Brainwash (2010–…): Season 1, Episode 6 - Rase - full transcript
The classical race term.
Visible outer differences.
No, there are no human races.
When black athletes are good, we say that it came naturally.
So wolves are really dogs?
Dogs and wolves can have babies.
My girls and I are on our way to a dog show to look at different dog breeds.
Let's see if people look like their dogs.
Look at him. With his protusion...
Look at him. It's easy to see what kind of dog he has.
There are big differences in dog breeds.
Both in appearance, abilities and temper.
Some are calm, others get easily tense.
Some are curious, others are cuddly.
And some are very eager.
What are the characteristics of that breed?
It learns easily.
Can you see dogs here that aren't as smart?
It won't point it out.
Okay. But you know of it.
You can tell.
What breed is the most aggresive?
I don't to pigeonhole anyone.
You don't?
No.
Is it harmful to the dogs?
You get in trouble.
If it's hard to talk about differences in dog breeds,-
-then it's even more taboo to talk about unequal human races.
But do human races exist?
Are there innate differences between populations?
Or is it like in the song:
Many things are different. But inside they're the same.
People have many different notions on this subject.
For instance that the negroes, according to their race,-
-should be especially athletically gifted.
My impression is that people feel there are innate differences.
But I'm not sure. I don't really know what I mean.
To find out, I'm asking someone who works with these things.
Trond Thorbjørnsen is the leader of SOS Racism in Norway.
When you work and live! Fight all racism!
Hello!
Hi! Harald here.
So this is SOS Racism?
No black people work here. Only whites.
The blacks don't bother to pull their weight.
They come later in the day. It's in their genes.
Does human races exist?
No. Human races do not exist.
People in Norway believe that races exist.
Yes.
But they don't?
No, it's a myth.
Some people are fair-skinned, others dark-skinned.
But that doesn't mean that some are good at dancing-
-and other people are good at sitting at the university and read.
It's one thing that professional anti-racists don't like to talk about races.
But what about Knut Olav Aamaas, philosopher and newspaper culture editor at Aftensposten?
-and not afraid to go against the current.
Are you saying that races don't exist?
I feel that one shouldn't use the word "race" about humans.
Do people say: "You don't like the word race, but races do exist"?
I resists, and maybe it's because I feel that when talking about humans,-
-I think biology is less interesting than a lot of other things we can talk about.
Aamaas feels that it's uninteresting to talk about races.
But between the wars in Norway people didn't feel that way.
The race scientist Jon A. Mjoen, on the basis of skull measurements,'
-said Norwegians came in two races: Long skulls and short skulls.
They determined that the long skulls were more suitable for control-
-and administrative work, while the short skulls would do physical labor.
it's a pity that the whole skull business got a bad reputation...
Do you see yourself as a long-skull
I'm a very smart short-skull...
It's easy now to laugh at the old racial science.
But it was exactly these theories that inspired Adolf Hitler-
-and the killing of millions of people the Nazi's saw as inferior and underdeveloped.
If you see how this science has worked over the years-
-you see that one always has wanted to defend exploitation.
It's impossible to use the word "race" today,-
-and at the same time ignore this dark, historical heritage.
Even though racial science has been used to repress populations.
Couldn't it be that they were onto something?
That races actually exists?
I feel that science has proven that human races don't exist.
I think there is much more than 90 % of all the genes in a human body-
-that are common for all people.
what separates us, is a very small percentage.
Over 90 %. Are we really that similar?
Dag Undlien is a professor in medical genetics at Ullevaal Hospital.
He has recent figures.
What is the right number?
99-99,5 % is what we assume today.
That's the best estimate on how similar you and I are.
So there's only half a percent that differs in us humans.
But how similar are we to our closest relative, the chimpanzee?
Then we're down to 98-98,5 % roughly last time I saw.
So only 1,5 % differs from this little lady to us humans.
Dog breeds are very different. How dissimilar are they, genetically?
There's no greater difference in dogs from different breeds than in humans.
These two dogs are more similar genetically-
-than these two humans.
So that half percentage point is maybe more meaningful than we think?
What's most striking is that we're very similar.
But the small percentage that differs in us, is very interesting.
Because it's there our differences originate.
That gives us our different traits.
I start with the most obvious: Color of skin.
Why do we have different skin color?
To determine that I will meet Dag Hessen from the University of Oslo's biological institute.
