Ethnic Traits

Post Reply New Topic

If there are differences in physical traits, why wouldn't there be differences in temperament and intelligence as well? More importantly, why does this question bother people?

It's a fact that geniuses are more commonly Jewish than any other race so why wouldn't there be some variation between the other sects of people. More importantly, why does this fact bother people?

Why would there be? Let us take your physical stereotype, blacks are more agile than other races. I do not think this is true, but I will imageine for a moment that it is. Let us say the olympics and professional sports industry both have a history of blacks being more agile than other races, leading one to conclude this is a physical ethinic trait based on factual evidence. Would you then jump to what you see as the next logical step...blacks are genetically inclined to be more likely to posess the personality traits needed to have the dedication and commitment level to become a world class athlete? I am not sure it does. I think what bothers me is you say it must be true, but are using examples which in no way support your claims.

Is this a fact based on genetics, or might it be importance of education in their culture, or is it your own observations, like agile blacks and bad driving chineese? Again, I am not sure it does.

I must be delusional then. Chinese people are excellent drivers but my delusional mind only sees the bad ones. Black people are not more athletically inclined than white people? I could swear that I witnessed more agile blacks than whites. Thank you Claire for reminding me that if something is not documented in a textbook as being factual, then it must not be true.

Because variation is an effect of causes and the causes of variation do not necessarily effect temperament and intelligence in the same way they do morphological features.

If there is a range of human temperamental and intellectual variance, and this range is more advantageous than an alternative or smaller range, then how would selective forces act on this variance to produce variation between populations?
Why does it not bother people? Why do some people like tomatoes and other people hate them? Why do birds suddenly appear every time you are near?


Is it a fact? I find it difficult to believe that such a thing can be plausibly tested.

Why does it bother you that it is currently impossible to establish what if any influence biological ethnicity has on temperament or intelligence?

pandd wrote:

Because it's not impossible. They do it all the time in zoology. Pick up a dog encyclopedia and see how "racist" it is. It's understood by the reader that not all dogs fit into a stereotypical mode, but when it comes to humans there is a taboo on admitting that a person can see differences in ethnic traits.

It is by any ethical means.

You might be prepared to take newborn infants and place them in a lab for your experimentation but this is not deemed an acceptable practice in many modern societies, and I do not know that academic research is a huge priority in any society where such conduct is currently lawful.

They attempt it all the time in zoology, and these things can be (and are) contested for decades on end. For goodness sake even now some zoologists would still deny that any non-human uses tools.


Dogs have been selectively bred by humans in a manner not consistent with environmental selection. Not only does this produce more marked and distinctively distributed differences, but it also facilitates prediction and influences social conditioning and interpretation of behavior. Even with all these factors in favour of being able to link lineage with behavior, it is still not uncommon for dogs to not fit their lineage-stereotype in "temperament" or "intelligence".

There is no reason to suppose that selective forces effecting humans would produce lineage-linked temperament/intelligence traits to even the extent seen with dogs, and in fact good cause to believe the contrary.


So you keep arguing, but you began by saying the taboo was evident in that these things are not studied/researched and investigated, but they are, and you insist that research with better results is plausible but have not suggested any practical means of achieving this, merely pointing out that in zoology there has been some limited success in linking lineage to some observable traits, with a failure to achieve 100% concordance. .

There is a taboo against stripping newborn humans of their families, and placing them in a controlled laboratory setting so we can control cultural variables in order to test whether traits produced in their cultured ethnic counterparts are innately temperamental, or culturally produced. As frustrating as this limit on the pursuit of knowledge is, I cannot say this is a taboo I do not fully endorse.

Regression towards mediocrity topic:

We often forget that genius happens in the animal populations too. And that when we discuss genius in humans, we tend to mean it very narrowly. As in intelligence.

Which is dumb.

In a very real sense Hockey player Wayne Gretzky is a genius. His talent just manifests physically. There is very little evidence that his physique is atypical, thus lending him his prowess. Its probably safer to assume that hes neurologically talented instead.

You can also examine the story of the man who first ran a four minute mile, or the gentleman that first lifted 1000 pounds. Both of these limitations were impressed on the human physique by our perceptions. Especially in the case of the 1000+pound lift, the subject was fooled into exceeding his limits.

Whats the point? The point is that there is a much wider variation in neurological function in mammals than in physical traits. This is especially true of humans.

So to say that there is no significant mental differences between ethnic groups while likewise claiming that there are physical differences is just wrong headed.

And if you claim that there are no significant physical differences, well... I'm not going to call you any names, but.. look at the last 60 years in boxing. Lots of white champions, eh? No.

The real problem is that we define these mental traits too narrowly, and we are too close to the problem to quantify them. Its like a microscope trying to look at itself.

Documentation of animal genius is easily found. Temple Grandin speaks of it in her books, and of course there are many reports of it in canines, avians, cetaceans, and many other creatures.

But we are talking about wide neurological functional differences in a singular species, right? I'm dodging that question, aren't I?

Lets take Felis catus, the house cat. There is one recognized breed(which would be most analogous to ethnic group), the maine coon cat. These cats often eat with their paws. They scoop food out of the bowl and eat off the sole of their front paws. Besides being a generally large cat, there is no physiological difference from a regular house cat(the breed has almost no defining traits).

