Race differences

[Tuberski]

Sure we are different, ALL of us. I have abilities that you don't, you have some that I don't, but we are both white.

How would you explain that?

Can't be race.

I don't know what I'd do with the extra 4 inches.

[DaShi]

Re: Race differences

Originally posted by Caligastia
Here is an interesting article I found. I wonder if its possible to discuss it with descending into hysteria?

1

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Sure we are different, ALL of us. I have abilities that you don't, you have some that I don't, but we are both white.

How would you explain that?

Can't be race.

I don't know what I'd do with the extra 4 inches.

it'd be nice to have just in case though?

[MrFun]

I find Social Darwinism and racial psuedo-science to reveal how ignorant some people can be.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by MrFun
I find Social Darwinism and racial psuedo-science to reveal how ignorant some people can be.

I don't like repeating myself, but that really is a cop-out

[Rex Little]

It seems to me that this topic is generating a lot more heat than it deserves. If you look at the article which began this thread, all the author is really saying is that:
1. When various human traits are measured, the average results are different for different races. (Let's not get into the silly argument about whether there are "different races" of humans; we all know what we mean.)
2. It is plausible that to some extent these differences are the result of genetics.
3. A great many people react to the above assertions by insisting that the measurements are flawed, and/or that all differences are due to environment. These insistences are made and generally accepted without proof.

The author does not say anything that could reasonably be taken as an argument for racism or white supremacism. I have no doubt that wishful-thinking white supremacists could read such support into it, but I would hope that the rest of us can reason at a higher level than that.

The author also does not make any claims as to how much the measured differences are genetically determined, only that the question is not seriously studied.

The author does not say that any race is superior or inferior to any other.

My own belief is that item 1 is obviously true; item 2 is common sense (note the use of the word plausible--it seems unlikely to me that the only genetic difference is skin color); and that item 3 is borne out by any number of posts on this thread. The author doesn't mention this, but I would also add that anyone makes such statements as the author's is widely accused of, and/or assumed to have, racist motives.

I certainly don't claim that proof--or even particularly strong study evidence--exists for genetic differences. I merely believe that they are plausible, and not disproven.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by reds4ever
the study was done on nursery school children ( it was american) the point they made was that it had to be genetic.

quick question. NFL.... can any East Asain players over 250lbs can run 100 metres in under 10.5 secs. if not, why not?

We are different full stop!!!

The only correct thing you're said is the last line. We are all different. We are all individuals.

Are you, reds4ever, exactly like everyone else in your race? If you are white, wouldn't you admit that there are tall whites, short whites, smart whites, dumb whites. Some whites excel at sprinting. Others excel in the marathon. There are so many differences within a race that any average becomes meaningless.

As for your question, go up to northeast China and you will find guys who are taller than 6'2" and who weigh more than 200 pounds. Put them on a North American diet, give them proper training, and then, yes, they would be able to runn 100 m in 10.5 seconds.

The reason this is not happening now is that most East Asians in the U.S. are descended from Cantonese or Japanese immigrants. Their cultural diet is based on rice. The people in northen China have a wheat-based diet. Although I have no proof, I suspect that this difference explains the difference in body size.

Hong Kong people are getting larger in body size mainly because the diet here is changing. People have more to eat at a young age and they're eating a more diverse range of food.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Rex Little
1. When various human traits are measured, the average results are different for different races.

Wrong.

According to your theory, Chinese people would have similar average heights, regardless of region, but this is not true. Northern Chinese are taller, on average, than southern Chinese. Hong Kong Chinese, under the age of 25 are taller on average, than their counterparts in Guangzhou.

Originally posted by Rex Little
2. It is plausible that to some extent these differences are the result of genetics.

Since your first statement is incorrect then your second statement is wrong.

My male cousins and I are, on average, about 5'9". Our fathers are, on average, about 5'6". If genetics are not a defining factor between father and son then it is ridiculous to claim that genetics can define races of billions of people.

Originally posted by Rex Little
3. A great many people react to the above assertions by insisting that the measurements are flawed, and/or that all differences are due to environment. These insistences are made and generally accepted without proof.

You have things backwards. Those who claim there are differences between races have failed to provide any solid proof while there is ample proof to show that differences between races do not exist.

Originally posted by Rex Little
The author does not say that any race is superior or inferior to any other.

He quotes Rushton's theories that claim Asians are superior to whites in terms of intelligence. These claims have been proven false.

[Rex Little]

According to your theory, Chinese people would have similar average heights, regardless of region, but this is not true. Northern Chinese are taller, on average, than southern Chinese. Hong Kong Chinese, under the age of 25 are taller on average, than their counterparts in Guangzhou.

I trust it's obvious to most of you that this has nothing to do with what I wrote. Among blacks, the average height of Pygmies differs from that of Bantus by rather more than the difference between Northern and Southern Chinese, but there is still such a thing as an average height for all blacks, and an average height for all Orientals, and I'd be really surprised if they're exactly the same.

Now, it might be interesting to study differences between subgroups of the same race, such as the height difference between Northern and Southern Chinese, with an eye to determining the relative influence of heredity, diet and other environmental factors. It would be less politically charged than a similar study comparing different races, and might help to develop methods which could be used to construct racial-comparison studies which were truly objective.

My male cousins and I are, on average, about 5'9". Our fathers are, on average, about 5'6". If genetics are not a defining factor between father and son then it is ridiculous to claim that genetics can define races of billions of people.

