/univ-relations/media/news-releases/*archives/*soc-policy/duncan.html
Excerpt:
"As in many other studies, the black children in the study had IQ scores a full 15 points lower than their white counterparts. Poverty alone, the researchers found, accounted for 52 percent of that difference, cutting it to 7 points. Controlling for the children's home environment reduced the difference by another 28 percent, to a statistically insignificant 3 points -- in essence, eliminating the gap altogether."

Poverty might lower IQs, but having a low IQ certainly makes it more likely that you will be poor. Bad parents might lower kid's IQs, but plenty of smart people are born into bad families, and being smart can certainly help make someone a good parent. Genes and environment are both factors in intelligence, and their effects are interwoven. It is hard to say which is more important, but it is clear that both play a role.


This is not entirely true, I think. Due to the diaspora there are a lot of different genes in Jewish blood, they are not a very homogeneous group.

Yes. The Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews are fairly separate. It is the Ashkenazi group which has the high IQs, probably because they tended to be scholars, merchants and bankers. Their success was much more dependant on brainpower than the farming gentile majority they lived among. A smart European Jew could have lots of children while a dull one might not have any.

[Keeni84]

You know, I am so sick and tired of this. Black people are stupid...low intelligence...purge on society...blah blah blah. I don't even know why I even bother to get a good education and to become a doctor, because everyone knows I am retarded anyway.

Whatever. With my 85 IQ I'll probably fail out of PT school because everyone knows that whites are smarter than me anyway, and I'll always end up under the curve (if I don't lower it of course, with my bad grades on the exams and practicals).

And you know what? I think I should go talk to my professors, because my A in Chemistry can't be right, can it? I mean, as an average black, I can't possibly score well on a Chemistry exam, or do well in a Chemistry class!

You guys make me sick. :p Why should I even listen to someone who believes in the "congnitive elite". That's a lose-lose situation, surely!

Anyway, I still love ya'll, especially you, Perry :p

BUT BACK TO THE TOPIC

I believe Xenophobia and racism to be different. Xenophobia is the fear of "outsiders" or strangers to your country. It even applies to people who may be of your country, but are recent immigrants. Racism is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. It's different.

I think the Japanese may be Xenophobic in general but racist in particular instances. Like that mayor of Tokyo. He's racist, plain and simple. However, the person with the sign up on the door with "no foreigners" is more thank likely xenophobic.

[Matthew C. Perry]

Whatever. With my 85 IQ I'll probably fail out of PT school because everyone knows that whites are smarter than me anyway, and I'll always end up under the curve (if I don't lower it of course, with my bad grades on the exams and practicals).

And you know what? I think I should go talk to my professors, because my A in Chemistry can't be right, can it? I mean, as an average black, I can't possibly score well on a Chemistry exam, or do well in a Chemistry class!

Have you ever taken an IQ test? I seriously doubt that your IQ is 85. It would be pretty tough to get an A in a college level chemisty course with an IQ that low. In any case, there is no reason to assume that your own IQ is equal to the average for African Americans, or that white people are smarter than you are. No individual's abilities can be predicted from group averages.


You guys make me sick. :p Why should I even listen to someone who believes in the "congnitive elite". That's a lose-lose situation, surely!

Obviously some people are smarter than others, and a small number of people are much smarter than average. "Cognitive elite" is just a term to describe these people.

[TwistedMac]

oh sorry, i forgot to mention that of course i do not think that all japanese are this way, or even the majority for that matter. as the saying goes, " it only takes a few to ruin it for everyone"

isn't the saying "it only takes one rotten apple to ruin the whole bunch" or sumfing? :p

but yeah, shutting you out of a store because of your nationality is racism.. not extremely bad (like burning someones house or crusifying them because their black while wearing white robes) but still racism..

i don't think it's unjustified tho.. foreigners can (and will) ruin a countries traditions and culture..

hmm.. maybe ruin is a bad word.. "change" is better.. but changing it is the same as ruining to some people..

once i get to japan i'll be prepared to take all the crap they decide to fling at me.. good things always have bad attached to them.. we're just gonna have to stand that.

I live in the third largest city in my country, and we've always been taught that immigrants are basically BETTER people than us.. if WE look down on them WERE racists and if THEY look down on US thats to be expected...

now my city has more immigrant citizens than swedish... a bit of the ol' japanese thining wouldnt hurt here... instead it has made people hate (HATE!)immigrants and all sorts of people have been drawn into neo-nazi communities.

lose-lose

[Keeni84]

Have you ever taken an IQ test? I seriously doubt that your IQ is 85. It would be pretty tough to get an A in a college level chemisty course with an IQ that low. In any case, there is no reason to assume that your own IQ is equal to the average for African Americans, or that white people are smarter than you are. No individual's abilities can be predicted from group averages.