At the same time I wanted to air possible studies on humans that I have thought of.
You say that humans and chimps are more closely related than horses and donkeys?
Yes.
And horses and donkeys can mate.
-the mule. So in principle, humans and chimpanzees can mate.
You get an infertile slave...
Hessens shows little enthusiams for my vision to create-
-a primitive slave people trained to do our simple work.
So I ask about what I've really came for.
Can you explain why people have different skin color?
Yeah, it's a simple explanation.
If we go far enough back to when we had fur,-
-we were light-skinned.
Then we lost our fur, for different reasons.
Then we lost our fur, for different reasons.
To get more melanin, to protect us against ultraviolet rays.
Then we wandered out of Africa and split up in areas with less sun.
Then we became more light-skinned.
Why did we become that? Those that had lighter skin, could survive with less sun.
But could still produce enough Vitamin D.
So for siblings, when people migrated northward,-
-the darker ones died out or didn't reproduce,-
-but the lighter ones got more children?
Yes, so in the long term the ones with the dark skin-
-in absence of sun and little consumption of fish,-
-would have a larger a lager tendency for osteoporosis.
And get less children. It would be an advantage to be lighter.
The genes of the ligher ones would live on.
One thing is the skin. But what about the rest of the body?
Everyone in this world championship have West African origins.
And that's not the only thing. Of the 55 in history that have run 100 meters in less than 10 seconds,-
-are there no whites.
And 15 of them are from Jamaica.
Where most of them descended from West Africa.
Black.
White.
Here comes the white man.
Here they come.
Here they are together. That's nice.
15... A new world record!
In the longer distances, the Jamaicans aren't as good.
In this field, the national record holder from Jamaica-
-would have finished 2 minutes after the winner, Bekele.
From Ethiopia in East Africa.
But in sprint distances the Jamaicans dominate. Why?
Why is that?
I think that the explanation is found in the genes.
But former Norwegian karate and kickboxing champion and magazine editor, Cathrine Sandnes-
-is skeptical towards this.
I don't think Jamaicans suddenly have developed-
-an exceptional explosive gene that no one else in the world has developed.
Sandnes think there's a tendency to regard-
-white and black athletes differently.
When black athletes are good, we think it came naturally.
It's a tendency to reduce their skills and results-
-down to a biological component.
One which you white never can compete with.
i personally can relate to this.
When a black athlete do well, I think they are naturally talented.
For example, in boxing, I have though that black's naturally are stronger and faster.
And that's why they do better than whites.
But boxing has now turned white again.
Not many have registered this.
All the international champions today are white.
Without anyone trying to explain it biologically.
That's why Sandnes thinks that we have to look elsewhere than in the biology.
-if we are to understand why the Jamaicans do so well in the sprint.
What kind of trainers do they have? What kind of support do they have?
How do they train technique?
Yeah, how do the Jamaicans really train?
I go to the Olympic sports center to talk to an expert.
Is that you?
Have you gotten lost up here?
John Ertzgaard is a former European youth champion in the 200 meters.
He is coaching young elite sprint talents.
What does he think is crucial to become a good sprinter?
You can't decide to run fast. The genes have to be there.
So when the Jamaicans do well-
-it's not becasue their training is really good?
I know what they do, I know what the Americans do. It's not in the training that they differentiate themselves.
It's the genes.
Scientists at the University of Kingston in Jamaica say-
-70 % of Jamaicans have a relatively rare gene called ACTN3.
It gives you more of the quick muscle fiber.
Here's the good part of your anatomy: You have thin calves.
Yeah.
Most runners have thin calves.
Focus on lifting your knees!
That was better! That's good.
But even without the right genes, one can train hard and get pretty far.
Very far, actually.
i think we are ready for a duel.
A dual? Okay.
The white hope against the in-between...
I'm 50 % white, you know.
I know-.
One thing is to prove that there are physical differences between people in groups.
It's just fun that some people are good at sprints and some people are good at long distance running.
But when we come to what's above the neck it gets tricky.
Something like intelligence...
In Norway. How hereditary is it, approximately?
I haven't seen the last figures but they talk about a heredity of about 60-70 %.
If IQ in some degree is hereditary, it's possible there could be-
-differences in the average on different populations as far as intelligence?
Obviously, one can't dismiss this possibility.
