Racism

[tragula]

I'll get the ball rolling by stating the obvious: That all men (and women) are created equal. An obvious truth that is easily grasped by morally intelligent people.

(And if you ask me, I think dolphins and whales should probably be considered equals too, but that's another debate...) :)

What is less obvious is whether there is actually such a thing as race. Some people here are aware that recent scientific studies indicate that the common sense notions of distinguishable races are in fact accurate. Others are still convinced that race is more of a "social construct".

(Sorry this is a repeat thread. I just felt it was necessary to discuss this issue again.)

[CoHo]

(And if you ask me, I think dolphins and whales should probably be considered equals too, but that's another debate...)
And if you ask me, I think they should be hunted for sport http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[cjs55]

All men and women are born unequal: A fact that is easily grasped by any perceptive non-delusional person.

[tragula]

drats. Was meant to be a public poll....

[tragula]

The point is that they are Morally equal! (Not necessarily equal in every other sense of the word.)

[CoHo]

I thought you were talking about equal in weight. FUCKING FUCK FUCK

[cjs55]

The point is that they are Morally equal! I'm not even sure what this means....Some people, because of their nature, are inherently 'morally inequal'. For example, total sociopaths who can feel no empathy whatsoever for any act they commit.

If that's using the right definition of moral equality...

[CoHo]

No doubt, weight would have been much easier

[Sally]

Pick a trait. The differences within the range of any given race are greater than the differences between the averages of two races.

Furthermore, there are no distinct boundaries between races. At best, you have groups sharing a number of superficial physical traits. The boundaries of these groups are Always indistinct.

[cjs55]

Pick a trait. The differences within the range of any given race are greater than the differences between the averages of two races.

This doesn't say anything at all. Averages and curves are all that matter when pointing out differences in populations. There could be 99% of people in the middle, but .0001% on the ends skewing the range in your example.


The boundaries of these groups are Always indistinct.

Same can be said about any human classification.

[Lee]

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=3271& (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=3271&highlight=racism)

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=2236& (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=2236&highlight=racism)

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=2361& (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=2361&highlight=racism)

Some light reading.

[Sally]

And then there are differences between cultures. Perceived race is very much a part of culture.

[tragula]

I would say that Morally equal means their lives have the same "value". Whether they are rich, or famous or poor and unknown. Or any other circumstantial variable.

It's about human dignity, respect, and basic rights.

That's the best I can do right now....

[moni]

despite ethnic differences... aren't we all from the same human race?
or maybe i still don't know the definition of race...

[Helios]

I don't see how any true P could be racist, it seems like a FJ thing.

[mgb]

I don't see how any true P could be racist, it seems like a FJ thing.

That's because you are so closed minded.

[moni]

I don't see how any true P could be racist, it seems like a FJ thing.

wow, now that's prejudice on a different level. you were joking, right?

[Star]

What's a FJ?

[MacGuffin]

Well I can't vote. I do believe races are different, but cannot say at this time that some races are "better".

[tragula]

The social construct people should really read this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14leroi.html?ex=1114574400&en=81acd1ab1e88130a&ei=5070&pagewanted=print&position=

I'd like to know if it changes some people's minds.

[Sally]

I chose both "social construct" and "separate but equal." The information in this article wasn't news to me.

I think it depends on the definition of race. Scientifically, race is as complex as... well, as what this article touches upon. Scientifically, race exists as a generalisation, a label, useful in some ways and meaningless in others. Socially, the implications of race are... Well. Just look at them.

Kind of like sex and gender. There are two sexes in general, but they are not concrete. Their characteristics, even down to the sexual organs themselves, are not concrete. Is an intersexual person an alien who cannot be classified without surgery? Does that person have no place within a science that defines two sexes? Of course not, because sex itself is complex within science. And then to go from there onto gender, which may be (may be) influenced by the naked genetics of sex, but is certainly influenced by culture....

In other words... It's complex.

[tragula]

I think racism is essentially an Fe expression. That is the cognitive function that divides the world into us vs. them.

[Eileen]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that attitudes like racism happen all over the MBTI board, but I might be jumping to the defensive since I'm an FJ and all. I'll have to look it up sometime when I'm not falling asleep at the keyboard...

[mgb]

The social construct people should really read this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14leroi.html?ex=1114574400&en=81acd1ab1e88130a&ei=5070&pagewanted=print&position=

I'd like to know if it changes some people's minds.

