Race differences

[Carver]

Originally posted by reds4ever
no it doesn't matter, but lets just admit we are all different, without having charges af racism thrown at us.

PS if it was up to me i'd gladly shave 10 pts off my IQ if it meant putting 4 inches on my ****!!! (joke)

What a stupid, racsist, stereotyping "(joke)". You are not funny. You're an ass. Would you like to detail what experience you have had with the black male sexual organ?

[Rex Little]

You end up with enormous problems in defining a race:
Are Arabs a race, if not then where do they fit in?
How about Somalians? Are they African, East African, Somali?
The Egyptians?
The Malay...are they Asian? If so why are they rather different to the Chinese?
Native Americans? The Inca? The Maya? Are they the same race, or (since they're rather different) are they separate races?

That's a very good point. When I was in school, we were taught that there are three races: Caucasian, Negro (don't jump down my throat; that was the accepted terminology back then) and Oriental. We were told that Indians (what we now call Native Americans) are part of the Oriental race. This didn't make sense to me then and still doesn't. Maybe an anthropologist can explain it.

Another example is the actual Indians (i.e., the people of India). They have the same skin color as blacks, but are clearly different in other ways involving hair and facial features. Again, maybe an anthropologist can explain why they should be considered white or black or Asian, but the only thing that makes sense to me is to classify them as a separate "race" entirely. (Just as an aside: I've also seen the term "Aryan" applied to them, which is totally confusing since Hitler used it to mean Nordic types.)

[rah]

Let me start off by saying that I agree that it's the individual that counts. And there's probably no pure blood races anymore.

BUT from the marketing research side.

We live in a world where classification is the norm. (whether it be right or wrong). To do analysis, classification is the first step.

Now once classification are complete (perfect or imperfect) averages are calculated. Many are used to predict buyer's intent, or just used to properly target marketing. Some product's success or failure is dependent on how well the research was done. There are differences. (no one bothers to argue whether it's genetic or envioromental differences, we don't care, we're just interested in that fact that there is a difference) Does studying buyer's intent (by race classifications) make us racists? I think not.

I think the point that some of the posters are making here that if you study other factors (based on race) it's not necessarily racism.
Just a desire to see what can be learned from it. (with the validity always being questioned)

Heck if I compared the average height of the people that live on my block vs the people that live on the next block, that wouldn't be racism but if i did it by race it would be?

I don't think it's racism to study it. Now what you do with the results might qualify as racism, but I don't think the simple study of it is. Heck to me, data is data. I'll find differences no matter how you break up a group of people. The differences may not be significant, but with the glorious variety of people available, there'll always be differences.

Why is it that whenever anyone talks of classification, everyone starts screaming racism?

RAH

[Tolls]

Rex:
I can cover the Aryan thing..the Aryans invaded northern India way back when (3000 years ago?).
The Aryans were a group that came from the Caucasus (hence Caucasian).
Lighter skinned Indians are generally Aryan, darker skinned Dravidian (the original population), so even there the Indian "race" has a division...

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by reds4ever
so except for skin colour, every race is exactly the same? what a coincidence! the only trait that differs is one we can see!!! i stand corrected!

The way you say it, it almost seems you don't have a clue what you are talking about!

The question is not that except for skin colour all humans are alike, is that, (and i'll add some space so that it is perfectly understandable)

all human beings are diferent in far more ways than in the colour of the skin.

That, my friend, is scientifically proven fact, vide the Human Genome Project's results.

Now, what you propose us is that one particular diference, that of the skin's colour, is correlated with some particular differences.

I will now point the problem with your sugestion:
- The main characteristic of the diference in skin colour is that it is visible , as you so clearly pointed out. Almost all other differences, such as deasease propensity, physical capabilitiy, inteligence... are not! The theory you defend proposes that these non-visible characteristics are highly correlated with the colour of the skin.

Not only is that statistically more unlikelly to happen, the fact is that most of it was finally scientifically fully disproven by the Human Genome Project.