There are differences when it comes to height and weight-
-depending on what populations we are from.
Why shouldn't we think there could be small differences-
-when it comes to matters concerning intelligence?
This is a bit gloomy. Could there be innate differences in average-
-when it comes to intelligence? Let's first find the smartest population.
There are in fact one population that stands out.
Could it be that the Jews are born smarter than other populations?
I think that sounds really corny.
That sounds uninteresting and quite speculative.
If you know the Jews' history you know it's a culture of learning.
That's in their upbrinding and education.
The Jews have a culture of learning.
But maybe they have it because they are smart?
In 2006 a debated science article was published-
-that claimed the Jews' remarkable achievements-
-were about more than learning and upbringing.
One of the scientists behind the article-
-is physicist and anthropologist Gregory Cochran.
Professor Cochran works in Albuquerque in New Mexico.
I was allowed to visit him at home.
The Jews he talks about are a specific group of Jews called, Ashkenazy Jews.
These are Jews of European descent.
Many of them are famous for their scientific and artistic achievements.
In Israel, the Ashkenazy Jews make up 50 % of the population.
And they score higher on the IQ tests than the Non-European Jews.
So why have the Ashkenazy Jews become so smart?
Ì show Cochran a video where Aamaas says that it's because of their culture of learning.
It's in the upbringing and education.
It's not the school or the culture that's the reason. What is it then?
Cochran says the answer can be found in evolution.
Who gets the most of the surviving children?
Among Christians in Europe it was for a long time prohibited-
-to operate a bank or finance company.
This was therefore left to the Jews.
Among other Europeans it wasn't necessarily the smartest-
-that became the richest and most powerful.
The theory is that in the Jewish population-
-the smartest ones were the most successful.
And had the most surviving children, and they spread their IQ genes-
-in the rest of the Jewish population.
While the Jews with lower IQ got fewer surviving children.
After a while the whole Jewish population had genes for high IQ.
This is just a hypothesis that still hasn't been properly tested.
If it's right it's good news for the Jews.
But there is one thing that bothers me a little bit:
Yes, maybe the world is like that.
And if it is so, what are we going to do?
How should we handle it if it's a fact that there are racial differences in intelligence.
-in intelligence? What should we do?
Hitler tried...
But what...
I don't think one would find it.
I have an enormous belief in the impact of environment and nurture.
And that you can mold people. And that people can mold themselves.
Aamaas things everyone can become what they want to-
-if the conditions are right.
And I hope he's right. But now I'm going into the heart of darkness.
I'm meeting a man that has spend a big part of his career-
-to chart differences in IQ levels between populations.
Richard Lynn is a retired psychology professor from the University of Ulster.
And is politically placed on the faaaar right. But we still find some common ground.
And it seems we have the same interior decorator too!
Lynn has compared IQ tests worldwide-
-and then rated the populations after their IQ levels.
The Eastern Asians are on the top.
On Lynn's scale, where the normal is 100, the Norwegians have an IQ of 98.
According to Lynn, the IQ level drops the further south you get.
We consider those with an IQ between 50 and 70 as mentally retarded.
At the bottom of his list the IQ level is perilously low.
But there is one population that Lynn has forgotten.
I'm sorry for laughing at this.
But it seems a bit too far-fetched.
Lynn is no doubt politically from the right wing.
But it could still be that his figures are correct.
I visit psychologist, Richard Nisbett in New York.
He is politically form the left wing-
-and he has also studied race and intelligence.
I listen to what he thinks about Lynn's findings.
It's a relief to hear that Lynn's studies aren't up to par.
But I wonder about these IQ tests to. What do they actually measure?
One thing is sure, IQ tests are controversial.
What is IQ?
IQ is a way of measuring that accommodates certain cultures.
You don't think that IQ measures something objective called intelligence?
Not if the IQ tests haven't been dramatically altered-
-since the IQ tests I have seen.
Because they, what do you call it?, favor-
-a type of intellectual approach to the world and an abstraction-
-which is culturally determined.
Regardless of what IQ tests really measures, it still measures-
-abilities that have become more important now than they were before.
In the modern society IQ level has a strong effect on-
-on how much education you have and how much you earn.
That's why there was a lot of fuss in USA-
-when the book "The Bell Curve" was published in 1994.
In it, the IQ of different populations in the USA were examined.
I go to Washington to talk to one of its authors, Charles Murray.