It didn't change my mind. I don't think the slight genetic variations are large enough to consider people so different from each other. On the larger scale, man vs. the rest of nature, the differences between people from different geographic regions are too small to say that people are different races, let alone that any one "race" has a competitive advantage over all others.

Consider this from the article:


The dominance of the social construct theory can be traced to a 1972 article by Dr. Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, who wrote that most human genetic variation can be found within any given "race." If one looked at genes rather than faces, he claimed, the difference between an African and a European would be scarcely greater than the difference between any two Europeans. A few years later he wrote that the continued popularity of race as an idea was an "indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge." Most scientists are thoughtful, liberal-minded and socially aware people. It was just what they wanted to hear.

[cjs55]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1560001461/103-9662374-6891044

The reason I believe the races are significantly different. I've never found a theory of human existence which explained everything so simply and so succintly. I haven't found any cognitive dissonance with this conception of reality, and will hold this view until I find a better one.

Most other theories do not click with my intuition. There are too many problems, too many convuluted trains of thought that do not adequately explain the entirety of the current state of human affairs.

I believe that on average the various races have different strengths. If you value the sort of intelligence measured by IQ as the highest, then Asians would be the 'best' race. However, people are complex enough that I find it hard, even totally subjectively, to say races are better than each other. But I find it hard to fit into both my conception and experience of reality the possibility that they don't differ in any significant fashion. These views would probably be considered racist by much of the population, but I could care less what you call me. I seek truth, and would never stop even if it meant breaking taboo lines or coming to realizations that would result ultimately in personal isolation (I'm already there, but I'm sure it could get even worse).


Moral equality is another issue entirely than all of this. Almost worthy of another thread. Morality is subjective. In my opinion not all human beings are inherently morally equal, because some of them are inherently fucked up.

[Miss Anthropic]

It isn't about equal and unequal. There is no equal, just like life is not fair. It is about difference. Men and woman are different, people from different cultures are different, there are different personalities, people of different ages are different. The question is can people be open-minded enough to acknowledge the differences in a respectful manner. This equality speak is what has made everything so absurdly PC on too many levels. I try to treat people as individuals.


...and if I don't like you it isn't because you are of a certain race, ethnicity or religion, sexual preference, age or however you are different from me. It's probably because you are an ass. I reserve the right to dislike people not based upon anything other than the way they behave.

[Sally]

Haven't read it, but it seems like what you attribute to race (eg. the high IQ of Asians) could just as easily be attributed to culture.

[cjs55]

It is about difference. Men and woman are different, people from different cultures are different, there are different personalities, people of different ages are different. The question is can people be open-minded enough to acknowledge the differences in a respectful manner.

Some differences may possibly be incompatitable with each other, which means once you have admitted difference may be real then you open yourself to possibly being forced to a logical conclusion of an inherently problematic multiculturalism and an inherently problematic integrationism.

[mgb]

I got this review from Amazon. It was rated one star while all the others, agreeing with the author were rated four or five.


The major function of these kinds of theories is to justify the misery and suffering of those on the bottom.

If you want to know what science has to say on these questions, I recommend the following 3 books (all available from Amazon.com): The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould, Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History (Foundations of Human Behavior) by Jonathan Marks, and The Biological Basis of Human Behavior: A Critical Review (2nd Edition) by Robert W. Sussman.

Three things to consider before taking Rushton's "science" seriously:

1. The American Association of Physical Anthropologists revoked Rushton's membership in 2000, assumedly because his work has no value as biological anthropology.

2. Rushton's "research" is paid for by the Pioneer Fund, the same pro-eugenics foundation that brought us the junk science of "The Bell Curve".

3. As Leonard Lieberman has pointed out, "Rushton's view depends of a traditional concept of 'race' that 20th-century genetics has shown to be invalid. He ignores research showing that cranial size varies significantly with latitude, not with race. He combines many populations into three races without establishing the biological similarity of the populations within each race and significant differences between them. He attributes inferior behavior to Africans and superiority to Asians without establishing that the behavior he cites is defined in the same way in different societies. He lists brain measurements for which there were no control variables and dismisses the influence of nutrition on cranial size and/or IQ."

Mostly I found it interesting because it deals with his credentials.

I don't think that human history or existance is simple. I think it's ridiculous to say that Asians are more intelligent. Some are, some aren't.