So, am I saying that we cannot detect some differences between human comunities, especially if they happen to be isolated?
Of course not! We can detect those diferences.

But are those differences carved over millenia of isolated "evolution" in our genes?

H*ll, no!!!

There are many other reasons, most of them we would be able to handle in the course of one or few generations, if not from some guys that keep talking about something that was never there!!!

Saying there is no such thing as races is as much as politically correct as saying the Earth orbits the Sun: both statements are correct; the fact that, some time ago, humankind didn't know the truth doesn't mean we have to keep the mistake until the end of our days! It's not a question of political correctness. It's a matter of plain correctedness!

[Flubber]

I think that some of the confusion on speeds for the "100" comes from people talking metres or yards. At Olympic distance , the 100 METRES, the world record is something like 9.79 seconds and times over 10 seconds often win medals. The difference between the two distances is something like 25 feet (quick estimate) and would account for the disagreement as for a good time for a wide receiver

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He won the 100 at the 1997 world championships, beating world-record holder Donovan Bailey of Canada in 9.86 seconds and narrowly failing to break Bailey's world record of 9.84 from the Atlanta Olympics. As he prospered, Greene hungered still more for the record. In '98 . . .

On the evening of June 16, in the same Athens Olympic stadium in which he won the world title two years ago, Greene ripped through a windless dusk and matched Johnson's 9.79, demolishing Bailey's world record and tearing more from the 100 mark than had been taken off in a single bite since the onset of automatic timing more than three decades ago.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Source : http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/oly...ene_flashback/


That was the side issue, now for the main course.



I assert no racial superiority (or inferiority for that matter) and believe in equality of the races but do not NECESSARILY believe that that means all races are genetically predisposed to having (on average) equal abilities and characteristics in all things. I think the jury is still out but there is a definite nature versus nurture argument to account for any differences

For example, if more black people than white people are strong in athletics (ie faster, stronger) in the US ( accept this as a possibility for a moment), is this because

1. of a genetic trait
2 cultural or socioeconomic factors lead more people of a given group to pursue athletics
3. something else entirely



Lets assume for a moment that ON AVERAGE, Asian people score higher than white people who in turn score higher than black people on tests of intelligence . Lets further assume that the tests showed this result even if cultural biases in the tests could be eliminated (big assumption but make it for a second). I still find it impossible to determine whether

1. it is something genetic
2. Culture predominates as some cultures seem to stress academic and intellectual pursuits more than others

( I understand that Iceland has 100% literacy-- Their people would likely score high in most intellectual testing. Are they inherently smarter or has their culture meant that they obtained skills that make them "smarter" under most forms of testing.


I don't know the answer and I doubt that science has conclusively proved much either way-- How do you ever separate a person or a race's genetic attributes from the skills and abilities stressed and ingrained by their culture?? Lets see, lets take a representative 10,000 babies from each race to be tested and set them up in a secluded place and subject them to identical and non-racial socialization with no outside influence for years . . . everyone trained identically (now where to find teachers with absolutely no biases?) and given exactly the same possessions. The groups would be completely mixed and there would NEVER be any mention of racial differences. Now if this could be done, we might be able to have some conclusive answers.


All that being said, I do not believe that it is possible, if we are seeking scientific honesty, to discount the possibility that there are racial differences ( AGAIN ON AVERAGE) on things apart from skin color and body size.. I will grant you that the variation within groups will far exceed the difference between two groups. Men are generally heavier than women . . . Stating this does not change the fact that some women are heavier than 99% of men ( and perhaps the heaviest person on earth could be a woman ??)


To switch topics from race to sex, I always find it interesting that men outnumber women so much in the higher levels of SOME intellectual pursuits. Women hardly factor into the highest level of chess (a worldwide phenomenon) and even a trivia show like "Millionaire" was dominated by men. The obvious answer is sexism and perhaps this IS the full answer. Or perhaps intelligence has nothing to do with it but men have a higher predisposition to compete. I just don't know.