On the way to Murray I passed by Barack Obama's house.
I can report that The White House is much smaller than people believe.
Much, much smaller.
It's smaller than our royal palace! How come they haven't said that?
Charles Murray is politically a conservative.
But he is still thrilled about the election of Obama as president.
These are fairly large average differences.
And Murray says that the IQ differences between blacks and whites in USA-
-have been fairly stable the last 40 to 50 years.
But what are the reasons for the differences? Nature or nurture?
This is something I find fairly creepy.
What if these differences are primary caused by genetics?
Murray on the other hand is not that worried.
Together we will live. Every sister and every brother.
Little children of the rainbow. And a fertile Earth.
In an ideal world, we'll judge people based on who they really are.
And not based on appearance.
Now we'll meet a guy that has a high education and a high IQ.
Still he can't find a job.
Hi! Are you Sam?
Yes. Nice to meet you.
Nice to meet you too.
Sam came to Norway in 1989 as a professional football player.
He then took a four year college education in computers.
But after over 50 job applications, Sam is still unemployed.
When such a long time has passed, I wonder if I'm missing something.
Something that prevents me from being employed.
That's when you suffer a blow.
How does so many rejections affect you?
It destroys the self-image. And partly the family relationships.
A man likes to identify himself wit those who have made it.
Especially when you're from another culture.
How much does color of skin matter here?
A lot. Very, very much.
If someone sees a black man, and especially two,-
-then that workplace is a joke.
Because the boss there hires black people.
And then they don't know their business well as the others-
-that don't employ them.
When you say so, I feel that the thought has crossed my mind too.
I won't... You see?
The darker you are-
-the lesser the chance is to succeed in Norway. Unfortunately.
In spite of all his hardships. Sam won't give up-
-and leave for a country with less xenophobia.
No. That's not the issue.
I'll will die in Norway. I have two kids here.
Who would visit my grave in a foreign place?
You mustn't talk about graves.
It's just the hard truth. It's unpleasant. But it's the truth.
Yes.
Sorry, dear friend.
But I had to come. This is a rare opportunity for me to talk about my experience.
I blame no-one of being racist here.
I want tp be very clear about that.
I'm not saying that people are racist, but they don't take chances.
They don't give opportunities for professional development.
And not the same chances for independence.
Sam has trouble enough with race discrimination.
Wouldn't a focus on possible innate IQ differences between populations-
-only make it harder for him?
I show him Aamaas' skepticism to innate intelligence differences.
I don't think you'll find it. I believe in environment and nurture.
Are Norwegian intellectuals too dead sure-
-that there are no differences?
Is this something we should talk about,-
-or is it unfavorable to dig deeper in this matter.
I invite Thorbjørnsen from SOS Racism to my office. And show him what I have found out.
What does he think of what Charles Murray says?
I feel that the view of the guy I saw there,-
-is in the same vein as the measurements of skulls.
Where you try to give people certain abilities-
-from what shape their skulls were.
Have you decided that there are no genetic differences-
-between populations that gives them unequal distributions on an IQ curve?
I'm sure you could find it if you look for it.
But should we look for it?
No, I don't feel we should.
So this kind of knowledge is damaging?
He doesn't want to spread knowledge. He wants to spread racism.
He wants to spread a myth that there are different human races.
Do you feel I shouldn't show on TV what Murray says?
I don't feel this has anything to do on Norwegian TV.
Thorbjørnsen is very clear. And it's hard to disagree totally.
But what about editor Aamaas? He said there were no innate differences between people.
And Murray on the other hand said that Aamaas was burying his head in the sand.
Yes...
Maybe what I said was too strong.
Maybe I should have been more open.
But he is much more categorical in his predictions-
-of what kind of knowledge that will come, than what I am.
Do you think it is unfortunate that people like him are heard?
To focus on these kinds of differences?
Far from it. I agree with what he says.
It's dangerous to suppress that kind of discussion and knowledge. If that's what it is.
Do you think this is gloomy?
No, I don't think so.
Should people conduct research and study these things?
One should conduct research on most things.
Because no knowledge is in itself evil or dangerous.
Only the human use of knowledge can become evil or dangerous.
I think it's a great danger that a possible knowledge-
-that differences in populations could be misused.
And I want my children to have respect for all human beings-
-regardless of where they're from or their color of skin.
