Race differences

[Ramo]

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.)

Not in civilization, for the most part. High birth rate was necessary to compensate for the high infant mortality rate, much of which due to childhood diseases (measeles, small pox, etc.).

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.)

But nurture arguments have strong solid evidence to back them up, whilst genetic arguments have little evidence going for them.

You are free to research the statistics. Much of it is available in academic journals.

Do you have a good source?

Most IQ studies I've seen have been woefully inadaquete.

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?

The genetic gradient in terms of spatial dimensions has generally been very small. Historically, there haven't been many divisions where a white guy is one side and a black guy on the other.

The point is, is if there are no barriers between genetic intermixing, if there are forces promoting genetic intermixing, why would genetic isolation possibly occur?

And the pitiful compensation for his theory - his explanation for East Asians is so ludicrous it doesn't deserve comment.

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.

But the mechanism such that intelligence is more advantageous in cold climates is not backed up, at all. Seriously, if whites are so much smarter than blacks, what is all of the energy that could be going to the brain, actually going to? Certainly, the physical trade offs between the two "races" cannot possibly compare with the mentral advantage of being 10/7 times as smart. And that applies to all environments.

The article doesn't explain why the Homo Sapiens Sapiens which evolved in Africa was so much smarter than the neanderthal, which had been adapted to Europe's cold climate. Why aren't Europeans neanderthals instead of men?

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

Then why didn't blacks, who supposedly would be adapted better to a temperate climate, conquer Europe after it thawed?

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"?

No, I'm saying that I see no good reason why one environment would select intelligence in humans, better than another.

In many aspects, I don't think I'm smart enough to flourish in a tropical environment. I don't think I could be able to continuously form mental maps of unfamiliar surroundings, for instance.

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.

I think I already showed you what kind of scale I was referring to:
"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. "

So? There are multiple genes affecting height and stature certainly has a genetic component.

1. The implication is not that intelligence doesn't have a genetic component (which it certainly does), but that significant changes in brain functions take much, much longer to occur than a relatively simple set of genes, such as those relating to stature or skin color.
2. "Multiple" doesn't imply "thousands."

The point remains, you only have to change a few codons to get differences in function.

You really think that there are a few "smart genes?"

Are you familiar with the use of multiple regressions. This is a very simple process for dealing with issues like nature/nurture. Helps those who get wrapped around the axle and can't deconvolute multivariable functions. (nature, nurture, nature and nurture)

Well, you'll have to show me some of these studies. I've seen studies that put blacks adopted by whites and blacks from the Carribean perform on par with whties.

Ramo, did you just grab articles at random with titles related to this discussion.

What do you think the title of my post indicated?
I skimmed a couple, and they were relevant - the AAA article and the Atlantic Monthly article.

[qutoe]But they are not scientific comments[/quote]

Rex didn't ask for academic papers.

on genetic basis of race differences. These articles don't support your statements, Ramo

Look at the AAA article again.

This in no way is scientific eviedence from HGP showing that there are no group differences in brain function by race.

I didn't assert that there was scientific evidence showing that there are no group differences in brain function by race, merely that "race" is not that significant a factor in human genetics.

[Ramo mode] metals do differ in atomic weight. but to say that thye differ in conductivity is absurd. [/Ramo mode]

[GP mode]This metal must have a different conductivity from that one. It doesn't matter if it's insulated by glass. There are statistical methods to correct for that.[/GP mode]

Many, many studies have found an IQ difference between racial groups. Produce some that show no difference? Now the question becomes the source of that difference. The way to attack this question is by multiple regression of different causative factors. Not silly statements that "nurture is all, nature is nothing" devoid of numbers.

Please give me this study then.

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.

You're an ignorant fool.

First of all, whites in North America imported their civilization from Europe. And "whites" from Europe imported their civilization from the Middle East. On the other hand, Subsaharan Africans created civilization themselves in Sahel (in fact, beating the uber-cold Scandinavians by a few milennia) and Ethiopia.

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

Aryans was the old name for Iranians. After the initial Indo-European expansion from the southern Caucasus (another branch conquered much of Europe, with a few exceptions such as Basques and Finns), some groups conquered Persia. These speakers of the proto-Indo-Iranian language then conquered much of South Asia during the 2nd millennium BC.

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara



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.

Che, yes it certainly would make me look more skeptically at their research. Could you elaborate? I wonder why a white supremacist would say the Asians were better than the whites? The Bell Curve had a lot more data, stats, and footnotes to peer-reviewed literature than the opposing views. It was also less "shrill" and it even examined and presented results which supported the opposite of its conclusions to be fair and complete. For instance, you will learn more about the Flynn effect (even as an opponent of racial differences) if you read the index of The Bell Curve and read the pages referred to...than if you read the anti-Bell Curve comments. (Many of which present the Flynn effect as if it is something that Murray never heard of...)