I seem to recall reading that there were proportionally more male geniuses than female and also more men at the lowest levels according to IQ testing (don't have a source for that). There may be societal diffences to explain that type of thing but maybe, just maybe, there are real intellectual differences between the sexes as well.


What I don't get is why some people want to start from the base assumption that races and sexes are the same. It may be politically correct but that does not make it right. I start from the proposition that I just don't know what accounts for some apparent differences and based on the few things I have read from people willing to study the subject (and I have not studied this extensively) I remain in the don't know camp.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Flubber
I seem to recall reading that there were proportionally more male geniuses than female and also more men at the lowest levels according to IQ testing (don't have a source for that).

I do belive the most common explanation to this is that since women only can get a limitied number of children during their lifetime nature doesn't want to gamble with them. Males on the other hand are not as important as women in the way that some of them can be total losers since there's always another guy that can take care of the stuff .

I'm not sure if that's the generally accepted theory or not but I've heard it a couple of times. Cultural phenomonen can possibly affect this as well.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by rah


I don't think it's racism to study it. Now what you do with the results might qualify as racism, but I don't think the simple study of it is. Heck to me, data is data. I'll find differences no matter how you break up a group of people. The differences may not be significant, but with the glorious variety of people available, there'll always be differences.

Why is it that whenever anyone talks of classification, everyone starts screaming racism?

RAH

When that classification involves taking laughably flawed concepts, coupled with astonishing displays of ignorance, and uses them to paint a bald picture that blacks are less intelligent and more aggressive than other races I think the only possible answers are...

1- Racism
2- Stupidity to an incredible degree.

Draw your own conclusions on the author of that article.

You see, I tear into this article on ground I consider perfectly legitimate and accurate. No-one has challenged me on that. However what I get is people sneering "Oh you think anything involving racial differences is racism blah blah screaming blah blah you're so PC blah blah puke retch phlegm".

That article- that piece of drivel- is utter ****ing bull****. It's got holes in it that could house entire continents. And it's being used by 24-carat ****wits like that unadulterated ****er WFhermans as a springboard to lauch little slabs of anti-semitism.

It's ****. It starts ****, remains ****ty throughout it's entire duration and leaves a ****ty aftertaste. Bring on a calm and carefully reason article about genetic variation and I'll treat it with due respect. Bring on a travesty like this piece and I'll happily and gleefully trounce it, along with anyone gullible, deluded or plain evil enough to go along with it.

Now would anyone like to support that argument that blacks are more aggressive and less intelligent than other races? Go on- I could do with the exercise. Caligastia?

[Tingkai]

yah got that right bugs.

I think these idiots are friggen funny. They basically say "Well, I know my theories have been disproven by science, I know my theories are completely illogical, I know my theories don't make any sense and I don't have any proof to back up my insane claims, but the reason no one listens to me is because of political correctness."

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
Now would anyone like to support that argument that blacks are more aggressive and less intelligent than other races? Go on- I could do with the exercise. Caligastia?

Don't hold your breath on that. He might decide that it's now time to focus more on his support for eugenics in Spinky's latest thread.

[rah]

Yep Bugs, your 100% correct. It depends on the methods and the use of the final outcome that determines if it's racist. Hopefully I was clear about that in my feeble attempt to explain it.
And I agree that the study that started this thread was pretty blatant.

My response was aimed at the less rational posters to this thread. (which there were many) Those that would blindly look at any study that includes race as a factor and scream RACISM.

I'm always up for trashing methodologies, since that is one of my functions at work.

I'll be the first to admit that a considerable amount of research is done haphazard and is politically motivated. Much to my dismay, I've participated in some of them, but that's another story.

RAH

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
Now would anyone like to support that argument that blacks are more aggressive and less intelligent than other races? Go on- I could do with the exercise. Caligastia?

