40000 Rapes in Congo

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Drachasor


I've read numerous scientific studies on this. The evidence is that there is much more variation between two people of the same race than between races as a whole. The differences between races are pretty minor compared to that between individuals. All research done indicates the same intelligence and other mental factors between races (when you adjust for socio-economic and like issues).

In contrast, I've seen nothing to the contrary.

-Drachasor

You admit you have seen no evidence from the other side, yet earlier you accused me of making assumptions. You have been making your own assumptions - that there is no other research on this topic. I can only urge you to look at things from more than one angle.
This might be a good place to start.

[Whaleboy]

Cali: What is your argument?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Environment is variable when you look at Black populations around the world, yet whatever the environment they tend to have higher rates of infection. Obviously there is some other influence at work here.

I think that this will probably be found to be cultural. African Americans, for instance, tend to be poorer than Whites and even after taking this into account there is a different culture.

On the issue of a society as a whole, humans are naturally very, very adaptive. They can assimilate into cultures fairly well, and over generations behavior can vary quite dramatically. Given this and intelligence studies, I don't see any kind of evidence that suggests some sort of genetic predeterminance for culture, and a lot of evidence that indicates flexibility.

-Drachasor

PS. As far as aids go, a lot of it *is* probably culture, and at worst there might be a small difference in promiscuity levels that are genetically influenced.

[MrFun]

I'm not going to participate any further in this thread.


I have never suffered from serious migraines in my life, and I don't intend to start getting one now.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Caligastia
You admit you have seen no evidence from the other side, yet earlier you accused me of making assumptions. You have been making your own assumptions - that there is no other research on this topic. I can only urge you to look at things from more than one angle.
This might be a good place to start.

That site doesn't really seem to go into the socio-ecnomic issues.

And there *has* been a lot of research done on this. Scientific American, for instance, did a large article on such things several years ago. All the results indicate that the differences between races is quite minimal, and that the differences between individuals is much larger (again, more varience between individuals than between races). Races are largely determined just from a few obvious phenotype differences, but there is little interal differences between humans. There is in fact a lot of evidence to suggest that humans were almost wiped out in pretty recent history (evolutionarily speaking--we were humans at the time), and this bottleneck caused us to be so extremely similar compared to other species found on earth.

-Drachasor

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Cali: What is your argument?

That genetics and environment both play a part in group behaviour.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Drachasor
That site doesn't really seem to go into the socio-ecnomic issues.

That is not what they are there to discuss. Why do you think I linked you to that page? Obviously you are aware of the part environment plays, so I showed you some information on the part genetics plays. Now you come back and comment that the site doesn't discuss the socio-economic issues?? NO ****!!!

And there *has* been a lot of research done on this. Scientific American, for instance, did a large article on such things several years ago. All the results indicate that the differences between races is quite minimal, and that the differences between individuals is much larger (again, more varience between individuals than between races). Races are largely determined just from a few obvious phenotype differences, but there is little interal differences between humans. There is in fact a lot of evidence to suggest that humans were almost wiped out in pretty recent history (evolutionarily speaking--we were humans at the time), and this bottleneck caused us to be so extremely similar compared to other species found on earth.

Why don't you apply some critical thinking to that? Obviously if individuals differ genetically then groups will too. But I guess your mind is made up, evidence be damned.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia

On a spiritual level I view everyone as being equally children of God. Our physical bodies and brains are just vehicles that we use to travel through this life. Some of us have better vehicles than others, and some types of vehicles have certain strengths and weaknesses on average. What is so offensive about recognising that?

If it's not offensive, let me be the first to call you a half-witted and flatulent little hunch-backed spastic. God be with you, my son.

[Whaleboy]

That genetics and environment both play a part in group behaviour.

Environment correct, in so far as Maslows hierarchy of needs is concerned, not because of any specific environment. Genetics, as far as I am aware there are no differences in brain makeup for different races, shown by the fact that in cases where social racism and integration issues (that you get with any new group) are removed, different races are able to integrate perfectly well into a given society, say, black people entering the UK for instance.