The challenge will be to value everyone as individuals-
-and not from the way they look.
Visible outer differences.
No, there are no human races.
When black athletes are good, we say that it came naturally.
So wolves are really dogs?
Dogs and wolves can have babies.
My girls and I are on our way to a dog show to look at different dog breeds.
Let's see if people look like their dogs.
Look at him. With his protusion...
Look at him. It's easy to see what kind of dog he has.
There are big differences in dog breeds.
Both in appearance, abilities and temper.
Some are calm, others get easily tense.
Some are curious, others are cuddly.
And some are very eager.
What are the characteristics of that breed?
It learns easily.
Can you see dogs here that aren't as smart?
It won't point it out.
Okay. But you know of it.
You can tell.
What breed is the most aggresive?
I don't to pigeonhole anyone.
You don't?
No.
Is it harmful to the dogs?
You get in trouble.
If it's hard to talk about differences in dog breeds,-
-then it's even more taboo to talk about unequal human races.
But do human races exist?
Are there innate differences between populations?
Or is it like in the song:
Many things are different. But inside they're the same.
People have many different notions on this subject.
For instance that the negroes, according to their race,-
-should be especially athletically gifted.
My impression is that people feel there are innate differences.
But I'm not sure. I don't really know what I mean.
To find out, I'm asking someone who works with these things.
Trond Thorbjørnsen is the leader of SOS Racism in Norway.
When you work and live! Fight all racism!
Hello!
Hi! Harald here.
So this is SOS Racism?
No black people work here. Only whites.
The blacks don't bother to pull their weight.
They come later in the day. It's in their genes.
Does human races exist?
No. Human races do not exist.
People in Norway believe that races exist.
Yes.
But they don't?
No, it's a myth.
Some people are fair-skinned, others dark-skinned.
But that doesn't mean that some are good at dancing-
-and other people are good at sitting at the university and read.
It's one thing that professional anti-racists don't like to talk about races.
But what about Knut Olav Aamaas, philosopher and newspaper culture editor at Aftensposten?
-and not afraid to go against the current.
Are you saying that races don't exist?
I feel that one shouldn't use the word "race" about humans.
Do people say: "You don't like the word race, but races do exist"?
I resists, and maybe it's because I feel that when talking about humans,-
-I think biology is less interesting than a lot of other things we can talk about.
Aamaas feels that it's uninteresting to talk about races.
But between the wars in Norway people didn't feel that way.
The race scientist Jon A. Mjoen, on the basis of skull measurements,'
-said Norwegians came in two races: Long skulls and short skulls.
They determined that the long skulls were more suitable for control-
-and administrative work, while the short skulls would do physical labor.
it's a pity that the whole skull business got a bad reputation...
Do you see yourself as a long-skull
I'm a very smart short-skull...
It's easy now to laugh at the old racial science.
But it was exactly these theories that inspired Adolf Hitler-
-and the killing of millions of people the Nazi's saw as inferior and underdeveloped.
If you see how this science has worked over the years-
-you see that one always has wanted to defend exploitation.
It's impossible to use the word "race" today,-
-and at the same time ignore this dark, historical heritage.
Even though racial science has been used to repress populations.
Couldn't it be that they were onto something?
That races actually exists?
I feel that science has proven that human races don't exist.
I think there is much more than 90 % of all the genes in a human body-
-that are common for all people.
what separates us, is a very small percentage.
Over 90 %. Are we really that similar?
Dag Undlien is a professor in medical genetics at Ullevaal Hospital.
He has recent figures.
What is the right number?
99-99,5 % is what we assume today.
That's the best estimate on how similar you and I are.
So there's only half a percent that differs in us humans.
But how similar are we to our closest relative, the chimpanzee?
Then we're down to 98-98,5 % roughly last time I saw.
So only 1,5 % differs from this little lady to us humans.
Dog breeds are very different. How dissimilar are they, genetically?
There's no greater difference in dogs from different breeds than in humans.
These two dogs are more similar genetically-
-than these two humans.
So that half percentage point is maybe more meaningful than we think?
What's most striking is that we're very similar.
But the small percentage that differs in us, is very interesting.
Because it's there our differences originate.
That gives us our different traits.
I start with the most obvious: Color of skin.
Why do we have different skin color?
To determine that I will meet Dag Hessen from the University of Oslo's biological institute.
