<p>[intellgence</a> among races - Google Search](<a href=“intellgence among races]intellgence - Google Search”>intellgence among races - Google Search)</p>
<p>I agree, it is just the way cultural background of each race owns.
I also agree your curiosity,</p>
<p>… This is my research paper topic.</p>
<p>Your definition of intelligence and belief in racial-intellectual superiority are false.</p>
<p>A majority of the intelligence in a person can be attributed to the environment.</p>
<p>Is it truly quantifiable? No.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure I buy this. While the opression of a racial group understandably takes a long time to recover from, due to the oppressed being less able to give their children opportunities, the same argument doesn’t apply to a sex, which is not an isolated hereditary group.</p>
<p>Note the gender ratios at the tech schools. Girls aren’t good at math</p>
<p>Stereotypes persist</p>
<p>But girls brains are wired diferently. Its a fact. Thats why they get so emotional and care about people more than guys do. I think it has something to do with what they are good at in school.</p>
<p>^That statement would **** me off if I didn’t already think you were a ■■■■■.</p>
<p>
You’re an idiot, and anyone who thinks this is “support” for race-based AA is a moron as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pretty sure y’all are ■■■■■■■■, but just in case you really think sexism is dead, it can’t hurt to post this. Warning: factbomb to follow 
</p>
<p>Women are still paid less than men for the same jobs, only make up 18% of the Senate and House, only make up 3% of top CEOs, are only 20% of the speaking characters even in kid’s movies and books and usually in decorative passive roles, are only 3% or less of the directors of the highest grossing and most influential movies, are the majority of journalism majors, but only write 1/7 of articles… should I go on?</p>
<p>As for why women are so underrepresented in science and math, do you know that women have to produce nearly twice the amount of research articles as men to be regarded as equally productive in those fields? They get less grants, attention, and are less likely to get hired than men (studies have been done with the same resumes and different names to prove this). It’s also been shown that when testers tell students “women and men do equally well on this test,” girls and boys tend to score equally well on math tests, showing that most or all of the normal discrepancy is caused by stereotype threat. <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat</a></p>
<p>Men and women also score the same in actual tests of empathy, where you judge the emotions people are feeling during a conversation. It’s just that men self report lower empathy on EQ surveys because that’s what expected of them. Which is sad, btw, since many of the most sensitive people I know are guys.</p>
<p>I think the better question is, " Why are Hispanics and African Americans behind Asians and Caucasians when it comes to academic achievement?" I don’t believe this is a ■■■■■ question and it is one that does deserve a serious conversation.</p>
<p>I blame BET.</p>
<p>Well, one possibility is the cold-weather theory, which states that the ancestors of Asians lived in colder climates than those of other races. Supposedly, since it was harder to find food, intelligence was more important for survival than pure strength.</p>
<p>Good guess, but it probably doesn’t account for much. The best theory we currently have for the evolution of intelligence is the Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis, which is that intelligence evolved because of intense social competition and having to navigate social hierarchies, not for fighting against external elements. So once the cycle of increasing intelligence got started, it fed upon itself in a positive feedback loop. The cold weather theory doesn’t explain why humans are so many orders of magnitude more intelligent than all the other species that lived in cold climates. I’d guess that it’s a small factor at most, but that’s just me. </p>
<p>[Dienekes</a>’ Anthropology Blog: Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis](<a href=“http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/11/machiavellian-intelligence-hypothesis.html]Dienekes”>Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis)</p>
<p>If you are just talking about AA or Hispanics in America, as well as Hmong in America, then you will see a difference in test scores, etc. A lot of that is instiutionalized racism. To say that all people of Hispanic and African descent are less intelligent makes it seem like all the people in the entire continent of Africa or all of Central or South America are less intelligent than those of Asia or Europe. Dont believe it, haven’t seen it. What I have seen is how much smarter everyone was in my multi-racial classes in Berkeley was compared to my blue collar Indiana town white classmates. I do believe that stupid can breed stupid, but I don’t believe that race has much to do with it. Class, expectations, motivation, etc. matter.</p>
<p>GUYS I FOUND THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE:
[Race</a> and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence]Race”>Race and intelligence - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>ALL HAIL WIKI</p>
<p>@Sinflower </p>
<p>What you said is very interesting. But would you mind clarifying the following please?</p>
<p>First, it seems the “intelligence” required to navigate a highly complex social hierarchy should be consisted of 2 parts: 1) Raw computing power (IQ), 2) Empathy to read and comprehend subtle emotional subtexts and motivations (EQ). </p>
<p>How do we explain countless instances of gifted individuals only having high IQ (nerdy eternal techno virgin) or EQ (frat boy who flunk out of PE) but not both? For Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis to be true, it seems natural selection will ensure that both traits will be passed onto next generation in sympathy.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I buy the theory of multiple intelligences or in “emotional intelligence” being something different from the regular kind. The ability to take in information, manipulate concepts mentally, and choose an action accordingly uses most of the same neural circuits regardless of whether you’re applying it to a social conflict or an engineering puzzle. Selection pressures towards higher ability in one will also bring about higher ability in the other as a side effect. </p>
<p>I don’t think most/many nerds are inherently socially stunted either. It’s just that our society is set up so that it’s hard to pursue intellectual prowess while also pursuing social success, so people have to choose one or the other to specialize in. For example, in countries like China there are far more nerds who are also popular and socially successful because intelligence is considered cooler than it is here.</p>
<p>@Sinflower</p>
<p>I would have to beg to differ from your assertion that IQ and EQ are one in the same. </p>
<p>There have been many cases of savant, autistic people (and other “genius” types, think John Nash) that are profoundly gifted but usually in very very narrow ways, such as math computation or the ability to recall every minute detail on on obscure subject.</p>
<p>These congenital cases of savants demonstrated that one can have very powerful computation prowess (high IQ) and yet complete inability to interact with the outside world (low EQ) all due to genetic defects.</p>
<p>I don’t think EQ and IQ are one and the same: rather, I object to the conceptualization of “EQ” as a real, measurable thing at all. The “tests” I’ve seen of EQ measure a combination of compassion (which isn’t related to intelligence) and “ability to predict other people’s actions” (which is trainable, and in normal people the ability to learn it is correlated with general intelligence). </p>
<p>I don’t think the fact that savants and autistic people exist invalidates the existence of general intelligence, but their existence definitely shows that general intelligence isn’t as simple of a thing as some (including me) would like to think, so thanks for bringing that point up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that’s a meaner way of putting what I was going to say.</p>
<p>I find it strange that many have forgotten that US segregation policy applied to ALL colored people. This means Asian Americans are included in this little policy. </p>
<p>So for those who argue Asian Americans were never subjected to institutionalized racism need to retake freshman history. </p>
<p>I theorize that Asian Americans performed scholastically despite wholesale racism is primarily due to Confucian cultural tradition which heavily celebrates intellectual/ academic prowess.</p>