[serious] Unpopular free speech

[Ecofarm]

QFT

[Felch]

What is up with that thou. I'm not American which part/class of the US speaks like that? I've never heard anything like it.

Nobody speaks like that, that I've ever heard. He's affecting an accent for some weird reason.

[Ecofarm]

It's improper grammar, right?

[Heraclitus]

Any differences in IQ, by group, are socio-economic mistranslations that are overlooked under various agenda.

A very strong claim. You actually need to come up with proof for this rather than just make it axiomatic.




You also need to explain why K vs. r selection would have been precisley identical on every human population in the past 100 000 years.
I'm curious if you can you come up with this?

[Ecofarm]

There are hundreds of journal articles proving exactly that. Look into modern criticisms of IQ studies and you will find that every one has been criticized in that it failed to translate socio-economic factors, contexts and bias (when an attempt was made to exceed these parameters).


K vs. r? That designation is made at the species level, over the course of evolution. No species has some K and some r. Why would humans? In fact, I do not think there is an r-type mammal (perhaps bats and rats?); r-types end somewhere around lizards (all insects are r-type, IIRC).

[Heraclitus]

There are hundreds of journal articles proving exactly that. Look into modern criticisms of IQ studies and you will find that every one has been criticized in that it failed to translate socio-economic factors, contexts and bias (when an attempt was made to exceed these parameters).


K vs. r? That designation is made at the species level, over the course of evolution. No species has some K and some r. Why would humans? In fact, I do not think there is an r-type mammal (perhaps bats and rats?); r-types end somewhere around lizards (all insects are r-type, IIRC).

Of course all mamalls are K selected, and humans are extremley K selected.


Species is an arbitrary designation. The concept can be applied on various subspecies or subpopulations just as easily.



Hm... Now lets see. If there where differences in the extent of K selection in human groups one would expect to see slight differences in age of sexual maturity, lenght of pregancy, perhaps life span ect. in a consisten manner right?

[Ecofarm]

I do not think there is any variance in selection (K and r, of course) upon subspecies or subpopulations, in any species. This is why we draw the line at species. It is not an arbitrary line, it is the line at which we observe variance.

I'm not sure at what level we can see uniformity above species. Perhaps phylum, order or family in some cases.


If you want to apply the concept to number of children, see: The Demographic Transition. That's social (perhaps ecologic in extreme cases), not genetic.

[Heraclitus]

We could argue quite a bit about species vs. subspecies at this point since the simple fact is the line is fuzzy in many many examples but I don't feel like that argument with you right now.

I do not think there is any variance in selection (K and r, of course) upon subspecies or subpopulations, in any species. This is why we draw the line at species. It is not an arbitrary line, it is the line at which we observe variance.

If you want to apply the concept to number of children, see: The Demographic Transition. That's social (perhaps ecologic in extreme cases), not genetic.

Where did you get this silly strawman instead of refering to what I posted? The actual number of children is of course determined by the enviornment (be it social or natural)! I'm talking about adaptaions to reproductive strategies.

[Ecofarm]

Did Sloww teach you to read?

I'm talking about adaptaions to reproductive strategies.

And you think the demo transition is a strawman?

:boggle:

[Dr Strangelove]

Nobody speaks like that, that I've ever heard. He's affecting an accent for some weird reason.

Does anyone remember William F. Buckley? I think he's trying to emulate the "Conservative Yale Intellectual" accent.

[Heraclitus]

And you think the demo transition is a strawman?

:boggle:

I mispoke rather I saw as a strawman your implicit argument about human reproduction rates.



The Demographic transition has little to nothing to do with human variance.


Let me repeat myself you don't need to have few offspring just because your type is K selected if the environemnt is favorable (a r species would of course reproduce even faster in such favorable circumstances) and even an r species could due to environmental factors (infertility for one) be produce less offspring. Heck most species have some leway to swing a bit more K or a bit more r in behaviour depending on their enviornment, this dosen't for the most part change what they are most suited for however.