At the same time I wanted to air possible studies on humans that I have thought of.
You say that humans and chimps are more closely related than horses and donkeys?
Yes.
And horses and donkeys can mate.
-the mule. So in principle, humans and chimpanzees can mate.
You get an infertile slave...
Hessens shows little enthusiams for my vision to create-
-a primitive slave people trained to do our simple work.
So I ask about what I've really came for.
Can you explain why people have different skin color?
Yeah, it's a simple explanation.
If we go far enough back to when we had fur,-
-we were light-skinned.
Then we lost our fur, for different reasons.
Then we lost our fur, for different reasons.
To get more melanin, to protect us against ultraviolet rays.
Then we wandered out of Africa and split up in areas with less sun.
Then we became more light-skinned.
Why did we become that? Those that had lighter skin, could survive with less sun.
But could still produce enough Vitamin D.
So for siblings, when people migrated northward,-
-the darker ones died out or didn't reproduce,-
-but the lighter ones got more children?
Yes, so in the long term the ones with the dark skin-
-in absence of sun and little consumption of fish,-
-would have a larger a lager tendency for osteoporosis.
And get less children. It would be an advantage to be lighter.
The genes of the ligher ones would live on.
One thing is the skin. But what about the rest of the body?
Everyone in this world championship have West African origins.
And that's not the only thing. Of the 55 in history that have run 100 meters in less than 10 seconds,-
-are there no whites.
And 15 of them are from Jamaica.
Where most of them descended from West Africa.
Black.
White.
Here comes the white man.
Here they come.
Here they are together. That's nice.
15... A new world record!
In the longer distances, the Jamaicans aren't as good.
In this field, the national record holder from Jamaica-
-would have finished 2 minutes after the winner, Bekele.
From Ethiopia in East Africa.
But in sprint distances the Jamaicans dominate. Why?
Why is that?
I think that the explanation is found in the genes.
But former Norwegian karate and kickboxing champion and magazine editor, Cathrine Sandnes-
-is skeptical towards this.
I don't think Jamaicans suddenly have developed-
-an exceptional explosive gene that no one else in the world has developed.
Sandnes think there's a tendency to regard-
-white and black athletes differently.
When black athletes are good, we think it came naturally.
It's a tendency to reduce their skills and results-
-down to a biological component.
One which you white never can compete with.
i personally can relate to this.
When a black athlete do well, I think they are naturally talented.
For example, in boxing, I have though that black's naturally are stronger and faster.
And that's why they do better than whites.
But boxing has now turned white again.
Not many have registered this.
All the international champions today are white.
Without anyone trying to explain it biologically.
That's why Sandnes thinks that we have to look elsewhere than in the biology.
-if we are to understand why the Jamaicans do so well in the sprint.
What kind of trainers do they have? What kind of support do they have?
How do they train technique?
Yeah, how do the Jamaicans really train?
I go to the Olympic sports center to talk to an expert.
Is that you?
Have you gotten lost up here?
John Ertzgaard is a former European youth champion in the 200 meters.
He is coaching young elite sprint talents.
What does he think is crucial to become a good sprinter?
You can't decide to run fast. The genes have to be there.
So when the Jamaicans do well-
-it's not becasue their training is really good?
I know what they do, I know what the Americans do. It's not in the training that they differentiate themselves.
It's the genes.
Scientists at the University of Kingston in Jamaica say-
-70 % of Jamaicans have a relatively rare gene called ACTN3.
It gives you more of the quick muscle fiber.
Here's the good part of your anatomy: You have thin calves.
Yeah.
Most runners have thin calves.
Focus on lifting your knees!
That was better! That's good.
But even without the right genes, one can train hard and get pretty far.
Very far, actually.
i think we are ready for a duel.
A dual? Okay.
The white hope against the in-between...
I'm 50 % white, you know.
I know-.
One thing is to prove that there are physical differences between people in groups.
It's just fun that some people are good at sprints and some people are good at long distance running.
But when we come to what's above the neck it gets tricky.
Something like intelligence...
In Norway. How hereditary is it, approximately?
I haven't seen the last figures but they talk about a heredity of about 60-70 %.
If IQ in some degree is hereditary, it's possible there could be-
-differences in the average on different populations as far as intelligence?
Obviously, one can't dismiss this possibility.
There are differences when it comes to height and weight-
-depending on what populations we are from.
