Race differences

[TCO]

Re: Re: Re: The titles sound relevant on these:

Originally posted by BeBro


Have you read part three and four of this?

Yeah...they are better (more related to the point). I don't find them too convincing though. Makes same comments about skin color being affected by a few genes and brain by several. This in no way is scientific eviedence from HGP showing that there are no group differences in brain function by race.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Im just not convinced its all due to environmental differences. Surely an area as huge as sub-saharan africa must have some areas that have a similar environment to europe or north america.

So what you're saying is Africans are inferior.

But that just ignores the history of Africa, and the reality of their civilizations that existed for almost a thousand years. Any decent history course could have tought you this. Any decent history book could have tought you this.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns

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

I don't think your opponents have an issue with this. The authors of the Bell Curve said that IQ varies more for individuals within a race than the means of the races do. This doesn't change the fact that the means are still significantly different. construct some normal curves and you will see this.

[Caligastia]

Chegitz

Do you really think its reasonable to say that the reasons for the huge difference between conditions in africa and north america are totally environmental? That just doesnt make sense to me.

[Rex Little]

This thread has basically been a debate between two positions:

1. The claims made by sociobiologists are plausible; certainly not proven, but open to study.

2. These claims are definitely false, and are taken seriously only by fools and racists.

Nearly all the posts in support of 1) have been calm and reasoned, while a great many (not all, perhaps not even a majority, but many) of the opposing ones have been shrill and flame-ridden. I've been feeling pretty good about this; almost smug, you might say.

And then along comes a post by WFHermans to spoil it all.

Will you please peddle your cr*p somewhere else, W? You're not adding anything at all to this discussion.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Chegitz

Do you really think its reasonable to say that the reasons for the huge difference between conditions in africa and north america are totally environmental? That just doesnt make sense to me.

One good book to read, that I own, is Guns, Germs, and Steel. It's good, in my opinion.

Why not borrow a copy of it, and read it?

The great differences have resulted in the way that prehistoric and ancient Africa developed. Somewhere along the point, Africa diverged in its own path of development. However, a few things that disrupted Africa's cultural and economic development:

1) European colonialism

2) internal and external slave trade

3) warfare among the nations, kingdoms, and tribes of Africa that allowed Europeans to exploit the continent's people

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MrFun


One good book to read, that I own, is Guns, Germs, and Steel. It's good, in my opinion.

Why not borrow a copy of it, and read it?

The great differences have resulted in the way that prehistoric and ancient Africa developed. Somewhere along the point, Africa diverged in its own path of development. However, a few things that disrupted Africa's cultural and economic development:

1) European colonialism

2) internal and external slave trade

3) warfare among the nations, kingdoms, and tribes of Africa that allowed Europeans to exploit the continent's people

I have heard a lot of this book, and I would probably find it interesting too, but I have seen some pretty scathing reviews of it.

http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_ggs.html

[chequita guevara]

I would say that genetic differences had nothing to do with why Europe surpassed the rest of the world. Rather it was a fortuitous combination of circumstances which gave Europe an edge over the rest of the world. And that this edge, once begun, began increasing at a geometric rate rather than an arithamtic rate, such that the rest of the world found it almost impossible to catch up. In fact, only Japan did (and they weren't that far behind).

It wasn't necessarily cultural, because the cultural differences that are often attributed to Europe's domination, didn't apply to Russia, Spain, or Portugal. They certainly didn't apply to the Ottoman's, who were kicking Europe's butt, even while Spain and Portugal were expanding their empires.

Cultural and political differences may have had something to do with it, but the primary reason why Europe conquered the world was simply technology and the luck to show up at the moment when an empire was collapsing (which they helped along) so that they can pick up the pieces. That's how Spain got Mexico an Peru, it's how Britain got India, it's how the Dutch got the East Indies.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Rex Little
This thread has basically been a debate between two positions:

1. The claims made by sociobiologists are plausible; certainly not proven, but open to study.

2. These claims are definitely false, and are taken seriously only by fools and racists.

These claims have been proven false, again, and again, and again. Yet, some new fool comes along, digs up the previously disproven research and says "Aha!" this proves what I've believed all along. Hey everyone, come look at this." Where upon those of us who've seen it before, roll our eyes and groan, "Not again. Why do we have to put up with this every ten years!?!"

