The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Donderpants
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

brain size indicates blacks are less intelligent than whites

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 1 vote the winner is...
Donderpants
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 613 times Debate No: 77506
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

+++++++
"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 tested, including Arctic Natives, tend to score worse on average than white populations but better on average than black populations."
+++++++

-asians have higher IQs than whites who have higher IQs than blacks. but whites have more variability, which is why you see more white geniuses and retarded folk.
-blacks are better athletes. it probably goes with lower intelligence levels, higher physical levels, much like apes.
-the cranal studies show higher intelligence corresponds with larger brains, and blacks have smaller brains on average than other races
-modern humans are only two hundred thousand years old. we all came from africa. mitocondrial DNA studies verify this, and all the dating technicques. look at how much difference has come in terms of just different types of people, physically speaking. chinese v. africa v. european v. americas including south america and mexico. look at how their langauges vary so much. imagine how much IQ could change too. especially if the environmental factors are there, as quoted above. it's objectively verifiable, and brain sizes (and inteligence correltation) make it even more objectively verified.
Donderpants

Con

First, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate, you seem to be a very experienced debater with whom I hope to sharpen my wit.

Now on to rebuttals-

"Shows IQ to be overwhelmingly genetic" is just a lie. The letter to the Wall street journal has 25 conclusions, none of which mentioned that IQ and genes were related. The closest thing to it is the conclusion that "IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes ... Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance" Which clearly is more the fault of the whites having not yet restored true equality. And it's more of a cultural attitude- Asian families are known for bringing up children in a very study focused method, which means that it makes sense that the average is dragged upwards by these families efforts to make sure their children are as smart as possible. Black families are still suffering from centuries of Europeans putting them at a disadvantage- having not been properly educated and still not having much money when Europeans started giving blacks rights is something that blacks will have to try and get out of for at least another few decades. Until then, any tests as to the intellect of random members of the Asian, European and Black population are biased by the environment they live in. So no, it's not genetic, and the journal certainly did not say it was genetic- other science journals may prove this, if so then please inform me and the general public a source where we could find these.

"Identical twins separated at birth are significantly more similar in IQ than fraternal twins raised together with a genetic correlation of.80" Well think about it. Most people want to be special- siblings that live together would realistically try and get their own characteristics to distinguish them from their sibling. So one would try and do great at school while another would try to be a social star or something- the point is, for this to truly be an accurate experiment they would have to separate fraternal twins as well and see whether the IQ differs much. If the test did not do this, then the test is not accurate, and can not be relied on.

"The link between cranial size and intelligence are strongly established in several scientific studies published in journals"
And it's been disproved by many as well. ( https://www.psychologytoday.com... )
Until the link between cranial size and intelligence is (dis)proved by something other than our own arrogant wish to put ourselves as top dogs, this cannot be used as an argument.

"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."
You'd be surprised how many people don't believe in macro-evolution. Be warned. And in any case, that sounds counter-intuitive, as a brain is a massive consumer of energy, taking up 20% of our total energy. To increase the cranium further because there was less food sounds wrong with that in mind.

"Blacks are better athletes" Well if they can't afford to be educated properly, they need to be tough. It's less that they're stronger and because of this they are more stupid- it's more that because they aren't educated the same way other races are they score lower in tests and so they have to rely on their physical skill instead of mental skill.

As such, it's an economic, social and educational issue, not a genetic one.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

IQ might not be the best predictor of intelligence, but it is an indicator. and it indicates they are less intelligent.

given my main thesis of the resolution was brain size means blacks are less intelligent, id have hoped for a better response:

"You'd be surprised how many people don't believe in macro-evolution. Be warned. And in any case, that sounds counter-intuitive, as a brain is a massive consumer of energy, taking up 20% of our total energy. To increase the cranium further because there was less food sounds wrong with that in mind."

less food means humans have to be smart to get it. evolution causes brain size and intelligence then to increase.
Donderpants

Con

Again, my response is valid there-.

1. Almost half of people on the debates for evolution say it doesn't exist.

2. A large brain is a luxury that no other species has wasted energy on. It paid off in the end, at least for Homo sapiens if not for every single other member of that genus, but if needs be, humans would lose a bit of brain for a while so that they can keep their calories up. Thinking up clever ways to catch a few extra morsels would not make up for the constant additional drain.

Additional arguments-

1. Neanderthals actually proportionally speaking had bigger brains than modern humans, and significantly bigger brains than original homo sapiens. Clearly the extra 10% didn't help- they died off, which suggests that despite a 10% superiority we were smarter and more resourceful.

2. If the extra brain size is what helps, why is it not proportionate? Surely if "Blacks 1,267 cm3. Whites 1347 cm3. East Asians 1364 cm3." then the 23 cm3 between Whites and Asians is the same IQ difference as a 23 cm3 distance between whites and blacks.