There has simply not been enough evolutionary time passed for there to have been a) an attractor or detractor regarding our brains for a change, since we all live in adaptive environments and b) insufficient evolutionary time for innate psychology to diverge. Indeed that is part of our genome that has the most evolutionary inertia, and the <100K years that homo sapiens have been out of Africa is grossly insufficient for such a change. The only major changes are obvious superficial ones, some changes to the skeletal structure, particularly with regard to build and legs, not so much upper body.

I think it's very difficult for you to say that because individuals differ genetically that therefore groups do to, ergo different behaviour of groups, because you haven't established that there are definite, determinstic patterns between race and the respective incumbant genome, and behaviour. I very much doubt you have done so. All you can do at best is note a pattern between behaviour and different groups, and hypothesise a genetic link, that does not even qualify as a theory because it cannot discount other influences, namely the aforementioned (by you) environmental concerns, implying that humans can adapt perfectly well to different social environments and that sociological factors from the host population may cause differences in behaviour.

[Whaleboy]

why should it be any different for groups? For me this is the only reasonable conclusion.

If the group composed of less than 1000 people you might have a point. When we're dealing with millions of people, the law of average wipes out the contribution of individual differences (for that is all they are), indeed unless you can show studies involving large (four figure +) numbers of people with control cases and adjustments for social, cultural, economic and historical conditions, you're not going to be able to make that case, and even if you do make that case, it is still extremely weak for the points I have given above, not least the causal problem of genetics or environment... it seems you take them as interchangeable... very Lamarck of you .

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


If it's not offensive, let me be the first to call you a half-witted and flatulent little hunch-backed spastic. God be with you, my son.

Cali, you are a singularly vile individual.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Cali, you are a singularly vile individual.

HEY

Enough with the personal crap... if you want to disagree with somebody, fine... but one more personal insult and you are toast!

[Caligastia]

Environment correct, in so far as Maslows hierarchy of needs is concerned, not because of any specific environment. Genetics, as far as I am aware there are no differences in brain makeup for different races, shown by the fact that in cases where social racism and integration issues (that you get with any new group) are removed, different races are able to integrate perfectly well into a given society, say, black people entering the UK for instance.

I don’t know why you would quote Maslow, considering he refuted his own theories. He considered them to be based on a false premise – that man is inherently good.

Do you really consider most Blacks in the UK to be successfully integrated? Unfortunately, most majority Black areas in the UK have a problem with crime, which means they are a poor example of successful integration.

WRT brain differences, it is well established that average brain size differs from race to race. A study by K. L. Beals, published in Current Anthropology in 1984, reported that a survey of 20,000 skulls shows that the average size of the brain case in Asia is 1380 cc, while in Europe it is 1362 cc and in Africa 1276 cc.

There has simply not been enough evolutionary time passed for there to have been a) an attractor or detractor regarding our brains for a change, since we all live in adaptive environments and b) insufficient evolutionary time for innate psychology to diverge. Indeed that is part of our genome that has the most evolutionary inertia, and the <100K years that homo sapiens have been out of Africa is grossly insufficient for such a change.

You seem to be taking current theories of human origins as being rock-solid. The most honest thing you can say on this is that "we don't know".

The only major changes are obvious superficial ones, some changes to the skeletal structure, particularly with regard to build and legs, not so much upper body.

There are far, far more differences than that, many of them significant. The races also differ in maturation rate, bone density, susceptibility to disease, and even smell. For whatever reasons, the races do not smell the same. Blacks and whites have strong, but differing smells, and many Asians have barely any smell. Koreans often have no odor-producing glands in their arm-pits at all and Japanese have very few. 19th-century Japanese found Europeans so foul-smelling that even today, a common Japanese expression for anything Western means “stinking of butter.”

Because Blacks have denser bones, they are less buoyant and therefore less likely to be swimming champions. But their bones are also more resistant to aging. Once they pass their mid-30s, whites lose about 2.5% of their bone mass every year. Blacks lose less than 1%.

