Untangling the Relationship Between Race and Intelligence

As scientists continue to their research, fundamental questions about intelligence are brought to the surface.

To many people across a variety of different nationalities and cultures, race has been proven to be a key factor for how society views you in the eyes of those who are prominently in charge. The term race has been brought up in recent years, to be considered a form of identification, as the word race is used to describe physical characteristics such as a person’s color of skin, hair, and eyes. When in reality, the correct term they should be using is Ethnicity. As a result, the term race is used to separate people into sub-categories based on the color of their skin. This type of classification, is a man-made creation used by society to classify certain groups of people into lower classes, while keeping the predominate group in charge at the top.

Humans define race by how they conceive and categorize different social realities. Thus, race is often referred to as a social construct. The differences in skin color and facial characteristics have led most of society to classify humans into groups instead of individuals. These constructs affect us all, and they often result in situations where majority racial groups cause undue suffering to those that are part of the minority. The understanding of race as a social construct is best illustrated by the examination of racial issues within our own culture, specifically those that have plagued the history of the United States.

The interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply

Race is a hot topic in our world. We all think we know what race is. After all, we are constantly being bombarded with it whether it be from media, politics, or sports. The truth is that race does not revolve around the idea of biological traits or characteristics. It is a modern concept that we as a society have created to divide people into categories. I will argue that race is socially constructed from a biological, political history, and sociological standpoint, and how it may impact other areas of our society.

Socio-cultural definitions of race are created by society as a tool to further economic goals. The development of

For that reason, professor Cohen also states that race does not control behavior like people say it does. He explains that race does not correlate to genes or skin color that control differences in “behavior of intelligence among human groups.” He then talks about culture and the way it works. In the article, it mentions that culture structures “our behavior, thoughts, perceptions, values, goals and cognitive processes.” Professor Cohen also says that students should be taught about significance of culture and revive the anthropological concept of “cultural relativism.” He claims that relativism means that people must look at what other people are doing and try to comprehend their behavior towards it before we judge it. The article concludes that teaching race in the form of “biological variation” results in the promotion of racism than when you teach it in the “cultural relativism” form.

One of the most prevalent themes throughout the world’s history is the dispute over race and racial differences. But, there is a problem: the majority of the population doesn’t have a clear understanding of what race is. Race is a socially constructed grouping of people that was created in order for people to differentiate themselves from one another and has many sources of influence. While most people believe race is determined by biological characteristics (hair type, skin color, eye shape, etc.), this is not true. To make things more complicated, there is no cut and dry definition to race. Authors of Race and Ethnicity in Society, Elizabeth Higginbotham and Margret Anderson, claim that there are seven different distinct ways to define race. They begin with the popular belief of biological characteristics, and, as mentioned before, through social construction. They go on to note that race can be formed from an ethnic group, from social class rank, from racial formation by institutions, and also can form from one’s self-definition (Higginbotham & Anderson, 2012, p. 13). All of these ways to define race have been seen throughout our history, and many of them have caused problems for minorities, especially in the United States.

Labeling bias exists when a test claims to measure one thing but actually measures something else. Tests that claim to assess such traits as “aptitude” or “intelligence” imply that they are measuring something innate, given that many people assume that these traits are genetic. However, Jencks notes that “almost all psychologists now agree that while an individual’s score on an intelligence or aptitude test depends partly on his or her genetic makeup, it also reflects a multitude of environmental influences” (p. 56). Thus, such tests are racially biased estimates of the innate traits that most laypeople think these tests are purporting to evaluate. Fortunately, this bias can be eliminated by simply changing the names of what these tests claim to measure.

The first article “Myth of Race” focuses on the key points of stating why we are categorized by certain actions based on our race. Harrington explains how wrong he feels about human race today see the division of people into races as part of human personality and lifestyle (518). Harrington defines the division as a myth of assumption that people define specific traits that defer each race from the other with overlap through family member’s personality. Defines these racial groups as clusters that overlap into different ways and inbreeding wont necessary turn out negative. This barrier of thinking have been broken

In common sense thought, race is simply a fact: humans are not all alike, there are whites, blacks and yellows, maybe reds and browns too, and these different kinds are races, and that's just a feature of the way the world is. However, recent work on the concept of "race" shows that "race" and "race"-talk can be understood by analogy to what Foucault suggests about psychiatry and mental illness coming into being together: (1) it is now beginning to appear than "race" and racism came into existence together as well. It is racism that has made talk of race something that we can take seriously. A statement attributing intelligence or laziness to a person on the basis of her/ his skin color, can only be judged true if there are resources in

To briefly review, the popular account represents race as something fundamental, immutable, and scietifically proven. By extension, differences between races are perceived as ineradicable and impossible to overcome. This notion of permanent difference lends itself very easily to racially othering difference races and overlooking commonalities shared with people outside one’s own racial group. Racial thinking creates a moral distance between different races because it prevents what Blum calls “a lived sense of the moral unity of humankind. ”(103)

There was a cartoon showing different animals, including an elephant, fish, seal, and monkey, lined up by a tree in front of a man behind a desk. The man said he was going to make a fair selection by giving them all the same test. The test was that they all had to climb the tree. In this case, the monkey probably was the only one that thought the test was fair. Welcome to the controversy over IQ (Intelligent Quotient) tests and cultural diversity.

This psychological term relates to an action taken to explain a viewpoint surrounding racial hierarchy in intelligence. This is done by exploitation of scientific principles and techniques in order to explain the inferiority and supremacy in racial intelligence. From the results of the ‘army tests programme Yerks was aware of other compelling and rational explanations of the evidence from his research pointing in the other directions. However, he took an option to manipulate findings of his study to give evidence that scientifically supported the “racist and anti-immigration oratory which was embraced those days.

Due to scientist’s interest in human genetic variation, human racial classification became a focus of scientific investigation by evolutionary biologists attempting to categorize individual humans based on presumed patterns of biological difference. Scientists had hoped to classify humans in the same way that they classified other species. These scientists attached hierarchical titles to these categorizations; they claimed that differences in skin color, physiognomy, and geography were associated with scientifically measurable differences in character, aptitude, and temperament (Smedley, 1998). However, studies supporting these claims have been unsound (Gould, 1981). Categorization of humans by racial and ethnic groups continues, as researchers must remain aware of this historical legacy of the science of heredity as the genomic era continues to develop (Bonham et al., 2005).