[Gilman]

Your question starts by comparing IQ scores from different geographic regions and then without explanation switches over to racial categories. That’s something careful studies do not do. Why? The primary reason is that it confuses (confounds) social evolution with genetic evolution. Aren’t IQ tests as we know them a product of the modern industrial age, i.e., social evolution, which came long after the genetic evolution of humans had turned to less than a snail’s pace? Wouldn’t one expect residents of modern industrial/technological societies to score much higher on a paper-and-pencil test created by intellectuals for those kinds of societies than residents of semi-industrial or pre-industrial societies would score? A careful study would also have to define what it means by intelligence. As much as we would probably all like to have high IQ scores, isn’t it fair to say what we describe as intelligence in everyday vernacular is a combination of aptitudes that isn’t necessarily defined by the IQ test? Or, to put it another way, aren’t there a whole lot of highly intelligent members of pre/semi-industrial societies — or even more rural, lesser industrialized parts of the industrial societies? I would answer, ‘Definitely yes,’ based on my experiences in Appalachia and in doing public health work in parts of rural India that aren’t found in guide books. A careful study that invoked the category of race would also define it and how it is to be measured (good luck!), but I’ll leave that aside for now. Finally, I have to ask if your seemingly automatic switch from geography to race and social evolution to genetics aren’t themselves manifestations of racial bias?

User Detail :  

Name : Gilman, Gender : M, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 50s, City : Saint Paul, State : MN, Country : United States, Education level : Over 4 Years of College, 

[Author]

Posts