Obviously some people are smarter than others, and a small number of people are much smarter than average. "Cognitive elite" is just a term to describe these people.

Yeah, but just the fact that you call them the cognitive elite is just silly. Elitism in itself is just plain pointless as well, but I suppose we will always have it, because there is always someone trying to be on top. I have taken an IQ test before. My IQ (based on the IQ test) is 126. HOWEVER, I don't really care, because it doesn't say anything about me. Not a thing. Well, maybe how well I take the IQ test, but that's it.

[Matthew C. Perry]

My IQ (based on the IQ test) is 126. HOWEVER, I don't really care, because it doesn't say anything about me. Not a thing. Well, maybe how well I take the IQ test, but that's it.

Keeni, we don't know percisely what IQ measures, but we do know that children with high IQs tend to graduate from college at a higher rate, and earn more money later in life than low IQ siblings born into the same familes.

The biology of how the brain works is not well understood yet, but my guess is that science will eventually confirm what common sense dictates. People vary in all sorts of ways, some are taller, more muscular, have better eyesight, etc. etc. Why should brains be any different? Some people's brains just work better than other people's. And IQ tests are at least a crude measure of this variance in brain function.

[bossel]

we do know that children with high IQs tend to graduate from college at a higher rate, and earn more money later in life than low IQ siblings born into the same familes.

It's not as simple as you picture it here, high IQ may even be the reason for failure in life. I found an interesting article regarding the correlation of high IQ & mental problems:

http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html
Excerpt:
"One of the problems faced by all gifted persons is learning to focus their efforts for prolonged periods of time. Since so much comes easily to them, they may never acquire the self-discipline necessary to use their gifts to the fullest."

While surfing the net on search for IQ related stuff, I also found these 2:
http://www.thrivenet.com/articles/iqidiocy.html
Excerpt:
"Unpleasant Fact #3: Honest talk about IQ would expose some deeply personal inconsistencies among our most influential thinkers. Although the typical white intellectual claims he wants to censor discussion of IQ to shield black self-esteem, his sometimes-berserk reactions reveal that he finds it a peril to his own. The typical white intellectual considers himself superior to ordinary white people for two contradictory reasons: a] he constantly proclaims belief in human equality, but they don't; b] he has a high IQ, but they don't."

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/iq.htm
"Darwinistic Elitism is Idiotic" by Al Siebert
Just some general stuff about IQ tests & criticism of the "Bell Curve".
Excerpt:
"They advocate that because "people in the underclass are in that condition through no fault of their own but because of inherent shortcomings about which little can be done...." and "a significant part of the population must be made permanent wards of the state.""
If these are really quotes from the "Bell Curve" the book is actually worse than I thought.


Some people's brains just work better than other people's. And IQ tests are at least a crude measure of this variance in brain function.

IQ tests are only good for scientific research, but almost completely useless in everyday life.
They may be useful as part of a hiring test, but only for very few occupations. Most jobs need abilities that aren't measured by IQ tests or at least much better measured by specific job-related tests.

[Matthew C. Perry]

It's not as simple as you picture it here, high IQ may even be the reason for failure in life. I found an interesting article regarding the correlation of high IQ & mental problems:

I'm not claiming that high IQ people are always successful. And I don't doubt that there are many cases of individuals with high IQs who had mental problems. All I'm saying is that there is a TREND is toward greater achievment with higer IQs.


"Unpleasant Fact #3: Honest talk about IQ would expose some deeply personal inconsistencies among our most influential thinkers. Although the typical white intellectual claims he wants to censor discussion of IQ to shield black self-esteem, his sometimes-berserk reactions reveal that he finds it a peril to his own. The typical white intellectual considers himself superior to ordinary white people for two contradictory reasons: a] he constantly proclaims belief in human equality, but they don't; b] he has a high IQ, but they don't."

No doubt... this typical line of thinking taken by Western intellectuals is quite hypocritical.


"Darwinistic Elitism is Idiotic" by Al Siebert
Just some general stuff about IQ tests & criticism of the "Bell Curve".
Excerpt:
"They advocate that because "people in the underclass are in that condition through no fault of their own but because of inherent shortcomings about which little can be done...." and "a significant part of the population must be made permanent wards of the state.""
If these are really quotes from the "Bell Curve" the book is actually worse than I thought.

Well, if you accept the reality of a low IQ underclass, what then do you propose doing with them? If people can't fend for themselves in an increasingly high tech society, then they must be cared for by the state. What other option is there?