The current population growth rates due to birthcontrol and modern medicine as well as women being more empowered economcially makes this a rather bad way to see if some races are slightly less or slightly more K selected than the human average.

[Heraclitus]

There are hundreds of journal articles proving exactly that. Look into modern criticisms of IQ studies and you will find that every one has been criticized in that it failed to translate socio-economic factors, contexts and bias (when an attempt was made to exceed these parameters).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstr...n_Intelligence

According to the statement, intelligence testing is not culturally biased against individuals with a minority racial or ethnic background, as members of all racial or ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. However, there are observable group differences in the relative distribution of IQ, and the average scores of those groups tend to cluster at different points along the IQ spectrum. The average IQ for White Americans is 100, with Jewish and Asian Americans scoring somewhat higher, and Hispanic and African Americans scoring somewhat lower.[3]

All attemts to find reduce the supposed cultural and class bias have failed. Every single one. And not just that the relative position of everyone on compared to each other stays exactly the same on all tests (not just IQ tests!).


Why isn't there a test biased so that whites come up on top? Or perhaps Eskimos beat out East Asians or perhaps Blacks beat Polinezians?


I can provide many many citations of scientist who assert that not only the gap is real but that it can't be wholy explained by enivronmental factors. But we have already danced this little dance over and over again.
Let's stick to r and K selection.


Now the following is much simpler to control for environment than inteligence or IQ so lets take a spin:

Why do Black girls get their first period on average earlier than East Asian girls? Why are White pregnancies on average longer than Black pregnancies? Why do Black males have higher levels of testosterone and average slightly bigger penises than White males? Why are rates of couples having difficulty conceiving lowest in Blacks, followed by Whites and topped by East Asians? Why do Whites have lower future time orientation than East Asians (crosracial adoption studies )? Why are there 16 twin births per 1000 among Blacks and just 4 per 1000 in Asians? Ect.


Could it be that some of us where stuck in more unpredictable environments than the others making rapid reproduction a greater boon, while some other goups of humans got stuck in a harsh but relativley predictable environments? Could it be that since genetic studies show these groups have now been distinct for the order of tens of thousands (a hundred thousand for the African vs. NonAfrican split) years that a bit of selection has taken placed causing us to diverge a tiny bit?

Or is this unimaginable?

[Heraclitus]

Also a bit of a detour for the benefit of the readers a topic previously broched:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species...classification

The theory of the evolution of species through natural selection has two important implications for discussions of species—consequences that fundamentally challenge the assumptions behind Linnaeus' taxonomy. First, it suggests that species are not just similar, they may actually be related. Some students of Darwin argue that all species are descended from a common ancestor. Second, it supposes that "species" are not homogeneous, fixed, permanent things; members of a species are all different, and over time species change. This suggests that species do not have any clear boundaries but are rather momentary statistical effects of constantly changing gene-frequencies. One may still use Linnaeus' taxonomy to identify individual plants and animals, but one can no longer think of species as independent and immutable.

The rise of a new species from a parental line is called speciation. There is no clear line demarcating the ancestral species from the descendant species.

Although the current scientific understanding of species suggests that there is no rigorous and comprehensive way to distinguish between different species in all cases, biologists continue to seek concrete ways to operationalize the idea. One of the most popular biological definitions of species is in terms of reproductive isolation; if two creatures cannot reproduce to produce fertile offspring of both genders, then they are in different species. This definition captures a number of intuitive species boundaries, but it remains imperfect. It has nothing to say about species that reproduce asexually, for example, and it is very difficult to apply to extinct species. Moreover, boundaries between species are often fuzzy: there are examples where members of one population can produce fertile offspring of both genders with a second population, and members of the second population can produce fertile offspring of both genders with members of a third population, but members of the first and third population cannot produce fertile offspring, or can only produce fertile offspring of the homozygous gender. Consequently, some people reject this definition of a species.

[Heraclitus]

Does anyone remember William F. Buckley? I think he's trying to emulate the "Conservative Yale Intellectual" accent.

I needed to listen to it twice to spot the similarities.