We all choose what we want to look at and emphasize on the basis of what is
important to us and what our values are and what we want to know about, etc.
etc. etc.
I am curious as to just why Keith has chosen to focus on this particular
phenomenon, whether his figures mean anything or not ( I am of the opinion
that they do not).
If one is worried about the continued dominance of the white 'race' or of
Western/male/christian/ 'civilization' I would suggest that there are
other things to worry about e.g., most of the people on this planet are not
Christian; most are not 'white', etc. Given globalization and the increasing
homogeneity of all of the 'developed' societies, one might speculate that
which 'race' dominates is irrelevant.
However, the really important point here is that, in fact, there is no such
thing as 'race' among humans. There is absolutely no way to separate human
beings into racial categories. At one time some anthropologists came up with
over 200 characteristics on which to categorize humans into races and still
had a huge number of people that did not fit any of the categories.
Yes, we have people with darker skin than others and different facial
characteristics, etc., etc. but most all anthropologists and biologists
agree that it is not possible to classify humans in separate categories of
race. I believe there is a UN statement to that effect.
As is true of gender, there is much more variation within any group so
categorized than there is between or among the categories one might come up
with.
Gosh, don't we have more important things to talk about?
Selma
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christoph Reuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: IQ-divide
> Some statistical and historical quality control seems necessary
> on Keith's racial generalizations:
>
>
> > But here's some evidence from England from Edward George's article:
> > ^^^^^^^^
> > <<<<
> > A Bank of England investigation, 18 months ago, into the availability of
> > finance to ethnic minority firms suggested that while the ethnic
minorities
> > represent some 5% of the UK population, they controlled some 7% of UK
> > businesses and accounted for around 9% of start-ups. Those national
figures
> > relate to 1997, so they are a little of date. But figures from London
> > Chamber of Commerce, published last December, on the contribution of
Asian
> > business to London's economy, suggest that the ethnic minority
population
> > manages or owns some 20% of London's private sector businesses, with the
> > Asian community alone accounting for half that -- or some 10% of the
total.
> > >>>>
>
> Statistically, this can't be called evidence for the claim that Asians
> as a race have a higher IQ, because the Asians in England are a
> non-representative selection (self-selected sample) of their whole 'race'.
> Considering the circumstances of Asian emigration and British immigration
> criteria, it can be expected that this self-selected sample is *above*
> average (among Asians) in terms of personal initiative and IQ. So this
> sample will be more successful than the general British population
> *even if* the Asian "race IQ" (average) is equal or lower.
>
>
> > However, the vast
> > increase in the drug culture and muggings in recent years, largely by
> > Caribbeans ("Yardies"), has caused prejudice to swing back again to some
> > extent.
>
> Well, on a historical scale, the largest muggers (as a collective) have
> been the British. Now that most colonies are gone, the greedheads are
> turning to their own people, with the socio-economic consequences that
> Keith often describes on this list.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Even if there are differences between races in general (as opposed to
> self-selected sample groups) --note that Keith fails to provide evidence
> for that--, the influence of *culture and nutrition/environment*
> on "scholastic and business ability, and also in civilised, peacable
> behaviour" is very large, as can be seen by comparing European countries
> and individuals over history (e.g. Switzerland has the highest number
> of Nobel Prize laureates per million of inhabitants, the greatest
> business success/public services etc. and the longest peaceful period
> in Europe, although it is racially similar to surrounding countries).
>
> Instead of peddling unsubstantiated and dangerous theories about
> "race IQ", it would be much better to explore and enhance the vast
> potentials of IQ-/synergies-enhancing educational, nutritional and
> environmental conditions -- but unfortunately, the "Free" Trade
> fundamentalists are pushing in the opposite direction.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Rather than by "race IQ", the rise and fall of civilizations over history
> has been due to environmental and developmental cycles (buildup-->
> fluourishing-->decadence/destruction). IF it would be just a matter of
> "race IQ", then China would have been the top civilization *all the time*.
>
> Considering the environmental and social (d)evolution of America, it
> may well be true that it will soon reach the end of the cycle, but
> the big question is whether its leaders will accept this as a historical
> development, or try by ANY (military) means to maintain their global
> dominance. Dubya's latest nuclear threats and the NMD development
> (to enable nuclear first strikes) do not bode well in this perspective.
>
> Chris
>
>