I wouldnt support that because as Rex others have said, there are more variations within races than between them. I think that blacks (in sub-saharan africa) are generally different from whites (in north america) in their ability to build a civilization.

[Flubber]

It WOULD be nice to see some real scientific research delving further into genetic differences but the reality is that most scientists would be more concerned with medical implications of genetic research .


Its too bad, rah, that so much of the research out there is subverted from the start by people who merely want to " confirm" the answer that they want.

I agree with whomever said that it is the individual that counts. I judge people as individuals. The attributes of groups is something that is a matter of simple scientific interest .

[TCO]

Ramo, sorry to come in late. Some responses to your responses:

Originally posted by Ramo


In most civilized societies, learning belonged the realm of the elite. And in many, the elite bred principally for politics.

If this phenomenon exists, I'd wager that it isn't significant.


Quite the contrary, actually. In most civilized societies, social, political, and economic barriers prevented the intelligent from dominating the society (and getting laid a lot), whereas in hunter-gatherer societies no such barriers existed.

Agreed on several counts. Also recently high IQ has been correlated with lower birth rates. (But this is a recent phenomenon. One could imagine that earlier reproductive strategies were optimized for different conditions. High birth rate is not always the best reproductive strategy.)

Have you ever thought that perhaps some groups are richer than others? That some groups are guided by different cultures? Nevermind, I don't want to strain your superior brain.

These are "nurture" arguments. They were not ignored. Now you can strain your brain (BTW...I know you are a smart guy...) to consider the posibility of a function with more than one significant input variable. (i.e. both nurture and nature. This opens the possibility of significant differences in nature independent of nurture.)

I'd also like to see the methodology in deriving these statistics. How big a sample did he use? Where did he get his samples? And so forth.

You are free to research the statistics. Much of it is available in academic journals. IQ testing has been more thoroughly done than most other psych tests (personality screening, disorders, physiological effects, etc.). BTW, the quoted averages are based on meta-analysis of several studies. (Like I said lots of work has been done.)

Genetic isolation?

I'll remind you that the Sahara didn't exist 40,000 years ago.

Magical trips from one end of the continent to another without any interbreeding?

Bullcrap. Total bullcrap. I'd like to see the evidence and credentials of these "sociobiologists."

Come on Ramo...genetic isolation is not an open/shut door. Ever seen a colloid stratify? Ever seen a reaction vessel with a heat gradient? To get different results does not require complete seperation. How do you think physical differences in races occurred?

If East Asians and Jews are so much smarter than everyone else, why haven't they displaced the untermenschen like the African homo sapiens sapiens did to his European and Asian contemporaries?

Intelligence does not equate to uber/unter mensch ability. I know that this may be hard for a kid like yourself (academic oriented) to realize, but the smartest guy doesn't always win. There are other aspects to being a man...even in competition. You are also ignoring the premise of the article which clearly implied that different populations evolved to be most suited to their respective environments. The article posits that the value of intelligence varies from environment to environment.

Why aren't the Inuit ruling the world?

Because they are not adapted to "the world" and because intelligence is not the only trait affecting competion. (same as above.)

[/QUOTE]
I'd like to see Cali live in a tropical rainforest, so he can tell us how "easy" it is. [/QUOTE]

So are you saying that all environments are alike? are equally easy (in what manner?) or that you think the tropical rainforest is most "difficult"?

Yep, the genetic differences between so-called "races" are totally insignificant.

on what scale? If I measure melanin content or sickle-cell, I will find differences that are significant in terms of different environments. Why don't you trot out some statistics, academic eveidence for that "bald statement".

What if I told you the physical differences between all metals are insignigifcant. Pretty silly unless I define what significance is, what variables I'm looking at, and actually gather some data.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Flubber
I agree with whomever said that it is the individual that counts. I judge people as individuals. The attributes of groups is something that is a matter of simple scientific interest .

Yes, I agree.