1347-1267= 80.
1364-1347=23.
23/80 of the IQ distance between Blacks and Whites should be equivalent to the IQ distance between Whites and Asians.
Asian IQ minus White IQ = 6 White IQ minus Black IQ = 15

23/80 x 15 = 4.3125

4.3125 is not equal to 6- in fact it's quite far off. Therefore, brain size does not determine the intelligence of different races, as 23 cm3 one way is not equivalent to 23 cm3 the other.

Following this logic, blacks most certainly are not less intelligent than Whites, at least not for genetic reasons.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

we are at a stalemate on the brain size vis a vis energy points.

neanderthals weren't as war faring as humans. this could have led to their demise. intelligence isn't the only indicator of success.

your crude methods to compare brain size and IQ is amusing, i guess. but it doesn't work that way. there are correlations between the two and it doesn't have to measure exactly as you are saying.
Donderpants

Con

Neanderthals may have died via us killing them all, but a more accepted theory in science is that one winter we happened to be more resourceful than the Neanderthals, and they did not get enough to survive.

Yes, it does not have to be exactly the same, but if the difference is as far as 6 to 4.3125, there seems to be something wrong with "brain size = IQ". You seem to have failed to address my original points (Or..... any of my original points actually aside from one.) I admired your debating skills at the start, but I'm slightly disappointed- you failed to respond to half my points.

I will repeat the points you ignored here.

1. "Shows IQ to be overwhelmingly genetic" is just a lie. The letter to the Wall street journal has 25 conclusions, none of which mentioned that IQ and genes were related. The closest thing to it is the conclusion that "IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes ... Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance" Which clearly is more the fault of the whites having not yet restored true equality. And it's more of a cultural attitude- Asian families are known for bringing up children in a very study focused method, which means that it makes sense that the average is dragged upwards by these families efforts to make sure their children are as smart as possible. Black families are still suffering from centuries of Europeans putting them at a disadvantage- having not been properly educated and still not having much money when Europeans started giving blacks rights is something that blacks will have to try and get out of for at least another few decades. Until then, any tests as to the intellect of random members of the Asian, European and Black population are biased by the environment they live in. So no, it's not genetic, and the journal certainly did not say it was genetic- other science journals may prove this, if so then please inform me and the general public a source where we could find these.

2. "Identical twins separated at birth are significantly more similar in IQ than fraternal twins raised together with a genetic correlation of.80" Well think about it. Most people want to be special- siblings that live together would realistically try and get their own characteristics to distinguish them from their sibling. So one would try and do great at school while another would try to be a social star or something- the point is, for this to truly be an accurate experiment they would have to separate fraternal twins as well and see whether the IQ differs much. If the test did not do this, then the test is not accurate, and can not be relied on.

3. "The link between cranial size and intelligence are strongly established in several scientific studies published in journals"
And it's been disproved by many as well. ( https://www.psychologytoday.com...... )
Until the link between cranial size and intelligence is (dis)proved by something other than our own arrogant wish to put ourselves as top dogs, this cannot be used as an argument.

4."Blacks are better athletes" Well if they can't afford to be educated properly, they need to be tough. It's less that they're stronger and because of this they are more stupid- it's more that because they aren't educated the same way other races are they score lower in tests and so they have to rely on their physical skill instead of mental skill.

You know point 3 was my actual main argument originally..... You just ignored it, not noticing that I shook off any "evidence" that there was a link between the size of your skull and brainpower ages ago...... I'm sorry, I can't respect a debater who just refuses to acknowledge any real points. You make a flashy entrance, but I am disappointed in your later arguments. Ah well, may the best debater win I suppose.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by mentalist 1 year ago
mentalist
Scientific racism has been proven to be false. Brain size does not determine intelligence. Shade of skin is definitely not a gauge of intellect.
Posted by Donderpants 1 year ago
Donderpants
Autism or Aspergers? I have a friend with Asperger's.....
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Rami
I heard autistic people have much larger brains.
Posted by Donderpants 1 year ago
Donderpants
So tempted to accept......
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Enji 1 year ago
Enji
dairygirl4u2cDonderpantsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution rests on two claims: (1) blacks are less intelligent than whites, and (2) brain size is indicative of intelligence. Pro establishes (1) is true referencing comparative IQ studies. Con contests (2), citing a recent article by a doctorate in psychology showing that brain size is not indicative of intelligence. This outweighs Pro's 1996 study which claims that there is a correlation between brain size and cognitive ability but also notes that there are exceptions to this correlation, "For example, White women have brain sizes equal to or smaller than those of Black men, but nonetheless score higher than do Black men in general cognitive ability". Con provides alternative explanations for (1): level of educational attainment and socioeconomic factors contribute to the observed IQ gap. Pro fails to establish brain size as an indicator of intelligence; arguments to Con.