are their any differences in intelligence or skill levels between different races genetically?

Question

this is a serious question, there are clear physical differences suck as features on face and skin colour.

meant to say such as^

thats my point, whether sports or other qualities, races have different body types for different things. so my question still remains

yes mike h

Answer 1

Extremely difficult to say. If I argue "yes" many would assume I have a racist bias, if I argue "no" many would assume I have a political-correct bias. In fact, I suspect most "scientific evidence" for either point to have such a bias.

As a geneticist, I would say that it is not very plausible. Maybe some isolated tribes on New Guinea or the Nicobars differ so much from the rest of mankind in their genetic makeup that one could imagine that they were significantly more or less intelligent than the rest of us. But for the rest of mankind, we are so inbred and the "races" so blurred that it doesn't make much sense. This is particularly true in the U.S. where the labels "black" and "white" are rather arbitrary from a genetically point of view.

On the other hand, a lot of evidence suggest correlation between skin color and other "racial" markers and I.Q. While none of that evidence is entirely free of uncontrolled con-founders, it does seem implausible that ALL of this evidence is invalid.

So we are left with a paradox. Maybe a large portion of I.Q. can be attributed to a single gene, that would make a correlation with "race" more plausible. Maybe the explanation is an artifact of the way I.Q. is measured - some researchers reported that they could improve the IQ measurements of "black" subjects by probing them with positive "black" stereotypes just before the test.

Anyway, I think we will be able to answer your question in a few years. Research in brain development and genetics is very fast. As soon as a sufficient number of genetic markers have been found to account for the part of IQ that is already known to be genetically determined, someone will publish an overview of the frequencies of those markers in different "races".

But beware: even if (and I say IF) such correlation will be found, it is unlikely to explain a substantial part of the variance in IQ. Most genetic variance is between individuals rather than between "races".

Answer 2

The true answer, shorn of ideology, is that we do not know. There is a difference in mean IQ scores, but the cause is still being debated. To come down on one side of this issue, or the other, is more social science, than science. Whether it has something to do with genetics remains to be seen. The upside of this controversy is that IQ tests are now culturally as neutral as we can make them, especially the G laden portions. And still there is unexplained variance. I think the problem needs to be taken away from social scientists, as they muddy the issue with their ideology. We need a scientific answer here, so that the problem can be addressed; not obscured by social science twaddle.

Answer 3

The answer is no. This is based on biological evidence. I recommend reading Jared Diamond's book called Guns, Germs, and Steel. In this book, he talks about why so-called backwards people (e.g. tribes in Africa) seem to not have advanced as quickly as others (e.g. Europe). The reason is not intelligence at all, despite what certain racist people may feel. Simply, some people developed in countries where there were better resources (e.g. metals for making tools), wilds foods and animals for domestication, and better climate. Putting all these factors together (and some other things as well), some races pulled ahead of others and had a distinct advantage in technology and farming. Given the opportunity, those that did not have the same advantages quickly adopted to them if they became available (e.g. certain animals for domestication), showing that intelligence played no role.

It's a complicated answer, and I'm leaving out a lot of detail. I'm sure you can get a good synopsis of the book if you look online.

Answer 4

LOL. What came first the egg or the chicken... Are genes necessarily a sole result of prior genetic mutation or replication or can it be argued that genes are, to an extent, influenced by external stimuli? I.e. maybe people "become" intelligent because of some external stimulus (such as a good father) and their genes develop accordingly... Then they pass on those genes to their kids who may or may not retain same according to their experiences...Further, maybe those socially acquired "good" genes define what social group you belong too (i.e. liberal, conservative, artists, hoodlums, trailer trash, Ms. Universe, Princeton Alumni, etc.)... If such were the case, then some people would claim that certain genes predispose people to some result.. Whereas in reality the result predisposes people to some gene... A possibility? To all those budding scientists who say no, you need to open your mind further - wouldn't want to be the next Einstein with a "cosmological constant" blunder..

Answer 5

Intelligence and skill, no.

Somethings that are different though, are the robustness and physical abilities of the person.

I'm not trying to be racist, but this is the way it is (in a nutshell):

******* people are generally larger and more muscular.
Asian people tend to be shorter, smaller.
Caucasian people are taller than Asian, shorter than *******, Stronger than Asian, but weaker than *******.

However, as I'm sure you probably know, people of certain races tend to group together. These groupings of people would have different cultures than other races. The cultures these people are in may affect their intelligence or skills.

For example (hypothetical): A tribe in Africa, which would be full of ******* people, may develop incredible hunting skills, and would be able to do many things with their hands skillfully, like weaving fabric, building things, etc.

However, another culture like an Asian culture (hypothetical) may focus more on intelligence, and intelligence may affect your social status. In this situation, the Asian people would strive for intelligence, in which case they may be more "intelligent" than the tribe in Africa.

This is all based on culture, not race. It could be the other way around.

Answer 6

I honestly don't think so. But you have to come up with a definition of intelligence and there isn't any one definition. Genetically speaking there aren't enough differences between the races to make a lot of difference. Culturally speaking the differences are dramatic.

Answer 7

Genetically, no.

Testing children of different cultures can show some surprising results. For instance, children of Australian Aboriginals have an extraordinary spacial memory, higher than anyone else tested, while their verbal skills in english come up as "below average". It really depends on what we are looking for, who we are looking at & how the looking is done.

;-)

Answer 8

i really do think so. i refuse to believe that its only coincidence that people of african descent make "better" athletes, just look at olympic records. some of it does have to do with cultural conditioning as well, but i am sure genetics does play a role.

i really do think that this is a good question, although the majority of users are going to misinterpret your intentions, and im probably going to get blackballed as well.

Answer 9

NO

Race is a political concept, not a biological one.

The only differences between the population groups commonly known as "races" are minor skin color, eye shape and hair texture differences.