Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 26 Sep 1992 13:49:30 CDT
From: <U58402@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Is it in the Genes?

In article <1992Sep26.032712.15431@seas.gwu.edu>, claypool@seas.gwu.edu (Hyok H.
Lee) says:

>I read an article in "Runners World" magazine that reported that
>statistically, blacks (of western African origins) tend to have higher
>percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers than whites.  Also, proportionally,
>blacks tended to have larger thighs, smaller calves and smaller trunks--
>all adding up to increased efficiency in running.
>
>Now if we apply the same logic to intelligence, could it be possible that
>a certain racial group could tend to be more intelligent?  It would seem
>really unfair if the blacks as a race were just as smart as us, would it
>not?  Think about it.  They're superior to us physically and they are just
>as smart.  It all has to even out somehow.

Wow....this has the potential to be real flamebait. I'll stick to
science, myself.

There is an unfair comparison being made here. In terms of muscle
function, the ratio of slow-twitch to fast twitch has an easily
demonstratable correlation to the performance parameters of muscle
(speed of contraction, maximum force generated, oxygen consumption,
tension maintenance). This can be demonstrated on anyone, by comparing
fast muscles (such as the soleus) to slow muscules (pectoralis). The
fast-twitch fiber/slow-twitch fiber ratios are reversed. It should also
be pointed out that a muscle can be converted from fast to slow and
vice-versa by conditioning. If a slow muscle is stimulated so that it
contracts rapidly and repeatedly, it will convert to a fast muscle type.

Intelligence, on the other hand, has no such obvious physical basis. If
you compare neurons from a person with a 180 IQ to a person who has a
100 IQ, you will find that their neurons look indistinguishable. The
only genetic basis for impaired intelligence that has been found to date
is for those syndromes that result in retardation or dementia (Down's
syndrome, Alzheimer's, Huntington's). This is a profound difference
in intelligence from that of a normal person; more so than that
between, say, Jim Pak and Dan Quayle. Or maybe not :@)

What seems to be the major determining factor in determining the grade
of intelligence in an otherwise normal human is stimulation during the
learning years. Infants who receive little stimulation tend to be
withdrawn and lethargic compared to infants who receive a variety of
stimuli and human contact. In other words, your genes seem to play
a greater role in determining whether you will be retarded due to
some sort of pathology, but your environment plays the major role
in determining whether you go to Harvard or Indiana University for
law school.

As far as Asian-Americans go, Asian culture places a high value on
education and schooling. So, it would be expected that AAs, who at
this point in US history have immigrant parents, would be raised
with an emphasis on education. Compare this to the rest of the US,
where intelligence is often an attribute to be viewed with suspicion.
Often I hear on the news a reporter conducting a "non-scientific" test
or survey, as if the term "non-scientific" lended additional validity
to the point being reported.

>I see intelligence as something physical.  If you perform a lobotomy on
>someone, then that person is going to lose some cognitive function.
>Therefore I ask: if one race is taller than another, why can't one race be
>more intelligent than another?  And by intelligence, I'm strictly speaking
>of academics.  I'm not taking into account creativity, determination, or
>other factor that cannot readily be measured.

There is a possible physical basis for intelligence -- the number of
synapses formed between neurons. However, this is almost completely
due to environmental factors and not to a genetic predisposition
toward synapse formation.

>Ignore your natural tendency to discount this question, even though it has
>been drilled into your head by the "system" and the media that all humans
>are the same.  Dig deep and give me your brutally honest response.

Well, this is the best response I can give from a biomedical point of view.

Wilbur Pan
(aka u58402@uicvm.uic.edu
 at the ever so friendly and personal univ. of ill. at chicago)