The reason I believe is because when you look at standardize testing results for school age children you will see a pattern with respect to race. I am sure some of this is due to cultural differences as well as environmental factors. It is hard to pinpoint the exact reason for a difference in academic performance amongst different races but it is clearly there.
If you define "intelligence" as "general mental ability" and "race" as "historic regional populations", then one can say with certainty that there is a clear statistical association between "intelligence" and "race". To verify that this is the case, you can simply look at national and international data sets. The debated question is not "Is there a connection (i.E., a statistical association)?" but, rather, "What is the cause of this connection?" It seems probable, at this point, that the association between "race" and "intelligence", so defined, is mediated by both genetic and non-genetic factors. Evidence for genetic factors comes from studies showing, globally, a clear correlation between population differences in DNA and population differences in measures of intelligence e.G., Rodriguez-Arana, A. (2010). "Intelligence and the Wealth of Nations: Genetics Matter but there is Still Much Room to Reduce Inequalities preliminary." Another way to approach this issue is to look to see if, globally, there are patterns of differences in general mental ability by race within nations. This is clearly the case. East Asians, for example, tend to have above average general mental ability scores in virtually every country in which they inhabit. Still another method is to see if group differences in measures of intelligence, so defined, correlate with the genetic loadedness of a tests -- that is, if racial differences are larger on more genetically -- and less environmentally -- conditioned tests. This has been found to be the case. See, for example: Dragt, J. (2010). Causes of group differences studied with the method of correlated vectors: A psychometric meta-analysis of Spearman’s hypothesis. These three lines of evidence (1) the correlation between global differences in measures of intelligence and genes, (2) the (relatively) consistent finding of intra-national differences in intelligence by regional ancestry, and (3) the finding that racial/ethnic differences are largest on the more genetically conditioned measures point to genetically mediated differences in mean general mental ability between individuals of differences regional ancestry. This conclusion, of course, might not hold if you define "intelligence" and "race" in a manner other than I have.
Name one thing Africans have invented without Googling it. You can't, huh? And how come African countries are always starving, while whites and Some Asians are not? These findings may hurt your bleeding hearts, but it is foolish to turn away facts because they make you think politically incorrect things.
We can place the "blame" for every racial difference but intelligence, on human evolution. Skin color, hair color, susceptibility to disease, athletic ability and many other differences are conclusively genetic. Why not different intelligences. Environmental, cultural and economic circumstances are nothing more than environmental conditions for evolution. I am white and my wife is Hispanic and we have no problem discussing this at length. If we are talking just on averages there are serious differences in races. Ashkenazi Jews are better at math and sub saharan Africans are stronger and faster. Get over it. This is not because their parents gave one kid a book and one kid a ball. Well maybe thousands of years ago.
From what I've been able to research and my personal experience, it seems intelligence is inheritable to a high degree, and different populations get different average scores in IQ tests, and show different levels of achievement in intellectual endeavors. One of course can't deny the environmental factor, but this is always accounted for in serious studies (they study adopted children, families with same education and income levels, groups of 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, etc.)., which show that the differences in achievements and scores have to a considerable extent a genetic origin.
The relevance of this knowledge is that some people should stop pushing their racial fetishism to force egalitarian settings wherever they go. Irrespective of how one relate to each individual, groups have differences, and we must accept this reality.
Anyone denying the clear and age old observation that a five year old can plainly notice, is doing so out of a worldview agenda or emotional bias. They can't possibly, or refuse to conceive that people might have different traits extending beyond the physical and into the mental. Race doesn't fully determine a person, but it IS a general blueprint.
Even culture free testing shows correlation between IQ and race. Reasons vary - societal well being is an indicator of the populations' successful solving of various existential problems - it seems to me to be a product of good choices - intelligent decisions - higher mental functioning. There will be exceptions to this but in general I think this will hold true - that better cognitive function will be indicated in the society successfully functioning - the wellness factor - not one thing, many things.
I don't fully understand the controversy over race and intelligence, it is a fact that black people in developed countries have an average IQ about one standard deviation below white people, East Asians score higher than whites, while Ashkenazi Jews score highest in IQ tests. One can certainly argue that some of the racial IQ gaps are due to environmental factors, I would tend to agree. However, environmental factors simply do not explain the large gaps in racial IQ's.