IQ tests are only good for scientific research, but almost completely useless in everyday life.
They may be useful as part of a hiring test, but only for very few occupations. Most jobs need abilities that aren't measured by IQ tests or at least much better measured by specific job-related tests.

If IQ is measuring brain function, and I think it is, then it is measuring something that is important in almost all aspects of life. Sure, there are jobs that don't require a high IQ, but I think the trend is toward an increase in jobs that are mentally demanding.

[bossel]

Well, if you accept the reality of a low IQ underclass, what then do you propose doing with them? If people can't fend for themselves in an increasingly high tech society, then they must be cared for by the state. What other option is there?
I don't "accept the reality of a low IQ underclass", esp. none where this is based on race. People of all races vary greatly in their cognitive abilities. The differences in IQ are gradual, there is no clear line to draw.
Apart from some special cases of mentally handicapped people I can't see any reason to have somebody "cared for by the state." To me, this very much sounds like socialist babble: "We know what is best for the un-educated masses, give our soviets full control of society & everything will be fine!"



If IQ is measuring brain function, and I think it is, then it is measuring something that is important in almost all aspects of life.
That's a misconception. IQ tests do not measure brain function in general. They measure certain (by far not all) cognitive abilities. The significance is limited to these particular abilities.

As you said there is a certain tendency for people with higher IQ to get better jobs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of them are better suited for all these jobs. It is very well possible that someone with a lower IQ (or education) would fare better in a job, but for reasons of intellectual snobbism those with higher IQ (or education) are preferred.

[Matthew C. Perry]

I don't "accept the reality of a low IQ underclass", esp. none where this is based on race.
I'm not saying that it is based on race. It isn't anyone's race that causes them to have a low IQ. And of course there are people of all races with low IQs.


People of all races vary greatly in their cognitive abilities. The differences in IQ are gradual, there is no clear line to draw.
Yes, of course.


Apart from some special cases of mentally handicapped people I can't see any reason to have somebody "cared for by the state."
Doesn't this contradict what you just said about there being "no clear line to draw? You were right the first time. There are people with low IQs who have obvious handicaps, and there are others who appear normal until a test reveals that they have an IQ of 73. The ghettos are filled with such people. And they are the reason we need extra police, social workers, and all the other sorts of outreach programs. These people might not need as much help as someone who suffers Downs Syndrome does, but they do need help. Otherwise, American cities begin to look like Haiti.



That's a misconception. IQ tests do not measure brain function in general. They measure certain (by far not all) cognitive abilities. The significance is limited to these particular abilities.
We don't really know what they measure, but yes, it seems reasonable to think that they measure aspects of brain function that relate to cognitive abilities. I didn't claim otherwise.


As you said there is a certain tendency for people with higher IQ to get better jobs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of them are better suited for all these jobs.
For some boring, repetitive sorts of jobs, a duller person might be a better fit. But the percentage of these sorts of jobs in the workplace is going down, at least in areas like manufacturing and farming. And it's getting harder and harder to make a decent living at jobs that don't require much thinking ability.

[bossel]

Doesn't this contradict what you just said about there being "no clear line to draw?
Sorry, probably my mistake: mistranslation. The German "geistig behindert" to me means an illness, the translator I use gave it as "mentally handicapped". Maybe "mental retardation" is a better term, from http://www.uab.edu/cogdev/mentreta.htm:

"Mental retardation refers to substantial limitations in present functioning. It is characterized by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and work. Mental retardation manifests before age 18"

It seems the old definition of mental retardation was really based on IQ, but I think they recognized the limitations & fallacies of that definition, therefore since 1992 we have the modern definition. A low IQ in itself is not the same as being mentally retarded. Nowadays IQ is only used as part of the classification system of mental retardation.


There are people with low IQs who have obvious handicaps, and there are others who appear normal until a test reveals that they have an IQ of 73. The ghettos are filled with such people. And they are the reason we need extra police, social workers, and all the other sorts of outreach programs. These people might not need as much help as someone who suffers Downs Syndrome does, but they do need help. Otherwise, American cities begin to look like Haiti.
Extra police for reasons of lower IQ levels? Reasoning based on Haiti?
Haiti is actually a very good example of a dysfunctional education system (apart from other dysfunctional systems there). You can't blame the mentally retarded or handicapped for the condition of this particular society.
The ghettos you mentioned are not a very good example either. Where are these ghettos in Europe. With the exception of some French suburbs there are almost none. Ghettos are a sign of a malfunction in society. More police or social workers won't make ghettos disappear.


