The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
FuzzyCatPotato
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

blacks are less intelligent than whties

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 982 times Debate No: 55242
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

intelligence is proportion to brain size. african americans have smaller brains than whites. they also have lower IQs. IQ tests are debatable, but it's still evidence.

to be fair, whites are not as smart as most asians. whites are known to have a wider rage of intelligence, but overall be less intelligent. hence, more genius whites, and more retarded whites.

----

"general consensus among scientists as published in the Wall Street Journal in 1994 titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" shows a consensus among scientists that average IQ are as followed in America. Blacks 85. Whites 100. East Asians 106. Further studies done and published in science journals show IQ to be overwhelmingly genetic. Minnesota Twins Study by Dr. Thomas Bouchard, the most famous twin study done, shows that identical twins separated at birth are significantly more similiar in IQ than fraternal twins raised together with a genetic correlation of .80.

Cranial size studies show published in the science journal Intelligence 1997, 25, pg 15 shows the average cranial size as followed. Blacks 1,267 cm3. Whites 1347 cm3. East Asians 1364 cm3. The link between cranial size and intelligence are strongly established in several scientific studies published in journals. "Brain Size and Cognitive Ability" in the 1996 issue of the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review surveyed all the published research on this topic. It included studies that used the state-of-the-art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very good image of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44.

So why are Asians smarter? More specifically Northeast Asians? The scientific theories among scientists today hold the notion that the humans that left Africa 110,000 years ago into colder climates of Europe and Northern Asia required more thought and planning to obtain food than that of Africa. And that Northern Asia had more drastic temperatures than that of Europe. It's evolution at work.

The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the average IQ African Americans was 85; Latino 89; White 103; Asian 106; and Jews 113. Asians score relatively higher on visuospatial than on verbal subtests. The few Amerindian populations that have been systematically..."
FuzzyCatPotato

Con


My apologies if the response isn't well-organized, I was rushed. At least it's sourced, eh?

---

Definition of Intelligence:

"capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc" [01].

---

Responses:

1P1: "general consensus among scientists as published in the Wall Street Journal in 1994 titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" shows a consensus among scientists that average IQ are as followed in America. Blacks 85. Whites 100. East Asians 106."

First off, the report that you cite shows that 52 psychologists and other human intelligence specialists agreed on something, NOT that a consensus was reached [02]. As Wikipedia states, scientific consensus is "the collective ... position ... of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity" [03]. If 50.00001% of intelligence specialists agreed on this position, then consensus would have been reached. However, this study did NOT establish said required consensus.

Second off, this report only talks about American Blacks, Whites, and Asians [02]. This means that biases resulting from the types of persons who would immigrate play into this2

I'll discuss these disparities in detail later.

---

1P2: "Further studies done and published in science journals show IQ to be overwhelmingly genetic. Minnesota Twins Study by Dr. Thomas Bouchard, the most famous twin study done, shows that identical twins separated at birth are significantly more similiar in IQ than fraternal twins raised together with a genetic correlation of .80."

First off, the assumption that genes determine what a person is going to be is flawed [04]. Genes influence what a person will become, but do not determine them.

Second, some relatively-small portion of IQ is genetic, but much of the remainder is determined by the living conditions of a person. Bad water supply, low levels of food, disease, lead poisoning, education, a supportive family, and much more can all change a person's intelligence [05][06][07][08].

---

1P3: "Cranial size studies show published in the science journal Intelligence 1997, 25, pg 15 shows the average cranial size as followed. Blacks 1,267 cm3. Whites 1347 cm3. East Asians 1364 cm3. The link between cranial size and intelligence are strongly established in several scientific studies published in journals. "Brain Size and Cognitive Ability" in the 1996 issue of the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review surveyed all the published research on this topic. It included studies that used the state-of-the-art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very good image of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44."

First off, a correlation of 0.44? That's less than the correlation between the number of people who drowned by falling into a swimming-pool annually and the number of films Nicolas Cage appeared in that year, or 0.67 [09]. It's a rather low level of strength of correlation [10].

