GoldenxChild1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2021
- Messages
- 1,576
Formatting Corrected.
Whether or not IQ scores differ between ethnicities due to socioeconomic influence or genetic advantages is up for debate. Based on the available evidence, it is proven that racial hereditary advantages place those we generally call "whites" ahead of all other people by around 10-15 points on average, depending on the group tested and the IQ scale used (334). However, and alternatively, some argue this disparity could be caused by the environment in which "minority" groups have been brought up, in contrast to the typical upbringing of middle-class whites with access to finer social services (336). The controversy of "Nature vs. Nurture" can be reconciled if we acknowledge the imbalance of comparison while multiculturalism is prevailing throughout the land in which the argument is taking place, for judging the foreigner out of his own elemental setting is like spectating a fish trying to flap its fins to fly with birds that soar above the sea.
It is currently admitted that races who live in western countries that they are not historically from and are dominated by European stock are at a disadvantage on a socioeconomic level:
There is no question that, on the average, whites and minorities tend to be raised in very different circumstances. Most minority groups have endured a long history of economic discrimination and are greatly overrepresented in the lower social classes. A lower-class upbringing tends to carry a number of disadvantages that work against the development of a youngster’s full intellectual potential (Bigelow, 2006; Dupere et al., 2010; Evans, 2004; Noble, McCandliss, & Farah, 2007; Yoshikawa, Aber, & Beardslee, 2012). In comparison with children from the middle and upper classes, lower-class children tend to be exposed to fewer books, to have fewer learning supplies and less access to computers, to have less privacy for concentrated study, and to get less parental assistance in learning. (336)
Now, although this text appears to discredit genetic variations in intelligence, it supports the difficulties in raising other races in originally white cultured land. Furthermore, and to be critical, they say that these minorities are at a disadvantage because of X, Y, and Z, but it could be argued these handicaps are correlated with the supposition of lower intelligence, which would mean they created their own social status and then used their own creation as a compensation. Following this, is it probable that other races perform better within their own cultural context?
Molly Mcanus, a PhD student in educational psychology at the time of 2016, has inadvertently attested to minority groups performing poorly academically due to their separation from their homeland. McManus writes “We know that poverty, language barriers and low levels of preschool enrollment contribute to poor academic performance.” and more revealing, “Immigrant students are also affected by a rarely acknowledged but equally important factor: the receptiveness of their host country’s education system, also known as the “context of reception.” Now, what is “context of reception”? Well, it is described as follows by Bing AI:
Context of reception refers to the social, historical, and cultural conditions in which a text is responded to12. It considers elements such as the reader’s or viewer’s background, the dominant ideas and attitudes of the time, current world issues, the reader’s knowledge of the subject matter or setting within the text, and so on1.
In other words, academia is unable to accommodate the ethnocultural differences in educational delivery, which, in the west, is suited for those predominantly of Aryan ancestry.
Regarding intelligence, let us look at an example of problem solving among different countries:
Do the varied experiences of people from different cultures lead to cross-cultural variations in problem solving? Yes, at least to some degree. Researchers have found cultural differences in the cognitive style people exhibit in solving problems (Cole & Packer, 2011). Richard Nisbett and his colleagues (Nisbett, 2016; Nisbett et al., 2001; Nisbett & Miyamoto, 2005) argue that people from Eastern Asian cultures (such as China, Japan, and Korea) display a holistic cognitive style that focuses on context and relationships among elements, whereas people from Western cultures (North America and Europe) exhibit an analytic cognitive style that focuses on objects and their properties rather than context. To put it simply, Easterners see wholes where Westerners see parts. (296)
So, without straying off topic too much, whoever can master both cognitive styles would have superior intelligence overall, and looking at the migration of who we call Aryans, this is why we typically perform well either way. Anyway, to others, this poses a great challenge to the development of the intellect and intelligence, seeing that they are attempting to learn styles of education that are meant for the white race. Furthermore, genetic heritability is undeniable, as is debated and conceded, but to give an example:
At the high end, a few theorists, such as Arthur Jensen (1980, 1998), maintain that the heritability of IQ ranges as high as 80 percent (Bouchard, 2004). That is, they believe that only about 20 percent of the variation in intelligence is attributable to environmental factors. Estimates at the low end of the spectrum suggest that the heritability of intelligence is around 40 percent (Plomin, 2003), which means 60 percent would be attributable to environmental factors. In recent years, the consensus estimates of the experts tend to hover around 50 percent (Petrill, 2005; Plomin & Spinath, 2004). (332)
Clearly, this discourse will be ongoing until an acknowledgement that multiculturalism negatively impacts both genetic inheritance and social & environmental growth.
Conclusively, both nature and nurture jointly influence intelligence, and these factors are aggravated by the modern "diversification" that we all know of. If all people returned to their native cultural context, they would more than likely begin to naturally excel within their own parameters. What’s more, the testing of intelligence based on the evolution of the IQ test has always been assembled by the white race for the white race. So, naturally, and aside from Asiatic mental ability, most other races perform below the average of what is coined "above average", which is an IQ around 110-120. However, if given the chance, alternative tests native to a particular race would help show the accuracy of intelligence measurements. Therefore, multiculturalism implies itself as a detriment to the poor differences between whites and all others.
WORK CITED
Weiten/McCann, Psychology: Themes and Variations. Available from: VitalSource Bookshelf, (5th Edition). Cengage Learning Canada Inc., 2018.
McManus, Molly. “Here’s Why Immigrant Students Perform Poorly.” The Conversation, 29 Jan. 2016, theconversation.com/heres-why-immigrant-students-perform-poorly-52568.