[TCO]

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?

I didn't think this book was so good.

1. No footnotes to real academic literature.

2. Tries to destroy the "nature" argument by positing a nurture argument.

2.a. Never directly addresses the nature claims. Never driectly looks at Iq studies, etc. Just dismisses them. That's not an argument.

2.b. Confuses positive evidence for nurture effects with negative evidence for nature.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by GP
I wonder why a white supremacist would say the Asians were better than the whites?

They don't say that Asians are better. The standard BS is that Asians are smarter, but sexually and physically weak. Blacks are dumb, but sexually and physically agressive. And the whites are perfect with a lovely balance of being smart and being total dudes.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo



But nurture arguments have strong solid evidence to back them up, whilst genetic arguments have little evidence going for them.

Ramo, support for a nurture effect on intelligence does not prove or disprove genetic effects. Surely you are aware of multiple regressions? You have to isolate and test for the variable of interest. The presence (or conversely absence!) of one significant variable does not rule out others.

Do you have a good source?

Yes. I can send you the academic citations when I get back to Atlanta. If you want something now, go look at The Bell Curve and go to the footnoted citations.

Most IQ studies I've seen have been woefully inadaquete.

Are you familiar with the NLSY? Do you have any studies to promote your point of view? Are they more thorough studies?

The genetic gradient in terms of spatial dimensions has generally been very small. Historically, there haven't been many divisions where a white guy is one side and a black guy on the other.

The point is, is if there are no barriers between genetic intermixing, if there are forces promoting genetic intermixing, why would genetic isolation possibly occur?

It doesn't require complete seperation. Just a gradient. Surely you can see that skin color is heriditary and there was time enough and seperation enough for this development. (If intermixing were so rapid as to eliminate all racial differences...why do color differences exist?). The (unsolved question) is was there enough time/seperation for other differences to develop.

But the mechanism such that intelligence is more advantageous in cold climates is not backed up, at all. Seriously, if whites are so much smarter than blacks, what is all of the energy that could be going to the brain, actually going to? Certainly, the physical trade offs between the two "races" cannot possibly compare with the mentral advantage of being 10/7 times as smart. And that applies to all environments.

The article doesn't explain why the Homo Sapiens Sapiens which evolved in Africa was so much smarter than the neanderthal, which had been adapted to Europe's cold climate. Why aren't Europeans neanderthals instead of men?



Then why didn't blacks, who supposedly would be adapted better to a temperate climate, conquer Europe after it thawed?

Ramo, I agree that mechanistic explanations for evolution of genetic differences are weak at this point. This doesn't argue against the differences existing...and certainly isn't definitive proof for your feeling that they DON'T exist. In 1900, mechanistic arguments for different mobilities in different metal were nonexistent, but the differences were there and were noted.

No, I'm saying that I see no good reason why one environment would select intelligence in humans, better than another.

In many aspects, I don't think I'm smart enough to flourish in a tropical environment. I don't think I could be able to continuously form mental maps of unfamiliar surroundings, for instance.

This is an argument of plausability. But you don't do much to prove your negative point (that all environments have the same evolutionary pressure for intelligence. In fact your comments about the rain forest go the other way.) If different environments favor differnt physicical traits why is it so hard to consider that they would favor intelectual traits or even emotional ones. Surely a good cold atheist like yourself realizes that intellect and emotion are "physical" adaptions of the human species?

I think I already showed you what kind of scale I was referring to:
"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. "

1. Variation in DNA as a whole is not the issue, variation in DNA associated with intelligence is the issue. Neither side has given any evidence here. But your statements are the more declarative. (therefore not supported.)

2. You realize that different breeds of dog have almost identical DNA, yet clear different results in behavior and intelligence. Why is it so hard to consider the same could be true for humans? We are just lumps of protoplasm also.

1. The implication is not that intelligence doesn't have a genetic component (which it certainly does), but that significant changes in brain functions take much, much longer to occur than a relatively simple set of genes, such as those relating to stature or skin color.

How long?

2. "Multiple" doesn't imply "thousands."?[/QUOTE]

The point remains.

You really think that there are a few "smart genes?"

I don't know. You are the one making declarative statements that say there was not enough time for all the genes to evolve to give any intelligence differences. Surely, you realize that some codons are inactive, have different functions, etc. Do you think that all of those thousands affect intelligence equally?

Well, you'll have to show me some of these studies. I've seen studies that put blacks adopted by whites and blacks from the Carribean perform on par with whties.

You should read the Bell Curve. It has many studies both "pro" and "con" which are cited so that you can go to the literature. You have the luxury of being in academia...so this means just going to a library and looking at the journals.

