Race and IQ

Dialog in the Eric Allen Bell Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=427595037318490&set=a.173793342698662.41960.173682399376423&type=1&theater

My answer to this question is:

"Intelligence" is considered by IQ tests as the ability to solving concrete problems. But there is another definition of intelligence, that is "expansion of perception." This is due to the coexistence of two minds: the thinking mind and the perceptive mind. So, a mad scientist could overcome these tests easily while living a crazy life, while the Buddha could fail on them although having the deepest wisdom of the world. So these tests are revealing that, on the one hand, we are not different from other animals and suffer the same pressures and evolutionary responses, but on the other hand, we also have to consider the existence of the other - non measurable - intelligence.

It is important to consider the following:
technological-concrete -practical intelligence becomes destructive if the other intelligence (the sensitive intelligence, perceptive) is not present .
That's the intelligence that Gautama Buddha and Jiddu Krishnamurti talked about

And that is exactly what is currently happening in the world.

Sensitive intelligence does not seem be hereditary and if it is, then heredity plays a minor role in it. A map of sensitive intelligence could be completely different from IQ maps, because among its qualities is the relationship a person has with nature. For example, India would have a "sensible quotient" very, very high compared to other countries.
And there would be many more surprises like this.


Interesting links:

Consanguinity and IQ

http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/all-i-want-for-christmas/

Several maps:

http://alfin2100.blogspot.com.ar/2010/06/there-is-no-cure-for-what-ails.html

Internet penetration

Development

IQ

IQ and GDB

The insensitivity to goodness

A "corzuela" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Brocket ) was attacked by dogs in my cottage of Cordoba. I could save her when she had surrendered to the bites of the pack, crying like a baby.

Take her out of the matted side of the stream was a job that took hours. 

For a few short breaks, my partner and I talked and stroked him. She was dying.

We feel her beauty first, then her goodness. A great goodness. She was pure goodness.

Then we continue with the battle against the tangle, crossing her, bloody, the creek, etc.

At one point, I remember some people who could help me, but I instantly also remembered that these are the same people that would go through all the trouble we were having, but ... to hunt her, so I rejected the idea.

When we reach the car, and while my partner had his head in her hands, his eyes turned dull, something leave ... and she died.

Later, a fact appeared in my mind that I had not previously seen at this depth:

People who are insensitive to the goodness of that angel, ARE INSENSITIVE TO ALL GOODNESS... not only to the goodness of the fawn.

They are exempt from the goodness, both internally and externally. They live their lives ignorants of beauty, attached to pleasure and immediate survival.

What to do with the insensitive to the goodness?

The dogs attacked the corzuela within the limits of their nature ... but humans can not say that. 

How is it being apart of goodness? 

What are the people who doesn't know goodness?

Translated from: http://galaxio.blogspot.com/2010/10/la-insensibilidad-la-bondad.html