That is to say, they have no more flexibility than any other breed of cat. Their carpally assisted mastication is a matter of choice. They can eat whichever way pleases them. Because they probably learned it from their mother, its both a mark of intelligence and a socially learned habit. They are also noted for using their paws for other things, generally exceeding that of a common cat.

So here is the loaded question: are their any human social traits connected to ethnic groups that make them more successful than others? I posit two very strong measures for quantifying this: infant mortality rates and life expectancy.

But it does not follow that these variances would be between groups of humans rather than within them. All other primate social groups include more temperamental/intelligence variance between individuals within a common group than between groups as wholes.

No one is claiming there are no significant mental differences between ethnic groups, but that it is very difficult to differentiate between cultural factors and genetic, and that genetic differences (influencing temperament/intelligence) between "ethnic" groups are probably less significant and marked than in-group variance in such genetic characteristics, and that cultural factors probably play the greater part in producing "between group" behavioral/mental differences.

There are human social traits connected to social groups which have some but not perfect correlation (far from) with ethnic groups to some limited extent. So this makes the question somewhat ambiguous. A further problem is that a social trait in circumstance X Y Z may be better than another trait but worse in any other circumstance. There are a lot variables that influence the "success" of a particular trait.

But broadly speaking, it would be implausible to expect all social traits to always be equal but for the particularity of circumstance, and I would expect some social traits would be so broadly and spectacularly unsuccessful that it would be safe to say most other traits would be more successful in most if not all circumstances.



Infant mortality rates are influenced by variables beyond social traits, as are life expectancy so neither of these measures are appropriate.

In fact the notion that such differences can be best investigated at the "between group" level of difference, at this time, is misplaced.

Because we cannot control cultural variables, we need to be able to link temperament with genetic traits influencing temperament in individuals (regardless of group). Once we have identified any genetic correlations, then studying prevalence rates between groups is actually plausible.

Without this information (how DNA correlates to temperament/intelligence potential in an individual) we simply lack the means of usefully identifying what is the result of genetic influences and what is the result of other environmental influences, when looking at between group behavioral differences.

that's why

Well, after a while in the anthropology sector, i can at the very least say that our skulls aren't exactly the same.

I remember that europeans have something called a "prominent nasal spike" for instance, near the base of the nose...

The shape of the orbits also depends between black and whites... (i think .... need to recheck that)

And i reckon i read something about asians having incisors shaped for "digging" into fruits, which the rest of us don't have.

There also seems to be something about the level of the zygomatics (the cheeks or within that region) but that's as far as i can go =/

For the rest, we all have the Y-5 teeth pattern, the same dental pattern (2 incisors on each side, 1 canine, 2 premolars and 3 molars) , the same organs and limbs (with some variations <.< ).

I am not even sure how to respond...

I agree it not only takes physical talent, but also a certain personality type to have the drive to become a professional athlete. So which race would be the ones most likely to posess this personality type?
Well, I guess wrong headed might not be a first for me. I am willing to admit anything is possible, but still do not see how it could ever be proven. Diet, nurture, environment, and cultural pressure play such a large role in personal and intellectual development. The whole thing leaves me at a loss.

You may have to re-word this one for me. You seem to be confirming these things are cultural, which is very confusing.

Well it seems we are actually in agreement. Its just to darn hard to measure.



Done. Heart disease and type A personality. Positive correlation. And heart disease is heritable.

The sequencing of the human genome showed that there are not enough genes to account for much of a persons personality. So that leaves prenatal enzymes, environment and culture to shape these. And of course its tied to general intelligence.

Do any ethnic groups feature a higher than normal incidence of type A personality?

http://stress.about.com/od/understandin ... person.htm

Interestingly, that one varies.


emphasis added; click below for article
below for article

I also get that Alice in Wonderland feeling reading some of the things people say online about this sort of thing.
You’re not delusional. Racial and ethnic differences are real.



I won’t go into this in too much detail, but there are powerful people and groups in the West who, although they might sometimes have little else in common with each other, share the same interest in preventing the masses discussing racial differences lest the masses start asking awkward questions about the ongoing racial transformations of their societies. The masses then reinforce this taboo among themselves.

Bear in mind also that some of the people you might be discussing this subject with online might be ethnic minorities in their countries of residence. It would then be in their interests to persuade the people around them that ethnic differences are meaningless.

There are plenty of scientists who have written books and papers about ethnic differences, although it is the race-deniers like Gould and Lewontin who get all the publicity and most of the funding.
If you're interested, you might like to look into the work of people like like Richard Lynn, Linda Gottfredson, Arthur Jensen, J Philippe Rushton, Hans Eysenck, Chris Brand etc.

(For info - Hans Eysenck was an anti-Nazi with a Jewish stepfather, and he fled Nazi persecution. I notice that the Holocaust - which seems to crop up on every politics thread eventually - has been offered up on this thread as a reason not to inquire about racial differences.)

I can tell you that I find some races more sexually attractive. Slim white girls are perfect. Some asians are hot, but many are way too skinny. Black girls are way too masculine and their asses are enormous. None of them are remotely attractive. Some middle-eatern and Indian girls are alright too. I needed to tell this to someone.