For some boring, repetitive sorts of jobs, a duller person might be a better fit.
I don't know where you live & how you define it, but IMO most jobs are boring & repetitive.
Apart from that, there are lots of jobs even people with an IQ lower than 80 could fulfill, if trained properly. Although I have to agree that for some of these jobs a special training would be needed.
Modern technology can make it even easier to integrate mentally retarded or handicapped into the work force.

[Matthew C. Perry]

Extra police for reasons of lower IQ levels?
There is probably some relationship between low IQ and criminality. Of course there are smart criminals, and most low IQ individuals do not turn to crime, but convicted criminals, as a group, have IQs that are substantially below average, at least in America. I think it probably has to do with lower brain function leading to generally poor decision making, and sometimes to criminality.


Reasoning based on Haiti?
Haiti is actually a very good example of a dysfunctional education system (apart from other dysfunctional systems there). You can't blame the mentally retarded or handicapped for the condition of this particular society.
Haiti has an average IQ of 72, which means that the majority of the country is borderline retarded by developed world standards. Haiti has no public educational system, and is 60-70% illiterate primarily because it has so few people who are smart enough to organize schools and teach, or even recognize the importance of such activities. And it doesn't help that many of Haiti's more capable individuals emmigrate to greener pastures.


The ghettos you mentioned are not a very good example either. Where are these ghettos in Europe. With the exception of some French suburbs there are almost none. Ghettos are a sign of a malfunction in society. More police or social workers won't make ghettos disappear.
I agree that they are a sign of malfunction. Police and social workers can only make the situation marginally better, but that may be the best that anyone can do. Government could spend a few hundred billion dollars, tear down all the slums and buy every resident a house in the suburbs. But I'm afraid the whole scenario would just begin again.


I don't know where you live & how you define it, but IMO most jobs are boring & repetitive.
Apart from that, there are lots of jobs even people with an IQ lower than 80 could fulfill, if trained properly. Although I have to agree that for some of these jobs a special training would be needed.
Modern technology can make it even easier to integrate mentally retarded or handicapped into the work force.
I am an American living in Japan, living the somewhat boring repetitive life of an English teacher. It sure beats factory work though. I agree that lower IQ people can be trained to do many jobs, and that government should make the effort to see that this happens.

[TwistedMac]

*ding ding* in the red corner, weighing in at 85kg... wearing a plaid jacket and mocka shoes... PERRY!

and in this corner, weighing a whopping 8kg, being a frog... BOSSEL!!!


LET'S GET READY TO RUMMMMMMBLE!!!!!!

[Keeni84]

*ding ding* in the red corner, weighing in at 85kg... wearing a plaid jacket and mocka shoes... PERRY!

How clever.


Anyway, I believe that IQ has much more to do with environment than actual brain power. You look at most people that have low IQ's. They aren't among the rich, are they? They don't make up the middle class. Most people with low IQ's are predominately in the lower classes (both economically and socially). Now isn't that an interesting trend?

I mean, look at this. You have three people. The first person is a WASP man, whose parents are in the upper middle class, and who was sent to private school all his life. The second person is a Chinese woman, who grew up in a middle class suburb in the Midwest. The last person is a Hispanic man, whose second language is English, and who grew up in the ghetto his whole life and completed only high school.

Who is going to get the highest score on the IQ test? I can tell you right now that it's not going to be the Hispanic dude.

I mean, the IQ test measures whatever intelligence that person has in that specific moment based on that IQ test, anyway.

[bossel]

weighing a whopping 8kg, being a frog... BOSSEL!!!
8 kg? Hey, I'm not that fat! I'm just a common European Tree Frog.

[bossel]

convicted criminals, as a group, have IQs that are substantially below average
Maybe more of them get caught for being not smart enough to outrun justice?
Anyway, just because a higher percentage of criminals have a low IQ that doesn't mean that low IQ is the cause of being/becoming criminal. As you mentioned, a large part of the low-IQ-population is poor. Poverty is one of the many reasons why people may become criminal.


Haiti has an average IQ of 72, which means that the majority of the country is borderline retarded by developed world standards. Haiti has no public educational system,
If there is no public educational system, it seems more logical to me to say that this is the reason for such a low IQ average.
Besides, this sounds a bit like "G-Factor" (Brand AKA Crispian, wasn't it?), I find it rather doubtful to compare complete nations on basis of one standard set of questions. Very few IQ tests are really devised independent of cultural interference. After adaptation it will be rather hard to compare the results.

Furthermore, you seem to adhere to an obsolete definition of mentally retarded. To bring you up to date:
"Mental retardation refers to substantial limitations in present functioning. It is characterized by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and work. Mental retardation manifests before age 18" (American Association on Mental Retardation, 1992)

Just because someone has a low IQ doesn't mean one is mentally retarded.