Second off, the measurements that Rushton used in his study weren't based on MRI scanning but on external and postmortem measurements, which are quite faulty [11].

Third off, the correlation between IQ and brain size is around 0.20, not 0.44 [11].

---

1P4: "So why are Asians smarter? More specifically Northeast Asians? The scientific theories among scientists today hold the notion that the humans that left Africa 110,000 years ago into colder climates of Europe and Northern Asia required more thought and planning to obtain food than that of Africa. And that Northern Asia had more drastic temperatures than that of Europe. It's evolution at work."

First off, they aren't.

Second off, the reason why Asians in America are often more intelligent is because many of them were self-selected immigrants high in intelligence and occupational aptitude [12]. However, many Asian-Americans who emigrated because of famine or war and are thus more representative of the Asian population as a whole have quite average intelligence and aptitude [12].

---

Disparities:

It's clear that genetics, and thus race, do not determine the entirety (or even the majority) of a person's IQ [05][06][07][08]. So why do disparities exist between persons of different races in America?

First off, because of cultural differences. The IQ test relies on certain culturally "correct" ideas to determine intelligence, and is thus culture-dependent [13][16]. This causes many immigrants, notably Black ones, who are by and large more intelligent than the average person, to do worse on IQ tests [14].

Second off, because of wealth. As pointed out earlier [07][08], poverty and its effects cause a lot of change in the growth of the brain and prevent it from being fully sized or developed, which makes them perform worse in IQ tests [15]. However, as the wealth and education of the poor increases, so does their IQ [17]. This trend shows that the major reason for differences in IQ scores comes from wealth and education disparities in America (and elsewhere), which are decreasing as IQ disparities decrease [18].

[01] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[02] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[03] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[04] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[05] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
[06] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[07] http://www.economist.com...
[08] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[09] http://www.tylervigen.com...
[10] http://www.andrews.edu...
[11] http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl...
[12] http://restructure.wordpress.com...
[13] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
[14] http://www.africaresource.com...
[15] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
[16] http://www.psychologytoday.com...-
[17] http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com...
[18] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

perhaps it wasn't consensus results, the studies i cited, but at least it was well done with a large number of people agreeing to it. do you have nything to contradict it?

nature v nuture. con argues nurture has a big effect on IQ.

the differences in cranial size may be small, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. and it doesn't mean IQ isn't tied to cranial size.
i note that perhaps some of the study was done wrong, but i'd assume it was done wrong for all races? we dont see enough from con's criticism to change the apparent conclusion we see based on what we can tell.

so not all asians are as smart as the study shows? is that all you are really arguing? on the points about 'so why are asians smarter?"

con concludes with arguing that there are established studies that say IQ and nurture are correlated, and there are actually present problems for blacks. perhaps. but how prevalent are these problems. and this doesn't negate the information about cranial size?

all con offers is some speculation, that doesn't do enough to negate the main contention the studies and I have offered.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

"perhaps it wasn't consensus results, the studies i cited, but at least it was well done with a large number of people agreeing to it. do you have nything to contradict it?"

Yeah, the rest of my evidence.

"nature v nuture. con argues nurture has a big effect on IQ."

True statement.

the differences in cranial size may be small, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. and it doesn't mean IQ isn't tied to cranial size.
i note that perhaps some of the study was done wrong, but i'd assume it was done wrong for all races? we dont see enough from con's criticism to change the apparent conclusion we see based on what we can tell.

What the study I referrenced noted is that the difference in brain size is very, very small between races versus intra-race, which means that while the average Black might have a slight disadvantage from initial brain size, but that the range of intelligence from brain size is much more variable for, say, a large and small-skulled Whites and one average White and one average Black.

"so not all asians are as smart as the study shows? is that all you are really arguing? on the points about 'so why are asians smarter?"

I successfully argue, due to your lack of rebuttal, that the Asians present in America are biased as to the average intelligence of Asians in general, because of who does and does not emmigrate. The same occurs for Jews and basically everyone who had a choice to migrate or not.

"con concludes with arguing that there are established studies that say IQ and nurture are correlated, and there are actually present problems for blacks. perhaps. but how prevalent are these problems. and this doesn't negate the information about cranial size?"