Why shouldn't we think there could be small differences-
-when it comes to matters concerning intelligence?
This is a bit gloomy. Could there be innate differences in average-
-when it comes to intelligence? Let's first find the smartest population.
There are in fact one population that stands out.
Could it be that the Jews are born smarter than other populations?
I think that sounds really corny.
That sounds uninteresting and quite speculative.
If you know the Jews' history you know it's a culture of learning.
That's in their upbrinding and education.
The Jews have a culture of learning.
But maybe they have it because they are smart?
In 2006 a debated science article was published-
-that claimed the Jews' remarkable achievements-
-were about more than learning and upbringing.
One of the scientists behind the article-
-is physicist and anthropologist Gregory Cochran.
Professor Cochran works in Albuquerque in New Mexico.
I was allowed to visit him at home.
The Jews he talks about are a specific group of Jews called, Ashkenazy Jews.
These are Jews of European descent.
Many of them are famous for their scientific and artistic achievements.
In Israel, the Ashkenazy Jews make up 50 % of the population.
And they score higher on the IQ tests than the Non-European Jews.
So why have the Ashkenazy Jews become so smart?
Ì show Cochran a video where Aamaas says that it's because of their culture of learning.
It's in the upbringing and education.
It's not the school or the culture that's the reason. What is it then?
Cochran says the answer can be found in evolution.
Who gets the most of the surviving children?
Among Christians in Europe it was for a long time prohibited-
-to operate a bank or finance company.
This was therefore left to the Jews.
Among other Europeans it wasn't necessarily the smartest-
-that became the richest and most powerful.
The theory is that in the Jewish population-
-the smartest ones were the most successful.
And had the most surviving children, and they spread their IQ genes-
-in the rest of the Jewish population.
While the Jews with lower IQ got fewer surviving children.
After a while the whole Jewish population had genes for high IQ.
This is just a hypothesis that still hasn't been properly tested.
If it's right it's good news for the Jews.
But there is one thing that bothers me a little bit:
Yes, maybe the world is like that.
And if it is so, what are we going to do?
How should we handle it if it's a fact that there are racial differences in intelligence.
-in intelligence? What should we do?
Hitler tried...
But what...
I don't think one would find it.
I have an enormous belief in the impact of environment and nurture.
And that you can mold people. And that people can mold themselves.
Aamaas things everyone can become what they want to-
-if the conditions are right.
And I hope he's right. But now I'm going into the heart of darkness.
I'm meeting a man that has spend a big part of his career-
-to chart differences in IQ levels between populations.
Richard Lynn is a retired psychology professor from the University of Ulster.
And is politically placed on the faaaar right. But we still find some common ground.
And it seems we have the same interior decorator too!
Lynn has compared IQ tests worldwide-
-and then rated the populations after their IQ levels.
The Eastern Asians are on the top.
On Lynn's scale, where the normal is 100, the Norwegians have an IQ of 98.
According to Lynn, the IQ level drops the further south you get.
We consider those with an IQ between 50 and 70 as mentally retarded.
At the bottom of his list the IQ level is perilously low.
But there is one population that Lynn has forgotten.
I'm sorry for laughing at this.
But it seems a bit too far-fetched.
Lynn is no doubt politically from the right wing.
But it could still be that his figures are correct.
I visit psychologist, Richard Nisbett in New York.
He is politically form the left wing-
-and he has also studied race and intelligence.
I listen to what he thinks about Lynn's findings.
It's a relief to hear that Lynn's studies aren't up to par.
But I wonder about these IQ tests to. What do they actually measure?
One thing is sure, IQ tests are controversial.
What is IQ?
IQ is a way of measuring that accommodates certain cultures.
You don't think that IQ measures something objective called intelligence?
Not if the IQ tests haven't been dramatically altered-
-since the IQ tests I have seen.
Because they, what do you call it?, favor-
-a type of intellectual approach to the world and an abstraction-
-which is culturally determined.
Regardless of what IQ tests really measures, it still measures-
-abilities that have become more important now than they were before.
In the modern society IQ level has a strong effect on-
-on how much education you have and how much you earn.
That's why there was a lot of fuss in USA-
-when the book "The Bell Curve" was published in 1994.
In it, the IQ of different populations in the USA were examined.
I go to Washington to talk to one of its authors, Charles Murray.
On the way to Murray I passed by Barack Obama's house.