[Matthew C. Perry]

Does poverty tend to lower IQ, and encourage criminality? Does genetically caused lower brain funtion, as measured by IQ sometimes lead to poverty and criminality? I think the answer to both questions is yes.

[Matthew C. Perry]

Just because someone has a low IQ doesn't mean one is mentally retarded.

I'm not that interested in the formal definitions. People who have low IQs and are funtionally impaired need help. People who have low IQs but function normally in most situations, might still need some help. At least their situation should be evaluated realistically. It makes no sense to just ignore the fact that their brains function at a lower level, and expect that they can become doctors, teachers, or wise government leaders of modern nations.

[bossel]

I'm not that interested in the formal definitions. People who have low IQs and are funtionally impaired need help. People who have low IQs but function normally in most situations, might still need some help. At least their situation should be evaluated realistically. It makes no sense to just ignore the fact that their brains function at a lower level, and expect that they can become doctors, teachers, or wise government leaders of modern nations.
That's the point exactly. People with a low IQ don't need some help imposed on them, they know very well that some situations are too abstract/complicated & then can call for help. You don't need to put social workers (& surely no police) on their heels to tell them how to live their lives.
Don't see why anybody should expect them to become doctors or whatever. A scavenger is as respectable a job as factory worker or doctor.

Fine, that we finally agree on something. Back to the original topic then, where I agree with Keeni:

I believe Xenophobia and racism to be different. Xenophobia is the fear of "outsiders" or strangers to your country. It even applies to people who may be of your country, but are recent immigrants. Racism is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. It's different.

[Golgo_13]

This thread is getting old.

Let's talk about Japan that we can all benefit from.

[Maciamo]

Furthermore, you seem to adhere to an obsolete definition of mentally retarded. To bring you up to date:
"Mental retardation refers to substantial limitations in present functioning. It is characterized by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and work. Mental retardation manifests before age 18" (American Association on Mental Retardation, 1992)


Wow ! If you stick to that definition, then almost everybody is mentally retarded. How could one possibly not be "subaverage" in at least 2 of these skills (i.e. : "communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and work") ? There are lots of academics lacking social, community or leisure skills, and on the other hand, few people who are good communicator, good at social skills, community, home living, etc. tend to be remarkable at work and academics at the same time (that would be great though, if all people were like that).

My opinion is that with a similar brain (no brains are exactly equal in shape, but at least comparable in size or neuron density), one can difficultly be gifted in everything. Some people may be average in all skills, but the more an individual becomes gifted in one field, the more one or several other fields lag behind. There is no miracle ; it takes time to develop mental abilities, including sports, music and other arts too, which seem to be missing in the definition's list.

[bossel]

Maciamo, what I quoted is the accepted definition of mental retardation. It seems you didn't really read it thoroughly: extremely low IQ "existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas".
Academics usually won't qualify simply for the reason of having a rather high IQ.
Those you described may qualify for some personality disorder, though. Depending on the severity of their condition.

[Maciamo]

Oops, it seems I missed the "low IQ" part. I simply assumed that we could consider each type of intelligence as a form of IQ (emotional quotient, artistic quotient, social quotient, self-care quotient, etc.), as "intelligence" is certainly not entirely measured by IQ test.

Otherwise, it is still to define how broad is the "average", and what is "subaverage". For example, for the IQ, we could say that 100 is the average, but we could also say that 90 to 110 is the average. This would be very different for our "subaverage group", as more than 40% of humans should have (statisically) an IQ under 100, but maybe just 10% have an IQ lower than 90.

If each of the above "skills" can be tested and rated on a similar scale as IQ, then an average person could have results like :
- IQ=105, EQ=92, AQ=137, SQ=78, SCQ=119...
or
- IQ=88, EQ=111, AQ=112, SQ=107, SCQ=98...
etc.

The first person has an average of 106,2 in the 5 skills selected, which is above the average of 100, but has a EQ (emotional quotient) and SQ (social quotient) lower than average, and thus could be called retarded.
The second person has an average of 103,2, also above average, but has an IQ and SQ lower than the 100 average, and is also retarded.
Well, I have only taken 5 skills here, but we could easily find 10 or 15 of them. Needless to say that the more skills, the higher the chances of having 2 or more of them below average.

Even in regular IQ test, some are verbal, non-verbal, or test crystalised or fuild intelligence (the 4 main kinds of IQ test), and among them, some specialise in numbers, 2D shapes, 3D shapes, colours, etc. As some people score quite differently depending on the ype of IQ test, it is also necessary to define which one (probably the crystalised non-verbal one, like Mensa) should be taken for the "low IQ".