Nearly all the posts in support of 1) have been calm and reasoned, while a great many (not all, perhaps not even a majority, but many) of the opposing ones have been shrill and flame-ridden. I've been feeling pretty good about this; almost smug, you might say.

Feel smug all you like. You're ignorant of the facts. But then, why let science spoil your little superiority fest?

GP, you know that one of the authors of The Bell Curve is a long time member of a white supremicist organization, don't you? Do you think that may have skewed his "research?" In nearly every signle debate in which they were part of, when their ideas were thoroughly demolished, they would claim that they were being shut down by PCism, and that their ideas weren't being given the forum they deserved. Frankly, their ideas didn't deerve as much attention as they got, and the media certainly paid more attention to the authors' claims of censorship than the actual studies showing up The Bell Curve as the piece of tripe it is.

And Mr. Little, if we seem shrill, it's because we get sick of racists pretending they're being reasonable when all they are doing is dredging up Piltdown Man and claiming he's the genuine article one more time.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I would say that genetic differences had nothing to do with why Europe surpassed the rest of the world. Rather it was a fortuitous combination of circumstances which gave Europe an edge over the rest of the world. And that this edge, once begun, began increasing at a geometric rate rather than an arithamtic rate, such that the rest of the world found it almost impossible to catch up. In fact, only Japan did (and they weren't that far behind).

It just doesnt seem reasonable to me to totally discount genetic factors.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Caligastia
It just doesnt seem reasonable to me to totally discount genetic factors.

That's because you are ignorant of science and history, and because you are a racist.

Funny how those traits often go together.

[Flubber]

I would never ever even TRY to argue whether or not genetic factors played a part in European economic and military domination . . .


The part I am more interested in is the now. Anecdotally, it appears that Asians have on average, smaller body sizes. I have also seen articles talking about different numbers of "fast-twitch" and " slow twitch" muscle fibres in black versus white people as an explainantion why more black people excell in sprints and more whites in endurance events. I neither accept nor reject these claims at the moment, but if true, they appear to indicate body differences.

Now I wonder if there are brain differences as well ? Has been mapping been done of the brains of representative samples of various races ?? it could prove interesting. It is my understanding that examination of brains have revealed significant differences in the way ( on average) men and women process information.

The problem as a casual inquirer into these issues, is that it is difficult to ascertain the true science from the racists on one hand and the ultra PC crowd on the other. As a non scientist it is difficult to immediately ascertain the bullcrap.

All I know is this (again on average)

1. There are obvious physical differences between the races

2. In various nations there are obvious differences in academic achievement, crime rates, economic success among various races.

3. The differences in 1 and 2 may be largely explained by socieconomic factors arising from historical racism, current racism and cultural factors. Poor people of any race are more likely to have crime, lower academic achievement . . . Some cultures may value the skills that are tested on a standard IQ test more or the test itself may be culturally biased.

4. Nothing in 3 disproves the possibility of genetic differences in intelligence, endurance or other matters


I am offended by anyone who would characterize me negatively as a racist because I find these questions interesting.

Do we fully understand the causes of greater intelligence, regardless of race? Is it a matter of more connections in the brain ?? Do the impulses move more quickly in a smart person ? does brain size even matter ( considering that the brain is so underutilized)?

I understand that science has been misused by racists and white supremicists but I don't think that that would be a valid reason to cease true scientific research. And unless there is just a ton of evidence supporting the sameness of races, I will still have to stay firmly in the don't know camp.

[Drake Tungsten]

Flubber:

You summed up my feelings on this issue perfectly...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Flubber
1. There are obvious physical differences between the races

2. In various nations there are obvious differences in academic achievement, crime rates, economic success among various races.

Okay Flubber, and all the rest of you "I'm not racist, but some races are superior than others."

Would you agree that your own race contains a wide diversity of people with a wide diversity of mental and physical abilities?

If you do, do you accept the fact that other races have the same diversity?

If race is so important, then wouldn't these people fit into a narrow band of similarities?

Think of the last school you went to and all the people of your own race. What physical and mental similarities did the people of your race share other than skin colour?

Would you agree that European nations, historically and today, have significant differences in academic achievement, crime rates and economic success? If race is so important than how can this be?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Flubber
The part I am more interested in is the now. Anecdotally, it appears that Asians have on average, smaller body sizes.

As people have mentioned several times in this thread, this is incorrect. Just go to Beijing and you will see that tall young people are quite common.