Are all races equal?

[philippe666]

All races are equal.
Although.....i somehow feel French have just evolved a little bit more they now slowly are transforming to frogs...
j/k
Everyones equal and that is it.

[cavebear]

I don't have any particular objection to research on racial differences. There *are* some differences that affect medical treatments and most likely diagnoses, for example. But mostly, because there is value in proving some ideas incorrect! Any serious study of racial differences using valid scientific methods would show that there were no biological bases for racial superiority claims.

Current evolutionary thought estimates that it takes about 20,000 years for humans to change from black to white (or vice versa). If you isolated a viable population of white humans in the Australian Outback for 20,000 years, without technological protections, they would be blacks (of a new sort) after that time. The reverse goes for a population of Bantu moved to Scandanavia, of course.

What we call "race" is merely the physical adaption to a given environment for a sufficient length of time.

And I expect (without concern) that all humans will become some generally uniform shade of "tan". "Race" is probably a temporary condition of humanity. We are all becoming far too mobile for the local adjustments to the isolated geographical environments of the past 50,000 years to endure for long.

(See the color of the icon? That would be a nice skin color...)

[ranskaldan]

Ramo:

thanks for the correction.

Az:

Yes, I would, idealistically, be against willful ignorance as well. But this particular situation is special; there is no way to predict if research results wouldn't prove absolutely harmful to human society. In fact, if you take the average IQ of certain "races", there are likely to be minor differences of a few fractions of percentage points; and letting these "differences" be public knowledge would be very dangerous.

cbear:

Well, of course, research into sickle-cell anemia is perfectly welcome... but when we start comparing the "intelligence" of races, there's something wrong there.

But I do have a problem with the belief that there is value in proving some ideas incorrect... etc. How do you know that the experiments would prove these ideas incorrect? Can you guarantee that the average IQ-levels of two "races" would really equal to the nearest 0.0001 point? If they don't, what effect would that have on society?

[Master Zen]

But that's the point, how do we know that an IQ is THE ideal perfect way to measure someone's intelligence?

It is a test made by humans, based on no biological fact, therefore it is fallible.

[Master Zen]

I've read that humans only use 10% or less of their brain capacity. Hell, if we can-t even measure how much of our brain we use, how the hell can we measure how good it is???

Trust me, science is waaaaaaay far off in making it 100% possible to truly measure intelligence. Until we get any closer, let's spend our money and time curing cancer, Aids, and that goddam hell-sent illness called the common cold.

[ranskaldan]

Well put, Master Zen.

[Master Zen]

I stumbled upon this article in the MSN Encarta, check it out:

http://encarta.msn.com/column/iqmain.asp

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
That's precisely the problem! Our experience of history shows that people are not reasonable. If it is indeed proven that races have tiny percentages of advantage over each other in certain areas, then legislatures will pass segregation laws, racist laws, etc. That's how it works.

It doesn't have to be that way. If half as much energy as is put into promoting 'diversity' were put into promoting the concept of the individual, I don't think it would be a problem.

It's an analogy. If murder was legalized, people would do it. Similarly, if racism were somehow justified (even indirectly), people would jump to conclusions and do it.

Not necessarily. For the reason I mentioned above.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ramo
No, it's a scientific conclusion.

An incorrect one.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen
But that's the point, how do we know that an IQ is THE ideal perfect way to measure someone's intelligence?

IQ has been proven to be a valid predictor of success.

http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html

[Gangerolf]

all races are equal, but some races are more equal than others

[Master Zen]

Success is not the same as intelligence. THere are many personality traits which come into play to determine success and intelligence is but one of them.

After reading the article I am still not convinced since it is not an universally held view for ALL experts. Plus, being an economist who has to prove everything with statistical estimates, I can assure you, just because you proved it statistically, does not mean you're right!

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen
After reading the article I am still not convinced since it is not an universally held view for ALL experts.

You're never going to get a completely unanimously held view. If a statement signed by 52 internationally reknowned experts in the field of intelligence isn't good enough for you, then nothing will be.

[Master Zen]

Nicotine is a carcinogen, therefore causes cancer. Cigarettes have nicotine and thus causes cancer. I think this is a pretty universally held view by 99% of experts.

I doubt the PoVs on IQ and intelligence are held so widely.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Nicotine is a carcinogen, therefore causes cancer. Cigarettes have nicotine and thus causes cancer. I think this is a pretty universally held view by 99% of experts.

I doubt the PoVs on IQ and intelligence are held so widely.

You say that you don't accept what is said in the signed statement I provided because it is not universally supported by everyone in the field of intelligence, yet your own opinion regarding intelligence is not universally supported either. Your own opinion does not live up to the criteria you specified as being the reason you are unconvinced by the signed statement. Why don't you tell me the real reason you are unconvinced by it?