Blacks also have identical twins at twice the rate of Whites, and Whites have them at twice the rate of Asians.

Are you trying to tell me that none of these differences are significant? You’re kidding yourself Whaleboy.

I think it's very difficult for you to say that because individuals differ genetically that therefore groups do to, ergo different behaviour of groups, because you haven't established that there are definite, determinstic patterns between race and the respective incumbant genome, and behaviour. I very much doubt you have done so. All you can do at best is note a pattern between behaviour and different groups, and hypothesise a genetic link, that does not even qualify as a theory because it cannot discount other influences, namely the aforementioned (by you) environmental concerns, implying that humans can adapt perfectly well to different social environments and that sociological factors from the host population may cause differences in behaviour.

If the group composed of less than 1000 people you might have a point. When we're dealing with millions of people, the law of average wipes out the contribution of individual differences.

The exact OPPOSITE is true. When you deal large numbers, it makes the findings even more statistically solid, accurate, and reproducible.

Case in point: You have a few Blacks that score at the genius level on IQ testing. If one were to only see that information, one could extrapolate that most if not all Blacks are geniuses. We definitely know that is NOT the case and is proven to be incorrect when we take into account the millions of Blacks who have taken one form of IQ test or another.

Secondly, group behaviour and group mentality is alive and well documented. Maybe you should read up on this before making glaringly false blanket statements.

Thirdly, ALL Evolutionary Psychologists disagree with you that "minorities are held back because of racism". The most Liberal of the EPs think Black intelligence and productivity is split 50/50 environmental and genetic. The more conservative EPs view genetics as playing a higher role.

Today it is now generally accepted in the "nature vs. nurture" debate that it is a 50/50 prospect. Let's look at personality development for an example. In relation to the development of personality, personality disorders, and severe mental illnesses: "Even the most compelling data in support of nature show that genetic factors contribute no more than 50% of the variance. It is reasonable to argue that nurture probably has at least much influence as nature." (Personality and Psychopathology, edited by C. Robert Cloninger, M.D., The American Psychiatric Press, Inc. 1999; Chapter 12. Psychosocial Factors in the Development of Personality Disorders by Lorna Smith Benjamin, Ph.D., pg 312.)

I’m sorry Whaleboy, but you simply haven’t done your homework.

[Last Conformist]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 40000 Rapes in Congo

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


As far as rape goes, yes. Americans are much more likely to be raped than Congolese.

As if there were reliable statistics of the frequency of rape in the DRC.

[Drachasor]

Caligastia, you have wholly missed the point, and stated misleading.

First, when you compare the statistics of two large groups ('races') you can get a much smaller difference between those groups than when comparing the statistics of two individuals from one of those groups. That is what it means when the variation between groups is smaller than that between individuals.

The concept of "races" is very silly and innacurrate for humans because genetically we are all too similar. You might as well say that people with blond hair are a race, or people with black hair are a race. All races are is saying that a very small number of overall relatively minor genetic differences somehow make those people so drastically different as to constitute another race. There simply aren't enough genetic differences. Sure, there are some and some of those differences have observable differences, but the line is very arbitrary. Even those differences you cite are minor and not significant.

Thirdly, ALL Evolutionary Psychologists disagree with you that "minorities are held back because of racism". The most Liberal of the EPs think Black intelligence and productivity is split 50/50 environmental and genetic. The more conservative EPs view genetics as playing a higher role.

Racism is a potential origin for the differneces. The environment probably does play a 50% role in developing your intelligence, so if you have a crappy environment you are not going to be as smart and capable as you could have been with a better one. That's what people are talking about with racism causing harm to intellectual develpment. You can of course argue wether it is racism or socio-economic position, but either way there is a bias in people or the situations people are in against certain minorities.

Oh, and as for Brain Size, there is good evidence that part of Brain Size development is environmental: http://www.schizophrenia.com/szresea...es/001062.html

To say nothing of that fact that Brain Size is not a good predictor of anything except the size of your head.

-Drachasor