For a good entry into the mountain of scientific evidence see the Jensen and Rushton review article -- endless citations of careful scientific studies with the same conclusion. The arguments against are weak and overtly or covertly political. The best solution is to speak and write honestly about it, but with appropriate concern for social policies in the interests of all.
It is ridiculous to continue arguing about this. There is only one set of arguments on the anti side, and those derive from a particular set of political stances that have sought to reengineer society from an idealist, mythological, anti-science standpoint. This 20th century Victorianism is ruining the lives of children of both intelligent and low-intelligence families by pretending there is some median to which everyone can be forced to breed or perform. The hatred of meritocracy and jealously of excellence informs the hatred of all research showing that various forms of intelligence are genetically determined/heritable and shaped by evolution. I find it funny that the same people who have no trouble saying that blacks are better at basketball will silence anyone who points out that Asians and whites are better at math and engineering.
It has nothing to do with race. Those who are bashing African people, know this: The Greeks, Romans, Persian, etc went to Kemet, Nubia,and Abyssinia to learn. Greek philosophy is African philosophy. Moreover, the Moors taught West Europeans math, science, and literature, and built monuments there. This alone negates your racism.
There is absolutely no relation between race and intelligence. I wholeheartedly disagree with those who say that those races that grow up in poor economic situations prove that there is; race is not a "condition". Race is inherent, and has nothing to do with someone's intelligence. In fact, I would argue that it takes more intelligence to persevere in those poor conditions than it does in our own.
I do not believe that there is a connection between race and intelligence. A person is not going to be smarter than everyone else just because of their race or skin color. However, I do believe there is a connection between the way one is raised and intelligence. Some cultures push education harder on the students than others do.
Ridiculous. Aside from the mostly racist attribution of cultural values such as intelligence to physical traits such as pigmentation or demographic differences, the statement itself makes too many assumptions about the nature of intelligence to be provable.
Human intelligence is not quantifiable. Intelligence is a mix of perception, wit, creativity and memory upon which cultural values such as intelligence quotient shed little light.
The question assumes that intelligence is a heritable trait and genetically based, for which there is little evidence. Many of the smartest people have stupid children and vice-versa. Look at how few great thinkers had children who were themselves great thinkers.
We can see that intelligence is relative to age and stimulus. Most great scientists or writers will affirm significant differences in their intellectual capacity over time, with highs and lows. Many geniuses were evaluated as mentally disabled in their youth. At what point in a life do we start assigning values? Is there any test that can assign a number to so many subjective variables? Think of all the cultural biases that go into any test: literacy, language differences, class and cultural assumptions. The question itself contains too many biases to be answered in the affirmative.
Your race doesn't have any effect in your intelligence, but your environment does. For example, an Asian child might be raised under a strict and disciplinary environment, making him academically gifted, as is what happens to most Asian kids. But, this can also happen in a white community where a white child is raised under strict environment. Each race has a different way of raising children, therefore their children have different levels of intelligence.
Race does not exist as a physical concept; there is not biological difference between an African person and an Asian. There is however a huge cultural difference between people from those races, in that some parts of the world are much less well of and often don’t have access to basic education. The rampant corruption that plagues many states also be a factor in creating this:
CORROLATION, assuming that a correlation means that there is some sort of causation is a logical fallacy. After all the cockerel crowing precedes the sun rising. Therefore one may draw the conclusion that the cockerel crowing CAUSES the sun to rise. This is clearly false as is any attempt to link race to intelligence.
Intelligence is given in two ways the motivation to study and learn or raw talent which you can be born with your race will never have anything to do with your intelligence for as long as you live because it doesn't matter about where you come from and how you look it only matters about how you choose wok and in time gain the knowledge.
According to the Human Genome Project, there is no such thing as race in the biological, physiological sense of the word. Hence, the question becomes, what factors do affect the outcome of intelligence testing that "appear" to be related to so-called racial patterns? The answer can be found in cultural, geographical, and social factors that do have consistency among homo sapiens.
Destiny is what the individual makes it. Anyone that chooses not to understand this concept isn't very smart. Also, people clinging to the idea of "race" is also delusional,as race is a social construct. Last I checked, scientifically, there is only one race on earth. I imagine most commenting on this are Americans, mostly from the United States.
Human brains learn from experience the moment they are born. That means: Your environment shapes you. Race used to be used for a clue to your environment. But we now live in a world where races are blended. Therefore, race is now irrelevant and demographic region is a more important clue to intelligence.