Whether or not IQ scores differ between ethnicities due to socioeconomic influence or genetic advantages is up for debate. Based on the available evidence, it is proven that racial hereditary advantages place those we generally call "whites" ahead of all other people by around 10-15 points on average, depending on the group tested and the IQ scale used (334). However, and alternatively, some argue this disparity could be caused by the environment in which "minority" groups have been brought up, in contrast to the typical upbringing of middle-class whites with access to finer social services (336). The controversy of "Nature vs. Nurture" can be reconciled if we acknowledge the imbalance of comparison while multiculturalism is prevailing throughout the land in which the argument is taking place, for judging the foreigner out of his own elemental setting is like spectating a fish trying to flap its fins to fly with birds that soar above the sea.
It is currently admitted that races who live in western countries that they are not historically from and are dominated by European stock are at a disadvantage on a socioeconomic level:
There is no question that, on the average, whites and minorities tend to be raised in very different circumstances. Most minority groups have endured a long history of economic discrimination and are greatly overrepresented in the lower social classes. A lower-class upbringing tends to carry a number of disadvantages that work against the development of a youngster’s full intellectual potential (Bigelow, 2006; Dupere et al., 2010; Evans, 2004; Noble, McCandliss, & Farah, 2007; Yoshikawa, Aber, & Beardslee, 2012). In comparison with children from the middle and upper classes, lower-class children tend to be exposed to fewer books, to have fewer learning supplies and less access to computers, to have less privacy for concentrated study, and to get less parental assistance in learning. (336)
Now, although this text appears to discredit genetic variations in intelligence, it supports the difficulties in raising other races in originally white cultured land. Furthermore, and to be critical, they say that these minorities are at a disadvantage because of X, Y, and Z, but it could be argued these handicaps are correlated with the supposition of lower intelligence, which would mean they created their own social status and then used their own creation as a compensation. Following this, is it probable that other races perform better within their own cultural context?
Molly Mcanus, a PhD student in educational psychology at the time of 2016, has inadvertently attested to minority groups performing poorly academically due to their separation from their homeland. McManus writes “We know that poverty, language barriers and low levels of preschool enrollment contribute to poor academic performance.” and more revealing, “Immigrant students are also affected by a rarely acknowledged but equally important factor: the receptiveness of their host country’s education system, also known as the “context of reception.” Now, what is “context of reception”? Well, it is described as follows by Bing AI:
Context of reception refers to the social, historical, and cultural conditions in which a text is responded to12. It considers elements such as the reader’s or viewer’s background, the dominant ideas and attitudes of the time, current world issues, the reader’s knowledge of the subject matter or setting within the text, and so on1.
In other words, academia is unable to accommodate the ethnocultural differences in educational delivery, which, in the west, is suited for those predominantly of Aryan ancestry.
Regarding intelligence, let us look at an example of problem solving among different countries:
Do the varied experiences of people from different cultures lead to cross-cultural variations in problem solving? Yes, at least to some degree. Researchers have found cultural differences in the cognitive style people exhibit in solving problems (Cole & Packer, 2011). Richard Nisbett and his colleagues (Nisbett, 2016; Nisbett et al., 2001; Nisbett & Miyamoto, 2005) argue that people from Eastern Asian cultures (such as China, Japan, and Korea) display a holistic cognitive style that focuses on context and relationships among elements, whereas people from Western cultures (North America and Europe) exhibit an analytic cognitive style that focuses on objects and their properties rather than context. To put it simply, Easterners see wholes where Westerners see parts. (296)
So, without straying off topic too much, whoever can master both cognitive styles would have superior intelligence overall, and looking at the migration of who we call Aryans, this is why we typically perform well either way. Anyway, to others, this poses a great challenge to the development of the intellect and intelligence, seeing that they are attempting to learn styles of education that are meant for the white race. Furthermore, genetic heritability is undeniable, as is debated and conceded, but to give an example:
At the high end, a few theorists, such as Arthur Jensen (1980, 1998), maintain that the heritability of IQ ranges as high as 80 percent (Bouchard, 2004). That is, they believe that only about 20 percent of the variation in intelligence is attributable to environmental factors. Estimates at the low end of the spectrum suggest that the heritability of intelligence is around 40 percent (Plomin, 2003), which means 60 percent would be attributable to environmental factors. In recent years, the consensus estimates of the experts tend to hover around 50 percent (Petrill, 2005; Plomin & Spinath, 2004). (332)
Clearly, this discourse will be ongoing until an acknowledgement that multiculturalism negatively impacts both genetic inheritance and social & environmental growth.
Conclusively, both nature and nurture jointly influence intelligence, and these factors are aggravated by the modern "diversification" that we all know of. If all people returned to their native cultural context, they would more than likely begin to naturally excel within their own parameters. What’s more, the testing of intelligence based on the evolution of the IQ test has always been assembled by the white race for the white race. So, naturally, and aside from Asiatic mental ability, most other races perform below the average of what is coined "above average", which is an IQ around 110-120. However, if given the chance, alternative tests native to a particular race would help show the accuracy of intelligence measurements. Therefore, multiculturalism implies itself as a detriment to the poor differences between whites and all others.
WORK CITED
Weiten/McCann, Psychology: Themes and Variations. Available from: VitalSource Bookshelf, (5th Edition). Cengage Learning Canada Inc., 2018.
McManus, Molly. “Here’s Why Immigrant Students Perform Poorly.” The Conversation, 29 Jan. 2016, theconversation.com/heres-why-immigrant-students-perform-poorly-52568.