I can report that The White House is much smaller than people believe.
Much, much smaller.
It's smaller than our royal palace! How come they haven't said that?
Charles Murray is politically a conservative.
But he is still thrilled about the election of Obama as president.
These are fairly large average differences.
And Murray says that the IQ differences between blacks and whites in USA-
-have been fairly stable the last 40 to 50 years.
But what are the reasons for the differences? Nature or nurture?
This is something I find fairly creepy.
What if these differences are primary caused by genetics?
Murray on the other hand is not that worried.
Together we will live. Every sister and every brother.
Little children of the rainbow. And a fertile Earth.
In an ideal world, we'll judge people based on who they really are.
And not based on appearance.
Now we'll meet a guy that has a high education and a high IQ.
Still he can't find a job.
Hi! Are you Sam?
Yes. Nice to meet you.
Nice to meet you too.
Sam came to Norway in 1989 as a professional football player.
He then took a four year college education in computers.
But after over 50 job applications, Sam is still unemployed.
When such a long time has passed, I wonder if I'm missing something.
Something that prevents me from being employed.
That's when you suffer a blow.
How does so many rejections affect you?
It destroys the self-image. And partly the family relationships.
A man likes to identify himself wit those who have made it.
Especially when you're from another culture.
How much does color of skin matter here?
A lot. Very, very much.
If someone sees a black man, and especially two,-
-then that workplace is a joke.
Because the boss there hires black people.
And then they don't know their business well as the others-
-that don't employ them.
When you say so, I feel that the thought has crossed my mind too.
I won't... You see?
The darker you are-
-the lesser the chance is to succeed in Norway. Unfortunately.
In spite of all his hardships. Sam won't give up-
-and leave for a country with less xenophobia.
No. That's not the issue.
I'll will die in Norway. I have two kids here.
Who would visit my grave in a foreign place?
You mustn't talk about graves.
It's just the hard truth. It's unpleasant. But it's the truth.
Yes.
Sorry, dear friend.
But I had to come. This is a rare opportunity for me to talk about my experience.
I blame no-one of being racist here.
I want tp be very clear about that.
I'm not saying that people are racist, but they don't take chances.
They don't give opportunities for professional development.
And not the same chances for independence.
Sam has trouble enough with race discrimination.
Wouldn't a focus on possible innate IQ differences between populations-
-only make it harder for him?
I show him Aamaas' skepticism to innate intelligence differences.
I don't think you'll find it. I believe in environment and nurture.
Are Norwegian intellectuals too dead sure-
-that there are no differences?
Is this something we should talk about,-
-or is it unfavorable to dig deeper in this matter.
I invite Thorbjørnsen from SOS Racism to my office. And show him what I have found out.
What does he think of what Charles Murray says?
I feel that the view of the guy I saw there,-
-is in the same vein as the measurements of skulls.
Where you try to give people certain abilities-
-from what shape their skulls were.
Have you decided that there are no genetic differences-
-between populations that gives them unequal distributions on an IQ curve?
I'm sure you could find it if you look for it.
But should we look for it?
No, I don't feel we should.
So this kind of knowledge is damaging?
He doesn't want to spread knowledge. He wants to spread racism.
He wants to spread a myth that there are different human races.
Do you feel I shouldn't show on TV what Murray says?
I don't feel this has anything to do on Norwegian TV.
Thorbjørnsen is very clear. And it's hard to disagree totally.
But what about editor Aamaas? He said there were no innate differences between people.
And Murray on the other hand said that Aamaas was burying his head in the sand.
Yes...
Maybe what I said was too strong.
Maybe I should have been more open.
But he is much more categorical in his predictions-
-of what kind of knowledge that will come, than what I am.
Do you think it is unfortunate that people like him are heard?
To focus on these kinds of differences?
Far from it. I agree with what he says.
It's dangerous to suppress that kind of discussion and knowledge. If that's what it is.
Do you think this is gloomy?
No, I don't think so.
Should people conduct research and study these things?
One should conduct research on most things.
Because no knowledge is in itself evil or dangerous.
Only the human use of knowledge can become evil or dangerous.
I think it's a great danger that a possible knowledge-
-that differences in populations could be misused.
And I want my children to have respect for all human beings-
-regardless of where they're from or their color of skin.
The challenge will be to value everyone as individuals-
-and not from the way they look.