4 ms·

The idea that there's no cognitive differences just seems incredibly unlikely. As long as the difference between individuals in a single population is greater

The idea that there's no cognitive differences just seems incredibly unlikely. As long as the difference between individuals in a single population is greater than the mean difference between populations themselves, I don't see much relevance. Sure, Negroid races as a group don't have the IQ of Caucasians. But Caucasians who attach any importance to that had better look over their shoulder at the Asians, who in turn beat them on the same tests. The Asians don't want to get too smug in a room full of Ashkenazi Jews. Meanwhile, there are plenty of individual Negroids and whitey-birds who outperform plenty of individual Asians and Ashkenazis. If any lessons have emerged so far from the study of human genetics, it's that your genes are not your destiny. In any just society, an individual's success will always consist of 90% perspiration, 8% inspiration, and 2% DNA.

radu_floricica 17y ago
I'd say even more difference comes from culture. Asians are a huge population, but those who have the greatest success are those with a strong culture for education (Japan, China, South Korea). The same, there are black people on several continents, and the ones who are the easiest to criticize are those who either have a lack of modern culture (countries which didn't completely recover from colonialism) of made a counter-culture which pointedly rejects everything white, including the good parts (education, work ethics etc). Given these huge differences, a few points of IQ really don't seem to mean anything.
- w00pla 17y ago
  > countries which didn't completely recover from colonialism I’ve heard this statement and it is completely false (I did not take issue with the rest of your post). Colonialism actually introduced a lot of technology into Africa (things such as the wheel were not widely used). The most heavily colonialised countries in Africa are the best. A good example is Botswana. They did not return to their pre-tribal ways but basically adapted the British system. South Africa is also heavily “colonialised” and it is the only industrial country. Countries such as Lesotho and Swaziland had minimal colonial influences and still have much of their traditional leadership (uninterrupted). Those two countries are also the biggest shitholes in Africa. The traditional African governance was a strong-man (chief) with absolute power. It was basically an absolute monarch who is only removed by someone more powerful. That is why Africans in rural areas usually like a strong-man – anyone else is seen as a weak leader. A leader who is compassionate is seen as weak. I personally would content that a lot of African countries returned to their pre-colonial government structure.
  - maxklein 17y ago
    Most African societies do not have a single strong king - I think you are confusing Africa with Europe. Europe and Asia are the societies that have always had a system of very powerful leadership at the top, and a large peasant class. African society is usually not constructed that way. But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument.
    - eru 17y ago
      Europe and Asia are diverse places. (As is Africa.) E.g. the German Kaisers used to be weak leaders most of the time. And Kaisertum was never hereditary.
      - eru 17y ago
        Was never hereditary in the Heiliges Romisches Reich Deutscher Nation.
    - w00pla 17y ago
      > Most African societies do not have a single strong king - I think you are confusing Africa with Europe. Europe and Asia are the societies that have always had a system of very powerful leadership at the top, and a large peasant class. Africans usually had a strong leader. The size of these societies does however differ. A good example is smaller “family type” groups. These are sometimes called a “kraal” in South Africa (that is why many place names are name of leader + kraal). At least in the 18th and 19th century there was a lot of consolidation among these groups into larger groups. Probably the best example of this is the Zulu kingdom. Large strongman leaders included Dingaan and Shaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zulu_kings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zulu_kings). Even smaller groups have exactly the same pattern. The governance is also top down. Even today in many rural areas of countries (which are trust or tribal areas with community property) it is usually the chief that controls them. He tells his followers who to vote for as an example. Since all ground is communal and basically controlled by the chief/king, he has significant power. The power of tribal leaders has significantly decreased with urbanisation though. > But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument. And what qualifies you as an expert? Either make a good argument or refrain from posting.
w00pla 17y ago
> As long as the difference between individuals in a single population is greater than the mean difference between populations themselves, I don't see much relevance. This part is the Lewontin's fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy)
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  No, Lewontin's fallacy is the belief that if this is true for every trait, the populations are indistinguishable.
tokenadult 17y ago
If any lessons have emerged so far from the study of human genetics, it's that your genes are not your destiny. Yes, this is something that the leading researchers on human behavioral genetics increasingly acknowledge. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838534 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838534 (The pay-wall workaround mentioned in that submission is no longer active, but the citation to the very current article is still correct.)

