Race And Intelligence Isn't Black And White. Its Invisible.

Somehow I managed to come across this article which attempts to debunk the myth of race and intelligence. On some levels, it is good - but not being 'black' or 'white' or a 'mixture of black and white', there are a few things I want to point out.

First of all, the world is apparently not made up of black and white people. The author of the article gives indications of grey, but there is much more than that. Are Chinese people black? Are they white? What about Japanese? Indian? Native American? I could go on, but... the point should be pressed home by now.

Next, intelligence measurements are arguable. They are debatable. They are flawed. Don't whisper that to an elitist member of Mensa¹.

Further, intelligence has not been demonstrated to be hereditary.

And even further, the types of intelligence have expanded and will probably continue expanding. Anything we 'know' about intelligence is based on statistics created by people who are interested in intelligence. Intelligence isn't a score, just as voting isn't democracy. Think about it.

Next, race hasn't been linked to DNA. You can take DNA from any number of subjects, but you won't be able to figure out their race unless you follow the time honored tradition of looking at them.

Next up - intelligence has not been found in DNA. It is not hereditary, though it is sometimes thought to be an indicator.

And, for those people who I have bumped into through my life - race isn't something which should be confused with nationality ('Mexican' is not a race, and neither is 'redneck'), culture, etc. Race, by itself, is becoming less and less prominent as the human race continues to do what it is best at: screwing each other.

The whole issue of race and intelligence is foolish. Neither race nor intelligence has much of a verifiable scientific basis. Trends support themselves. 'I like oranges because I eat them'. 'People who score well on IQ tests are intelligent'. Thats why people are studying to ace IQ tests. Its not a competition, folks.

All individuals differ. Vary.

Don't people have toothpicks or matches to count? It seems that it is as valuable an exercise as debating topics built on sand. And if they really want to, they can argue over the numbers that they got. At least that can be verified.

¹ I specified 'elitist member' because I am sure that there are non-elitist members. I simply have not met one in two decades of being asked to join.