One thing that keeps coming up in these "race" discussions is that people consider Western Civilization to be the most progressive and dominant. It might be right now, it hasn't always been and won't always be. There are many factors for it. A lot of them go beyond the populations. The soil in Western Europe is pretty fertile. When you compare that with the soil in Africa, you can see why a European would have had an easier time gaining wealth than an African. The European could grow enough for themselves and enough to trade and attain more goods. In Africa, it's difficult to grow enough to survive. Also keep in mind that it took Western Europeans a long time to get to the point where they were using tools for growing food and many of those ideals were imported from "lesser civilizations". That's just one factor. People have written volumes and volumes on this stuff.

Basically, I feel it's difficult to judge people objectively because you are placing your values on them. For the African who was growing enough food to survive, that was probably all they needed. Life was good. It doesn't make them stupid or less advanced, it makes them normal for their society.

The world is a pretty subjective place.

[cjs55]

Haven't read it, but it seems like what you attribute to race (eg. the high IQ of Asians) could just as easily be attributed to culture.

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

This isn't the whole thing, but good enough.


And by the way, IQ is (well, it's supposed to be, whether it is or not is another discussion entirely) a measure of basic intelligence, which would not be influenced by culture.

[Miss Anthropic]

It didn't change my mind. I don't think the slight genetic variations are large enough to consider people so different from each other. On the larger scale, man vs. the rest of nature, the differences between people from different geographic regions are too small to say that people are different races, let alone that any one "race" has a competitive advantage over all others.

Consider this from the article:

Totally agree. Our similarities far outnumber our differences, and if I read correctly, they did say when genes were examined individually there were virtually no differences in peoples', but it is the gene grouping that creates similiarities within groups.

[mgb]

Some differences may possibly be incompatitable with each other, which means once you have admitted difference may be real then you open yourself to possibly being forced to a logical conclusion of an inherently problematic multiculturalism and an inherently problematic integrationism.

But the differences are cultural not physical. And cultural differences just make sense because the geography of world isn't equal.

I see multiculturalism as a problemt because of pre-conceived notions about culture, and not differences among people. If you choose to look for differences among people you are going to find them. All people though.

[Sally]

Guns, Germs, and Steel is a fascinating examination of the history of humankind from an ecological perspective.

Some things to consider:

Most of the world's major grains originated in the fertile crescent and, from there, spread along east-west lines to Europe, North Africa, Northern India, etc.

Epidemics grow with populations. The first ones spread from East Asia to Europe and so on.

The only pack-animal native to the Americas (that didn't die out in concordance with human population growth) is the llama.

And so on and so forth... It makes an excellent case for geography being the overwhelming factor behind the way civilisations have interacted and evolved.

[iponjs]

Race differences are far too complex to boil down to one thing or another. However, you cannot deny the physical differences between the races when viewed as a whole. Those differences must tie in to some physical capabilities and shortcomings.

The problem I see is that our skin color has a huge influence on how we identify ourselves. That has a direct link to culture. If you identify with the average black American and you are treated unfairly, was it because you are black or acting "black"?

If we all looked the same and had the exact same capabilities at birth we'd still find some shit to exploit in one another.

[cjs55]

Mostly I found it interesting because it deals with his credentials.

I don't find any of those complaints to really be valid except for possibly the third. Who pays for this and who discredits him has nothing to do with the book itself. If it is right, it's right. When the majorities' idealogy is attacked, the attacker will find himself totally attacked back no matter how correct or incorrect his theories are. I personally find it to be, as I said, the most elegant explanation of reality I have read, even if there are a few problems with it (I doubt it is correct in a few places, and it's certainly not exactly correct everywhere).



One thing that keeps coming up in these "race" discussions is that people consider Western Civilization to be the most progressive and dominant.

If you don't think western civilization is the most dominant currently in the earth, you're a bit delusional. But I don't think that this has ever even been brought up...at least in this thread it certainly has not. I am simply trying to explain differences that I see plainly in front of my eyes, which others try to explain with socialization. I don't find that an acceptable hypothesis for many reasons (admitedly many of which intuitive)

[cjs55]

But the differences are cultural not physical.

Why is the NBA 80% black? Why are almost all sprinters and long distance runners black? It seems there are at least some physical differences (again...on average assuming a bell curve-ish distribution).

[Miss Anthropic]

Some differences may possibly be incompatitable with each other, which means once you have admitted difference may be real then you open yourself to possibly being forced to a logical conclusion of an inherently problematic multiculturalism and an inherently problematic integrationism.
I have a multi-problematic systemic shut-down when I try to comprehend what the hell you just said....are you saying we should deny or ignore that all people are different from one another to avoid potential conflict when we all interact? Because there IS an "inherently problematic multiculturalism" AND due to our global society today we have to deal with "problematic integrationism", otherwise we are ignoring a GIANT elephant in our global livingroom. Yah, there are problems with how people get along, and there always will be, but don't you think approaching people as individuals is a better way to look at it or should we pretend that there are no differences?