Seeing as the average White has an income of $55,412[1] and the average Black of $32,229[1], a difference of 41.838%, I think it's fair to say that poverty plays a pretty big role in Black lives as opposed to White lives. The same occurs for Hispanics, with $38,624[1], and for minorities in general. Whites are rich -- this makes them be nurtured to become more intelligent, due to lack of malnutrition and other issues.

"all con offers is some speculation, that doesn't do enough to negate the main contention the studies and I have offered."

I offered 19 sources, to your 3, on the nature of IQ, race, intelligence, poverty, and culture, and proved that your studies were flawed. I proved that poverty is more of a factor than race, and thus that even if Black people ARE less intelligent currently, it is near-completely due to poverty. If we reduce Black poverty, or Hispanic poverty, and poverty in general,we will have a more intelligent Black citizenry and citizenry in general.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.infoplease.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i never contested that nurture has a signficant role in actual results between the races.

in any case, con concedes that blacks might have a slight disadvantage due to brain size. to use his own words. it may be sight but it's there. i rest my case.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

"i never contested that nurture has a signficant role in actual results between the races"

"in any case, con concedes that blacks might have a slight disadvantage due to brain size. to use his own words. it may be sight but it's there. i rest my case."

Cross-apply my opponent's first comment to my opponent's second. If nurture (culture, food, wealth) plays a significant role in differences in results between races, then it would be impossible to truly either (a) measure IQ or (b) get an objective reading between races, because they would be altered by the circumstances of that person's life. Moreover, the current difference is NOT a result of genetic differences, but of economic circumstances. If Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Indians, and all the peoples of the world had the same economic experiences for millenia, then there would be no difference. As such, this is NOT a fixed difference, but one of circumstance.

I have provided vastly more sources, including debunks of my opponent's sources.

I have proven that IQ is biased and culturally sensitive.

I have proven that poverty is more important to intelligence than race.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i misspelled whites in the title of the debate...
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
OK, then I guess it would be fine if I didn't actually write a rebuttal to your argument, but just quoted some random blogger who disagrees with you, right? And that would be a WONDERFUL debate, now wouldn't it?
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
seriously fuzzy? it's in quotes, let's leave it at that. this isn't defending a doctoral thesis, it's an internet debate. if you have reason to question the ocntent, say so. don't argue about technicalities.

really, what you just said, was one of the stupidest things anyone has ever said.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
It's only not plagiarism if you cite another person as the source, completely, and provide a way to access the source. Otherwise, I could just say "that you're a racist [REDACTED] idiot" and claim it as my own without citing Koettnylle. [ https://www.youtube.com... ]
Posted by MolecularBird 2 years ago
MolecularBird
Racist.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
it's not plagarism if i put it in quotes. i wouldnt even begin to pretend i did those studies or wrote that quoted text.
Posted by Sk8 2 years ago
Sk8
That's extremely racist. -_-
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Holy mother of plagarism!!

http://restructure.wordpress.com...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by gtcmoulder 2 years ago
gtcmoulder
dairygirl4u2cFuzzyCatPotatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con that blacks are not any less intelligent than whites in terms of brain size. Just because someones brain is smaller doesn't mean they are less intelligent. Their brain could be working faster, for one thing. And, as Con states, the culture and family state someone grows up in has more of an effect on intelligence than anything else. Blacks tend to grow up in neighborhoods where learning is shunned and being "cool" is all that matters. If blacks had less poverty, self pity, and more of a motivation to learn, they could be just as smart as whites and asians. There are also many real life examples that prove Con's point, such as Martin Luther King JR. He had the motivation and drive to become smart and educated, and he had much more difficulty getting an education than blacks today.
Vote Placed by baus 2 years ago
baus
dairygirl4u2cFuzzyCatPotatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro met the BoP of proving that blacks have bigger brains, on average, than whites but failed to substantiate the link between brain size and intelligence. Sources to Con for being the only one to provide them. Conduct for the terrible formatting of R1 on Con's part and S&G for Pro's consistent misspelling and lack of capitalization.