Race and intelligence

[littlebabyjesus]

Why exactly is it that you don't consider it conceivable that a cognitive ability (some kind of "animal smart" if you want to call it that) could confer a slight advantage in humans in certain set of environmental conditions, and thereby gradually become more common in that population than in another human population in different environmental conditions? Why is this impossible, whereas a slight variance in skeletal frame or skin colour isn't?

Here's an example of what I would consider a valid question, whatever its answer:

Is the extreme plasticity of the human brain a result of neoteny?

Is the asiatic body type the result of an even more extreme neoteny than that found in other body types?

If so, do those with that body type also have even more plastic brains?

Those are all in principle testable hypotheses.

(ETA: That an idea is a testable hypothesis of course doesn't stop it being complete bollocks.)

 

[teuchter]

Here's an example of what I would consider a valid question, whatever its answer:

Is the extreme plasticity of the human brain a result of neoteny?

Is the asiatic body type the result of an even more extreme neoteny than that found in other body types?

If so, do those with that body type also have even more plastic brains?

Those are all in principle testable hypotheses.

(ETA: That an idea is a testable hypothesis of course doesn't stop it being complete bollocks.)

I think you fall into your own trap there by talking about an "asiatic body type".

 

[Jonti]

And yet for some reason, if they displayed some unusual cognitive ability, you would neither accept that it was the beginning of speciation, nor that that ability would slowly be eliminated or propogated according to its benefits to the animal? You would simply say "it must be cultural". That doesn't make sense.

I certainly wouldn't want to downplay the cultural aspect. It is culture that makes us smart in the way the psychologist's tests can measure ~ just consider the power of positonal notation, compared to roman numerals.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think you fall into your own trap there by talking about an "asiatic body type".

Language is difficult here. Oppenheimer uses the term 'mongoloid' body type. Use that if you prefer.

 

[teuchter]

Language is difficult here. Oppenheimer uses the term 'mongoloid' body type. Use that if you prefer.

This is derailing really, but changing the word doesn't help you. Where are the distinct boundaries of this "mongoloid" body type, then?

 

[8ball]

I certainly wouldn't want to downplay the cultural aspect. It is culture that makes us smart in the way the psychologist's tests can measure ~ just consider the power of positonal notation, compared to roman numerals.

Sometimes I ponder this and then wonder how much further we might have come if mammals had evolved with hexadactyl limbs . . .

 

[Jonti]

This is derailing really, but changing the word doesn't help you. Where are the distinct boundaries of this "mongoloid" body type, then?

Think of it as more of a familial resemblance; you don't need distinct boundaries.

 

[teuchter]

Think of it as more of a familial resemblance; you don't need distinct boundaries.

Well ... feel free to argue about that with cesare, and whoever else it was going on about there being no distinct boundaries - not that it was actually relevant to what I was talking about at the time.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

This is because there are no human subspecies - humans on earth form one united breeding population, and there is no clear dividing line between the claimed "races".

I don't think anyone said anything about subspecies. One needn't declare a subspecies to recognize that certain large groupings of human beings have identified genetic similarities.

Pontiacs, Buicks, Saabs and Toyotas are all autos. They have different 'cheekbones'. We know that they are all autos, but we also can recognize a Buick and a Saab.

 

[weltweit]

It is pointless to say there are not differences between and among the peoples of the world.

 

[William of Walworth]

It is pointless to say there are not differences between and among the peoples of the world.

Meaninglessly generalised point without saying anything about which differences you mean, and without saying anything about what causes them.