[bossel]

The first person has an average of 106,2 in the 5 skills selected, which is above the average of 100, but has a EQ (emotional quotient) and SQ (social quotient) lower than average, and thus could be called retarded.
The second person has an average of 103,2, also above average, but has an IQ and SQ lower than the 100 average, and is also retarded.

As some people score quite differently depending on the ype of IQ test, it is also necessary to define which one (probably the crystalised non-verbal one, like Mensa) should be taken for the "low IQ".
Below average alone wouldn't do, as is stated above: "significantly subaverage intellectual functioning"
Significantly would mean, depending on the definition you use, either below IQ 75 or 70. That would be mild retardation, all levels according to the WHO:

"Four levels of mental retardation are specified in ICD-10: F70 mild (IQ 50 - 69), F71 moderate (IQ 35 - 49), F72 severe (IQ 20 - 34), and F73 profound (IQ below 20). IQ should not be used as the only determining factor. Clinical findings and adaptive behavior should also be used to determine level of intellectual functioning. Two additional classifications are possible: F78 other mental retardation and F79 unspecified mental retardation. Other mental retardation (F78) should be used when associated physical or sensory impairments make it difficult to establish the degree of impairment. Unspecified mental retardation (F79) should be used when there is evidence of mental retardation but not enough information to establish a level of functioning (e.g., a toddler with significant delays in development who is too young to be assessed with an IQ measure)."

You will find more information here:
http://www.uab.edu/cogdev/mentreta.htm
Also about the tests used to evaluate mental retardation, eg. "Bayley Scales of Infant Development", "The Differential Ability Scales", various Wechsler scales etc.

[Maciamo]

Bossel, have you also read that gifted Chimps and Gorillas could have an IQ equivalent to up to 70 for humans. So there are apes more intelligent than some humans. Eventhough they can't speak ,they can use sign language, which some (retadrded) humans couldn't. The odd thing is that those apes have significantly smaller brains (one third ?) than humans. That must mean that mentally retarded humans have suffered severe brain injuries (maybe before birth) or tremendous lack of developement. The link to poverty and malnutrition (in Africa, for instance), is evident. So, it is no wonder after all that very poor people have lower IQ, which might explains what Matthew C. Perry said about Africans (but contrarily to what he thought, it is not genetical, even when it is congenial).

[bossel]

I haven't heard of the IQ of apes, but I know of experiments with bonobos & chimps. From these experiments it was concluded that they have cognitive abilities comparable to at least 4-year old human children.
That's one of the reasons why I wouldn't eat ape flesh although I normally would at least try anything edible.

The interesting thing is that these insights were already made in the 70's (I read Die Kolonie der sprechenden Schimpansen [Apes, Men & Language by Eugene Linden in the 80's & remember the snide remarks I got for reading this) but still are not widely known. A lot of people still think they don't have any intellectual properties.

[niku kudasai]

Hey everyone. I used to be Fsuman110 (the person who started this topic) but I've since changed my user name. Since this thread isn't going anywhere as far as the IQ discussion, I was wondering if we could get back on topic. Perhaps I should have said for the title: What's the difference between racial discrimination and xenophobia? If I would have said that, would it have made any difference as far as you guys are concerned?

[Golgo_13]

If you don't know by now . . . .

[carmelmmm]

I think demographics and the education system associated with such demographics are a much larger part of the equation than you seem to believe. I am a Sephardic Jew, my grandfather tested in with a 100 IQ with little education in fez Morocco, and my father growing up a little better off under my grandfather's dry cleaning business in southern France tested in with a 110 IQ. My father went to hair dressing trade school and immigrated to the U.S. where he bought a home in the vicinity of Walt Whitman H.S. in Bethesda Maryland, ranked in Newsweek one of Americas top 10 public schools. My half brother and I both attended this school, and he tested in two seperate IQ tests 152; 148. I too took two IQ tests, scoring 144, and 154 (by the way I also scored a 1410 on my sat). So I feel that even though my Arab (semitic) and Berberish (Hamitic) background, that cohesively form my Moorish racial background. Along with my sephardic background leave many (especially ashkenazi) believing that I have a racial disposition to be a retard, is a belief that is farse and is an idea that should not even be humored. As mentioned earlier in this thread, blacks have benefited intellectually in a white society, because of generally better school systems than in Africa, and I would venture to say they would benefit much further if the average black was afforded the average white man's education inside of our own nation. Now that is settled :cool: !