[Sally]

How many white boys see basketball as their only hope of getting ahead in this world?

[cjs55]

You make a hell of alot more playing basketball than you do being a lawyer or doctor. Why wouldn't everyone aspire to it?

[cjs55]

....are you saying we should deny or ignore that all people are different from one another to avoid potential conflict when we all interact?

I'm saying most people do, yes. That seems to be the current mindset.

[Sally]

Why don't you ask a bunch of white, yuppy parents?

But seriously, don't you find that there are cultural values at work? That black culture generally places emphasis on physical activity and/or stardom - rappers, NBA - while white culture generally emphasises physical activities (more like football and baseball) as additions to academics, and places more emphasis on more attainable (for them) careers?

[cjs55]

And so on and so forth... It makes an excellent case for geography being the overwhelming factor behind the way civilisations have interacted and evolved.

If human life started in Africa, then those that moved to different sorts of geography would be those most fit for life there. Some basic variations in the human species will do better in some climates and geographies than others. This actually backs up my current conception very nicely.

[Helios]

What's a FJ?



me being a lazy typer, an XFXJ type

[mgb]

Why is the NBA 80% black? Why are almost all sprinters and long distance runners black? It seems there are at least some physical differences (again...on average assuming a bell curve-ish distribution).

They practice more? A lot of Mormon's are good basketball players too (I bet you knew that), they must be an abberation.

A lot of distance runners train in the high altitudes of Kenya. Their advantage isn't genetic, it comes from training and breathing air low in oxygen, so when they breathe air high in oxygen, they have a competitive advantage.

As for sprinting, I'm white, I was a better sprinter than distance runner, I must have some black in me. Differences between white runners and black runners boil down to fractions of a second. I know that matters in the sport, but grand scheme of all human history, the differences are pretty subtle.

[Sally]

WRONG. It isn't just length of time. It's length of time, environment, animal species, trade routes, ease of migration.... There African breadbasket is more closely associated with the Mediterranean geographically as well as culturally. The American breadbasket didn't have the bread seeds or the history of human occupation to compare.

[Miss Anthropic]

How many white boys see basketball as their only hope of getting ahead in this world?
Do you really think that's what makes a basketball player? Motivation?

[Sally]

Well, I should think training and steroids and connections would have their place as well, which would relate to the motivations of parents, coaches, teachers...

[Miss Anthropic]

I'm saying most people do, yes. That seems to be the current mindset.
I don't believe I asked if they do, I asked if they SHOULD.

[cjs55]

But seriously, don't you find that there are cultural values at work? That black culture generally places emphasis on physical activity and/or stardom - rappers, NBA - while white culture generally emphasises physical activities (more like football and baseball) as additions to academics, and places more emphasis on more attainable (for them) careers

Sure, but people create culture, at least at first. I would say that the most simple explanation of this cultural difference would be that black culture is more emphasized towards physical activity because that is what, on average, they are quite good at it, while white culture emphasizes intellectual pursuits because they are, on average, quite good at it. People usually assign their strenghts as what they find to be desirable, if anything as a personal justification.

As far as attainability of career goes, obviously there are many disadvantages for improverished youth. Still, there are differences, numberwise, between improverished black youth and impoverished white youth in this area.


By the way, what about sprinters? And why are there are no black olympic swimmers?

[mgb]

If human life started in Africa, then those that moved to different sorts of geography would be those most fit for life there. Some basic variations in the human species will do better in some climates and geographies than others. This actually backs up my current conception very nicely.

We didn't just spring out of the ground. We evolved (by some accounts). We started there and moved. There obviously wasn't enough space for everyone, which led to moving. A hunter/gatherer tribe can support about 40-50 people. Any larger and the hunting area gets too big to provide for everyone. Any smaller and they can't pool their resourses effectively.

The ideal population of the entire globe of hunter/gatherer tribes is about 1,000,000 people. That's not a lot. As space became tighter people learned domesticate grains.

Some will do better in areas than others. If I go to Africa I'm going to get a sunburn. It doesn't make me genetically inferior to those in Africa. It means I am different, but not enough so that I couldn't survive in Africa. No one is saying that people aren't different, but what I am saying is that those differences are minute and should not be the basis for evaluation of people.