What do you think the title of my post indicated?
I skimmed a couple, and they were relevant - the AAA article and the Atlantic Monthly article.

You were admissive of this issue in your title. I just expect more when you are so declarative. Slopping a bunch of links together is not the way to have a scientific discussion. It doesn't support your points. It just gives people a bunch of stuff to weed through. I went through looking for the best stuff to support your point of view...but it was not efficient.

Rex didn't ask for academic papers.

The reservation remains.

Look at the AAA article again.

Ok...I will. What am I supposed to find there?

I didn't assert that there was scientific evidence showing that there are no group differences in brain function by race, merely that "race" is not that significant a factor in human genetics.

I understand your position more clearly, now. But don't understand why you raise the "that significant" comment. In what context? In sickle cell anemia, racial genetic differences are "that significant". The open question is: "Are they 'that significant' in IQ differences?"

Please give me this study then.

See my comments above.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Tingkai


They don't say that Asians are better. The standard BS is that Asians are smarter, but sexually and physically weak. Blacks are dumb, but sexually and physically agressive. And the whites are perfect with a lovely balance of being smart and being total dudes.

1. Insert "have higher IQ's" for "better" in my comments. Sorry got lazy.

2. It may be offensive but is it untrue?

[Tingkai]

What's your answer to the questions I have posted?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Tingkai
What's your answer to the questions I have posted?

huh? talking to me? which questions?

[Tingkai]

To anyone. The questions I posted above.

[WFHermans]

Tinkai's questionnaire

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

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

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

4. 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?

5. 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?

----------------------

I even numbered them for you.

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by WFHermans
IF YOU SEE A GROUP OF ONE THOUSAND NEGROES AND ONE THOUSAND CHINESE, CAN YOU THEN HONESTLY SAY THOSE TWO GROUPS OF PEOPLE ARE EXACTLY THE SAME????

In what sense are you "measuring" the diferences?

Do you mean culturaly?
Do you mean visually?

or

Do you mean genetically?

If you are asking for genetical diferences, I would ask you to collect DNA samples from all of them. Last time someone doene that it turned out that the answer was:

YES, THEY ARE!!!

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by Flubber
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.

God, you guys are so stupid it hurts!!!

What is the relevance of such a test?

Why don't we try and make a comparative mapping of brains of

... Manchester Fans and Liverpool Fans

... Vegetarians against Meat Eaters

... Democrats and Republicans

... Racists and Non-Racists

...

Can't you see all those tests are likelly to give different results?

Do you know why?

BECAUSE WE ARE ALL DIFERENT, THAT'S WHY.

It will be a damn lucky shot if any of these tests does not give even a slight diference!!!

And then?

Are we saying that some are more inteligent than the others?


We don't even fully know how the brain works and you pretend to draw conclusions on the mapping of it? And specifically concerning such a puny thing as the colour of one's skin?

And you don't like to be called RACIST? To bad, for that's exactly what you are!

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by GP
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.

If I started talking about how a population mean can be a blatantly insuficient statistic, when used to explain so many phenomena...

Let's just say that, for a sample mean to be enough (and when doing inquiries, we are talking about samples) , you require that the population has normal distribution (and contrary to the name, there are many ocasions it has not!) and then you require that the sample has normal distribution (and that, is barelly impossible in some cases). More, it requires that all observations are independent!

So, are we still talking about something serious, or are will we keep talking about sample means as if, by themselves, they meant something?

[Ecowiz Returns]

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.

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.

Yeah!!!
First, you post some claims:
- some are known lies
- some are unpreven theories
- the rest are conclusions drawn over the first two.
However, very calmly, you claim to be questioned by your claims and argue that there is valitidy in them.

Then, when asked to back the things you posted, you simply do not!

However, you keep saying that what you present is valid.

I for one have some dificulty in being calm when confronted to such disrespectfull atitude toward others that are honnestly trying to show how wrong your claims are!

You seem to believe that, by seeming to be calm you demonstrate some kind of intelectual superiority, thus confirming the validity of your claims.

Guess again! Things don't work that way.

The only thing that you demonstrate is that you present invalid claims over a serious subject, claims that present you as diminuishing other human beings simply based of the colour of their skin (which all of those like you have claimed to be significant in telling us how the average guy is supposed to be).

So far, really, the only thing that you, and others like you have demonstrated is that you are Racists. Other than that, you have not yet provided a single unrefutable evidence there is such a thing as diferent human races.

And you fell happy about your performance?

I pity you!

[WFHermans]

If a childmolesting moronic massmurderer says that 1+1=2 and a Harvard Nobelprize winning professor of mathematics says 1+1=3 then I will still believe the 1+1=2 defender made the right calculation. Right?

Now Rex Little will probably say that proves that I am a childmolesting moronic massmurderer...