[Amazinggrace]

exist. I went to a nice Japanese Resturant with a guy in the Navy nicknamed Animal. He'd had a few drinks before I met him. He started grabbing handfuls of food off people's plates, growling like an annimal, and gobbling the food down like in Animal House. He scared the hell out of the poor people and grossed me out. Next day, there was a sign on their door, no gaijens.
Again, military guys at a going- away party at a small Japanese bar. They trashed the place; and when the little ol mama-san objected, a group of guys stood on the bar and took turns urinating on her. After it rebuilt & re-opened it had the sign on the door, no foreigners !!
I'm sure these stories get around among business owners and they decide they don't want anything bad happening to their business; so up go the signs. Like all situations, their are 2 sides!!

Frank


I have not heard so much rubbish. There are two sides? well you could look at everything like that. Sure there are some dickhead foreigners in Japan who act like ass`s but I can so NO MORE THAN JAPANESE! I have seen Japanese grope girls in the street and vomit everywhere on the sidewalk. I have seen J guys beating up on their girlfriends....I have seen it all. You say two sides hey......funny that. How about trying to rent an apartment??? very difficult. What every Gaijin who rented an apartment trashed it? That excuse is rubbish. How about when the world cup soccer came to Japan and when the tourists came to town all the shops closed up cause "Gaijin are big and scary".
What it comes down to in this instance is TOTAL IGNORANCE. The Japanese have been raised and bred to believe they are superior to everyone else. In everything. Now this is NOT all the Japanese...infact it would be best to segregate the generations when making a generalisation. The younger Japaense are usually pretty cool. Naturally they have certain stereostypes programmed into their minds but it is the older generation...and mostly the OYAJIS.
The only "two sides to a story" I would accept is perhaps they have never met or had much to do with foreigners and are scared. Again this is ignorance. There are many good Japanese people out there...but again there are a lot of ass`s too!

Is that the Western belief? I thought that it was just that people are people, and everyone deserves a certain level of respect. I certainly do not believe that everyone has the same abilities and potentialities, so I guess that I just assumed that most people thought so as well. Is there an example to which you could point to show that the Western belief holds "that individuals and population groups are equal in their abilities and potentialities"?

I think it would be wrong to say it is the "western belief", however I would say discrimitory practices being it agains a race, religion, sex, handicap or whatever is not tolerated with regards to social standards and law in the west. It was the west that introduced laws and encourages certain social acceptances with regards to the above. I see no other non-western country that allow homosexuality, freedom of religion, immigration etc etc etc. countries like Japan take a very long time to catch on from the west. this is why they will never be considered as western.
answer your question?

Dangerously close? Whites ARE smarter than blacks on average, at least in terms of the kind of smarts you need to score well on an IQ test, or a med school entrance exam.



Loads of studies have been done on population groups and IQ. American blacks as a group score about one standard deviation below whites, and have ever since the inception of IQ testing in the early 1900s. If the white IQ is defined as 100, then blacks are at about 85. East Asians score a little higher than whites, and Jews are the highest scoring group of all, in the 110-115 range.

interesting. yes I do not believe at all every race is equal in intelligence. you are fooling yourself. Just as the anatomy is different to different races so is the brain and its development.
so I guess when you define intelligence with an IQ matthew is probably right. But what about TOTAL intelligence or CULTURAL intelligence? for example look at modern civilisation. who created that? western civilisation. and then look at the aboriginals in Australia or the blacks (now I AM NOT being racist) in Africa. Living for over 40,000 years in Australia and creating no more than a boomerang or spear and a few dreamtime stories. And then the Africans.
To say all races are equal is like saying all people within a race is equal. Like ANY animal group whether dogs, horses, birds or whatever. Look at a German Shephard to a french poodle.

[jeisan]

interesting. yes I do not believe at all every race is equal in intelligence. you are fooling yourself. Just as the anatomy is different to different races so is the brain and its development.
so I guess when you define intelligence with an IQ matthew is probably right. But what about TOTAL intelligence or CULTURAL intelligence? for example look at modern civilisation. who created that? western civilisation. and then look at the aboriginals in Australia or the blacks (now I AM NOT being racist) in Africa. Living for over 40,000 years in Australia and creating no more than a boomerang or spear and a few dreamtime stories. And then the Africans.
To say all races are equal is like saying all people within a race is equal. Like ANY animal group whether dogs, horses, birds or whatever. Look at a German Shephard to a french poodle.

one may also argue in the opposite direction. what makes western culture so "intelligent?" computers? fast cars? spaceships? none of these things are neccessary for human survival, so they are technicly useless inventions.
let's use the aboriginals as an example, they make what they need to survive, a boomerang is an excellent hunting tool, if you miss it comes back. most western culture, and indeed eastern culture, is based on agriculture which when you think about it is alot more work than hunting and gathering. so instead of working harder these people work smarter. spend a little time getting some berries or what have, kill a kangaroo or two and call it a day. where as farmers need to look after crops for months and months before seeing a result. all the time worrying about bugs or other animals that may eat their crops, fending off wolves from their sheep etc etc. lots more work than letting nature do all that for ya. so really who's more intelligent?

as for dogs, from my experience muts tend to be alot better then pure bred dogs, since most pure breds are imbreds. what does a dogs following orders have to do with its intelligence? as far as im concerned that is a respect for authority issue and has little to do with IQ.

