Evil Finn?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
So in other words race is subjective? If not:

What are the concrete definitions? How many races are there? How far down do we divide people? What basis in science do the definitions have? And then prove to me that at least some stereotypes of each race are encoded in its and only its DNA.

And, why historically have people from different backgrounds, when asked this question, decided upon different traits (groups of traits if you prefer) and different boundary lines between races?

Boundary lines brings up one more question. How many black characteristics do I have to have before I become black? Where does this cut-off number come from?

Or, avoiding all these questions and making life much easier, race is subjective.

Again, you're trying to define race incorrectly. There are no clear boundry lines. Races are groups of people who share common traits and ancestry, but the groups blur at the edges. For some reason this has given you the idea that the groups don't exist objectively. I suppose you think different breeds of dogs are subjective?

Yes: one that removes all cultural bias and when reporting results corrects for all the non-race factors of the tested subjects.

And until the test reports equal results for all races it is inaccurate? Circular logic.

That will be hard to come up with. However, the Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes experiment proved something: whichever group thought they were on top scored better on their tests that day, even when discrimination is based on something so ludicrous as eye color. The group that was on the bottom scored worse than they usually did. So for starters, as long as we keep telling ourselves whites are smarter than blacks, in large-sample, long-term testing in rigorous studies, we might find our expectations to be true by means of self-fulfilling prophecy.

I can't believe you are citing abusive brainwashing sessions by diversity zealots.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Come on, Japher, you're much better than this.

Patronizing Japher.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
If that was tl;dr, short, genetic story has two points: We have far more genetic diversity between members of the same race than between race to race.

Ah, Lewontin's fallacy. You're just repeating old canards.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/lewontindebunked.pdf

[DinoDoc]

in Africa it is between 60 and 70.

So the average African is mentally retarded?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

in Africa it is between 60 and 70.

So the average African is mentally retarded?

No. Not as we understand it. In groups with higher average IQs, individuals with such a low score are usually suffering from some kind of brain malformation - which also manifests itself in ways other than cognitive ability. The average 60-70 IQ european is likely to be worse off than the average 60-70 IQ african. I read about this a while ago, so I couldn't give you any more details than that, but that is my understanding of it.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Are you trying to make a point?

Yep. We've had this sort of discussion umpteen times, and it's a point that normally crops up around post 200 or so. I'm trying to hit the "fast forward" button this time.

IQ test results are significantly influenced by a host of environmental factors, and Down Syndrome kids are the latest hot area of study. Average Downsie IQ results are steadily rising with improved teaching methods, dietary supplements and a general move towards greater aspirations for the kids. It helps them thrive. 30 years back they were just considered to be retards, not really worth teaching.

Of course, similar attitudes tended to be held about blacks further back. And, further back still, the Irish. And the working class in general.

Which begs the question- how many times do those clinging to the notions of genetic racial/class untermenschen need to be proved wrong before they get the ****ing point hammered into them?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Yep. We've had this sort of discussion umpteen times, and it's a point that normally crops up around post 200 or so. I'm trying to hit the "fast forward" button this time.

IQ test results are significantly influenced by a host of environmental factors, and Down Syndrome kids are the latest hot area of study. Average Downsie IQ results are steadily rising with improved teaching methods, dietary supplements and a general move towards greater aspirations for the kids. It helps them thrive. 30 years back they were just considered to be retards, not really worth teaching.

Of course, similar attitudes tended to be held about blacks further back. And, further back still, the Irish. And the working class in general.

Which begs the question- how many times do those clinging to the notions of genetic racial/class untermenschen need to be proved wrong before they get the ****ing point hammered into them?

The fact that IQ is influenced by environmental factors hardly 'proves' that there is no genetic influence, and virtually everyone who studies intelligence seriously agrees that there are also genetic factors. The only argument is over the ratio.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia
and virtually everyone who studies intelligence seriously agrees that there are also genetic factors. The only argument is over the ratio.

You don't need to be seriously studying intelligence to spot the fact that you're contradicting yourself there.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp



You don't need to be seriously studying intelligence to spot the fact that you're contradicting yourself there.

How exactly?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
If anyone's interested, here's a site giving advice on how to improve the IQ of children with Down Syndrome.

http://www.cdadc.com/ds/cognitiv.htm

Don't be mean, Cali and mrmitchell aren't that slow

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia


How exactly?

If it's only virtually everybody, which is not the same as plain old unadorned "everybody, then it's clearly not just an argumemt about ratios, is it?

[Caligastia]

Over time, one major conclusion I have drawn after reading through the many debates about intelligence is that we just don't know for sure what exactly contributes to intelligence. There is good evidence for both environmental and genetic causes, so reasonable people will likely be of the opinion that the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes of nature and nurture. Ideologues, on the other hand, will stick to an extreme position and accuse anyone who doesn't agree of being either evil or "dumber than a sack of hammers" - as if the matter is settled, and only evil or stupid people could disagree.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Oh what a crock of crap, Cali. You've spent years parading horribly flawed pseudo-science as fact in trying to prop up a racial agenda on intelligence and criminality, and claiming anyone disagreeing is an irrational ideologue. Remove the beam from thine own eye.

The brutal fact is that the theory that Africa's economic problems are due to low intelligence has immense gaping holes in it, and should be ridiculed heartily.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


If it's only virtually everybody, which is not the same as plain old unadorned "everybody, then it's clearly not just an argumemt about ratios, is it?

Ok...virtually everyone who studies intelligence seriously agrees that there are also genetic factors. The major argument is over the ratio. - better?

Now that we've split hairs over the wording of my last post, which 'virtually' everyone must have understood anyway, can you please explain why Vanhanen could only be either evil or stupid?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Oh what a crock of crap, Cali. You've spent years parading horribly flawed pseudo-science as fact in trying to prop up a racial agenda on intelligence and criminality, and claiming anyone disagreeing is an irrational ideologue. Remove the beam from thine own eye.

The brutal fact is that the theory that Africa's economic problems are due to low intelligence has immense gaping holes in it, and should be ridiculed heartily.

There are problems with the science on both sides of the argument, not to mention lies and distortions. If the issue was as clear-cut as you seem to think it is, why would PBS (for example) feel the need to lie about it?

http://www.amren.com/0306issue/0306issue.html#article1