Keith Hudson, > > So, although it is not politically correct to say so, the evidence seems to > be building up that, whatever IQ happens to be, it is measurably different > between different 'races' and has a direct relationship with scholastic and > business ability, and also in civilised, peacable behaviour. > > Being a Causasian white belonging to a 'race' with a mean IQ of 100, I > don't think I can be charged with prejudice when suggesting that central > Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) with a probable mean IQ of about 120, and > East Asians (Chinese) with a mean IQ of about 140, deriving from the > circumstances of the two large migrations out of Africa during the last two > Inter-Glacials, will probably take over the role of the white man in the > coming decades. > > Keith Hudson
Ever so much depends on what, as cultures, we value and therefore measure about ourselves. Ever so many things I've read suggest that the human capacity to think does not vary significantly from racial group to racial group, but how and to what that thinking is applied varies enormously. If I were to take an IQ test written by a traditional Athapascan Indian from far northern Canada, I would fail dismally, just as he would fail dismally if he were to write an IQ test written for white or asian academics and businessmen living in the suburbs of Toronto. I think the kinds of good / bad behaviour characteristics you describe can be explained by many factors other than innate intelligence. We've been down this race and intelligence road before. A Canadian academic once argued that intelligence varies inversely with the length of the penis, and because some Africans have longer penises, they must be less intelligent. It's a bunch of junk! Ed Weick