FYI. full size poodles are one of the most intelligent breeds of dog, moreso than german shepards.

[Golgo_13]

Amazing,

Which rubbish posted this?:

"I have not heard so much rubbish. There are two sides? well you could look at everything like that. Sure there are some dickhead foreigners in Japan who act like ass`s but I can so NO MORE THAN JAPANESE! I have seen Japanese grope girls in the street and vomit everywhere on the sidewalk. I have seen J guys beating up on their girlfriends....I have seen it all. You say two sides hey......funny that. How about trying to rent an apartment??? very difficult. What every Gaijin who rented an apartment trashed it? That excuse is rubbish. How about when the world cup soccer came to Japan and when the tourists came to town all the shops closed up cause "Gaijin are big and scary".
What it comes down to in this instance is TOTAL IGNORANCE. The Japanese have been raised and bred to believe they are superior to everyone else. In everything. Now this is NOT all the Japanese...infact it would be best to segregate the generations when making a generalisation. The younger Japaense are usually pretty cool. Naturally they have certain stereostypes programmed into their minds but it is the older generation...and mostly the OYAJIS."

Why was it so difficult for him to accept Frank's comment that there are 2 sides? What makes him so holier than thou?

[jeisan]

thats amazinggrace's work there homie.
ill edit it so it looks right.

[Golgo_13]

thats amazinggrace's work there homie.
ill edit it so it looks right.

LOL! Calling a 43-year-old man a "homie". :D :D

But I guess I've been called much worse.

One time when I was living in NYC, I was walking home from the gym and a car drove up and some punk inside said "Hey faggot! You gonna be in the Gay Games?"

I turned around, dropped my gym bag, and said "yeah, full-contact karate. Get out of the car."

Must've been my pink socks. :D

[scotsboyuk]

The idea that one 'race' or 'people' think of themselves as better than another is not a new concept and it exists in varying degrees throughout history. If we look at modern America we can see a large section of the populace who believe that America is the greatest nation on Earth and that Americans, by extension, are the greatest people on Earth.
Britons used to think of themselves as being superior to others because their nation has conquered a quarter of the planet.
Germans thoguht themselves superior when during WWII when their armies crushed British and French forces and were on the brink of defeating the U.S.S.R.

These sort of feelings usually stem from national pride, which isn't necessarily a bad thing itself, but when it is taken to an extreme then it becomes dangerous.

[PaulTB]

If we look at modern America we can see a large section of the populace who believe that America is the greatest nation on Earth and that Americans, by extension, are the greatest people on Earth.
Britons used to think of themselves as being superior to others because their nation has conquered a quarter of the planet.
And now we think of ourselves as being superior to others because we aren't American.


(Yes that was a joke).

[scotsboyuk]

@PaulTB

Actually, as much as your comment was meant as a joke, it does actually hold an element of truth to it. It seems to be fashionable in some circles to be anti-American or to deride America and/or Americans.

[PaulTB]

Actually, as much as your comment was meant as a joke, it does actually hold an element of truth to it.
Most jokes include an element of truth to them.
It seems to be fashionable in some circles to be anti-American or to deride America and/or Americans.
Which has its attraction until you consider that about 49% of Americans hold the once and present US administration in about as much contempt as a lot of those outside of America do.

People who say 'America this' 'Americans that' without stopping to consider that point are as guilty of broadstroke stereotyping as anybody.

[TwistedMac]

I only dislike the american administration, the bible wielders and the gun wielders (the last two are often the same people ("I turn the other cheek... cuz otherwise I might get shrapnel in my eyes from firing these badass guns!").. in some cases all three are the same people.

But when talking to a friend about it, I don't say "the american administration, the hardcore christians and all those people that insist it's their right to have weapons of minor destruction in their homes" every time I want to mention them.. I just say "Americans". If I were to be correct about things like that, I'd never be able to finish a sentance! TOO MANY WORDS!!

It goes both ways tho.. If a group of 10 Americans have done something cool, I can be inclined to go "Americans are cool"

[scotsboyuk]

@TwistedMac

Swedes eh?! :p

[TwistedMac]

exactly ;)