Because a child isn't exactly the same height as his father, genetics has no influence on height?

Those who claim there are differences between races have failed to provide any solid proof while there is ample proof to show that differences between races do not exist.

I've seen plenty of assertions that there are no differences, but no proof. Measured differences might be fully explained by diet or economics or whatever; I'm sure that at least partly they are. But I've seen nothing resembling proof that all differences are thus explained.

On the other hand, no one on this thread, including the author of the article, has claimed to have proof of hereditary differences--just that it's still an open question.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Tingkai




The only correct thing you're said is the last line. We are all different. We are all individuals.

Are you, reds4ever, exactly like everyone else in your race? If you are white, wouldn't you admit that there are tall whites, short whites, smart whites, dumb whites. Some whites excel at sprinting. Others excel in the marathon. There are so many differences within a race that any average becomes meaningless.

As for your question, go up to northeast China and you will find guys who are taller than 6'2" and who weigh more than 200 pounds. Put them on a North American diet, give them proper training, and then, yes, they would be able to runn 100 m in 10.5 seconds.

The reason this is not happening now is that most East Asians in the U.S. are descended from Cantonese or Japanese immigrants. Their cultural diet is based on rice. The people in northen China have a wheat-based diet. Although I have no proof, I suspect that this difference explains the difference in body size.

Hong Kong people are getting larger in body size mainly because the diet here is changing. People have more to eat at a young age and they're eating a more diverse range of food.

Excellent argument, Tingkai.

[Ramo]

I've seen plenty of assertions that there are no differences, but no proof.

I wouldn't go that far, but he's very close to the truth.

From the American Anthropological Association article I linked:

"With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species. "

There are genetic differences between so-called "races." For instance, some of these groups of people (with the same diet) tend to have different disease tolerances. But to assert that there are significant differences in intelligence between these groups is patently absurd. As the evidence in this thread has demonstrated, their existences are totally counterintuitive to science, in general.

I really can't believe that people in this day and age will not admit to basic differences between races, in 50 years you'll be viewed like creationists are now

That's a rather apt analogy. The "science" that you subscribe to is very similar to "creation science."

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Rex Little
I trust it's obvious to most of you that this has nothing to do with what I wrote. Among blacks, the average height of Pygmies differs from that of Bantus by rather more than the difference between Northern and Southern Chinese, but there is still such a thing as an average height for all blacks, and an average height for all Orientals, and I'd be really surprised if they're exactly the same.

Now, it might be interesting to study differences between subgroups of the same race, such as the height difference between Northern and Southern Chinese, with an eye to determining the relative influence of heredity, diet and other environmental factors. It would be less politically charged than a similar study comparing different races, and might help to develop methods which could be used to construct racial-comparison studies which were truly objective.

AFAIK, The pygmies and the Bantus are fairly seperate people. You might as well compare the pygmies to the Chinese.

The northern and southern Chinese are closely linked. They're both Han. My family, for example, moved from the north to the Guanzhou region about 450 years ago.

Originally posted by Rex Little
Because a child isn't exactly the same height as his father, genetics has no influence on height?

You miss the point. All the members of one generation are taller than all the members of another generation. With five people in each group, statistically, this should not happen if height was controlled by genetics.

My generation is also taller than any of our grandparents.

Your genetics theory cannot explain why my generation is taller than our ancestors.

The answer lies in the environment. My generation ate different and more food during childhood than previous generations. Hence the generational height increase.

What we will likely see in the next 50 years is that Chinese people will, on average, have the same body mass as Westerners simply because Mainland Chinese will be eating better.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Peacemaker
Why is this theory so hard to understand? You need to stop looking at this as just a balck and white issue. As groups af animals breed they devolop their own traits. Be it size, strength, intelligence or any other trait.

If we look at this issue with dogs insteed of humans and look at the difference at breeds(race) most would say certian breeds of dogs are smarter than others. If this is true for dogs then why can't it be true for humans.

The difference here is humans breed dogs according to certain attributes they want, so dogs of the same "breed" will have more and more of these attributes as time goes on.

The same cannot be said of humans, so the analogy with dogs doesn't hold.

[Tolls]

(continuing from Urban Rangers post)
...and if we were to leave dogs to their own devices they would rapidly lose their breeds, becoming rather like the mongrels found all over the world.

[Carver]

Originally posted by Rex Little
Among blacks, the average height of Pygmies differs from that of Bantus by rather more than the difference between Northern and Southern Chinese, but there is still such a thing as an average height for all blacks, and an average height for all Orientals, and I'd be really surprised if they're exactly the same.

Rex Little, you're so close to actually getting it. The results of genetic research have shown us that there is a larger genetic variance within a so-called racial group than there is between different racial groups. The northern, wheat-eating Chinese are probably better basketball players than the Pygmies. However, Yorubas (from west Africa) are probably better basketball players than rice-eating Asians.

That there may be a difference in the average height of Asians and Africans is of no consequence. We have already seen in this thread that there are more localized factors that affect human development. With this in mind, racial generalizations will always be false; there are no races; there is no scientific method of defining a "race". Among humans, what we really have are a collection of various localities. Race does not determine height, intelligence or sprinting ability. Very detailed, localized factors affect those things.

That may not be what you want to hear, but it is the truth. The myth of racial generalization has been debunked by modern genetics.

But at least we know where you're coming from: "Orientals" - OMG, this is the twenty-first century!