radu_floricica 17y ago

I'd say even more difference comes from culture. Asians are a huge population, but those who have the greatest success are those with a strong culture for education (Japan, China, South Korea). The same, there are black people on several continents, and the ones who are the easiest to criticize are those who either have a lack of modern culture (countries which didn't completely recover from colonialism) of made a counter-culture which pointedly rejects everything white, including the good parts (education, work ethics etc). Given these huge differences, a few points of IQ really don't seem to mean anything.

w00pla 17y ago
> countries which didn't completely recover from colonialism I’ve heard this statement and it is completely false (I did not take issue with the rest of your post). Colonialism actually introduced a lot of technology into Africa (things such as the wheel were not widely used). The most heavily colonialised countries in Africa are the best. A good example is Botswana. They did not return to their pre-tribal ways but basically adapted the British system. South Africa is also heavily “colonialised” and it is the only industrial country. Countries such as Lesotho and Swaziland had minimal colonial influences and still have much of their traditional leadership (uninterrupted). Those two countries are also the biggest shitholes in Africa. The traditional African governance was a strong-man (chief) with absolute power. It was basically an absolute monarch who is only removed by someone more powerful. That is why Africans in rural areas usually like a strong-man – anyone else is seen as a weak leader. A leader who is compassionate is seen as weak. I personally would content that a lot of African countries returned to their pre-colonial government structure.
- maxklein 17y ago
  Most African societies do not have a single strong king - I think you are confusing Africa with Europe. Europe and Asia are the societies that have always had a system of very powerful leadership at the top, and a large peasant class. African society is usually not constructed that way. But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument.
  - eru 17y ago
    Europe and Asia are diverse places. (As is Africa.) E.g. the German Kaisers used to be weak leaders most of the time. And Kaisertum was never hereditary.
    - eru 17y ago
      Was never hereditary in the Heiliges Romisches Reich Deutscher Nation.
  - w00pla 17y ago
    > Most African societies do not have a single strong king - I think you are confusing Africa with Europe. Europe and Asia are the societies that have always had a system of very powerful leadership at the top, and a large peasant class. Africans usually had a strong leader. The size of these societies does however differ. A good example is smaller “family type” groups. These are sometimes called a “kraal” in South Africa (that is why many place names are name of leader + kraal). At least in the 18th and 19th century there was a lot of consolidation among these groups into larger groups. Probably the best example of this is the Zulu kingdom. Large strongman leaders included Dingaan and Shaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zulu_kings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zulu_kings). Even smaller groups have exactly the same pattern. The governance is also top down. Even today in many rural areas of countries (which are trust or tribal areas with community property) it is usually the chief that controls them. He tells his followers who to vote for as an example. Since all ground is communal and basically controlled by the chief/king, he has significant power. The power of tribal leaders has significantly decreased with urbanisation though. > But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument. And what qualifies you as an expert? Either make a good argument or refrain from posting.

w00pla 17y ago

> As long as the difference between individuals in a single population is greater than the mean difference between populations themselves, I don't see much relevance. This part is the Lewontin's fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy)

yummyfajitas 17y ago
No, Lewontin's fallacy is the belief that if this is true for every trait, the populations are indistinguishable.

tokenadult 17y ago

If any lessons have emerged so far from the study of human genetics, it's that your genes are not your destiny. Yes, this is something that the leading researchers on human behavioral genetics increasingly acknowledge. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838534 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838534 (The pay-wall workaround mentioned in that submission is no longer active, but the citation to the very current article is still correct.)