As for the comment on Western Civilization, it's popped up on other threads and I think a bit on the Amazon site. More something I felt like addressing. And the Western Civilization might be more advanced by now, by our own standards, but it won't always be and certainly hasn't always been. Remember the Middle Ages? Did we all of a sudden just get smart?

[Sally]

No, I think it has very little to do with ability. A teacher who is only subconsciously racist will teach a black student differently from a white student. A black peer group will judge a black student differently from a white student. Take any black student in the south. If that student has a black peer group, and that student takes a proactive role in academics, answering questions, paying attention, doing homework - that student faces ridicule from that student's own peer group. That student is "acting white" and it's a threat. It's an uphill climb.

[cjs55]

A lot of Mormon's are good basketball players too (I bet you knew that), they must be an abberation.

White people don't play basketball at a high level unless they can shoot amazingly well or they are tall, or they are mano ginobili. He's pretty much an abberation though. A badass abberation. Just like most quarterbacks are white, most white people's job in basketball is to hit 3's. BTW, check out how many running backs in the NFL are white. But obviously, white people must be culturally influenced to never play professional running back, only QB. Rarely CB, but safety, sure, they can do that.



I don't believe I asked if they do, I asked if they SHOULD.

Of course I don't think they should. But I think it would result in some other alterations in the current mindset that would be...hard for some to swallow?

[cjs55]

We started there and moved.

Who's we, and why was it we that moved and not them?



Some will do better in areas than others. If I go to Africa I'm going to get a sunburn. It doesn't make me genetically inferior to those in Africa. It means I am different, but not enough so that I couldn't survive in Africa.

Yes it does. In the context of living in Africa, you are genetically inferior to those living in Africa. How else can people 'do better' than you there?


Remember the Middle Ages? Did we all of a sudden just get smart?

Remember Greece? They were pretty smart back then at least. And Beowulf is badass =p

I've gotta hit the sack. I'd suggest reading that link I gave, it wouldn't take thaaat long and would give some more concrete ideas and examples to discuss.

[iponjs]

In general, most people suck.

That assessment in itself is not immoral. When I act towards an individual based on my assessment of the human race in general and in TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE FACTS - then I am immoral. So go forth and continue sucking, unless this doesn't apply to you at this time...

[Sally]

So is African ritual. There is no biological scale of talent or of intellect or of creativity. Or if there is, we haven't figured out a way to indentify it. What we do know is that there are cultural values.

I'm not denying the existence of race. I'm denying its validity in this context.

[mgb]

Who's we, and why was it we that moved and not them?



Yes it does. In the context of living in Africa, you are genetically inferior to those living in Africa. How else can people 'do better' than you there?



Remember Greece? They were pretty smart back then at least. And Beowulf is badass =p

I've gotta hit the sack. I'd suggest reading that link I gave, it wouldn't take thaaat long and would give some more concrete ideas and examples to discuss.


OK, we, as in humans. Some of "us" stayed.

I'm not genetically inferior. That's the thing. It's not the best place I am suited for, but a whole bunch of white people in Africa have made a real go of it (not always with the best consequences).

I remember Greece. I also remember how The Greek Empire only lasted 400 years and then the Romans were completely wiped out and all things Greek or Roman were forgotten for 1000 years. Using an ethnocentric argument, how do you explain that? How did "Europeans" go from being really smart to really dumb and back to smart? Are we genetically incapable of being smart for a long time?

[Miss Anthropic]

Sure, but people create culture, at least at first. I would say that the most simple explanation of this cultural difference would be that black culture is more emphasized towards physical activity because that is what, on average, they are quite good at it, while white culture emphasizes intellectual pursuits because they are, on average, quite good at it. People usually assign their strenghts as what they find to be desirable, if anything as a personal justification.

As far as attainability of career goes, obviously there are many disadvantages for improverished youth. Still, there are differences, numberwise, between improverished black youth and impoverished white youth in this area.


By the way, what about sprinters? And why are there are no black olympic swimmers?

One could argue that it is because they don't have access to facilities that would promote the activity.....but they generally aren't as good a swimmers as some other--forgive me-- races because in actuality their skeletons are denser and they aren't as bouyant as their less dense (physically!) European or Asian counterparts. I'll have to agree with you on the physical aspects CJ, there are some definite differences in physicality of certain groups. Some are suited more to specific activities. It cannot be construed as racist to acknowlege that some people have better genetics than others when it comes to success in sports. There are indiginous people in Africa, China and Europe (other places too) where groups of people are very, very tall and other groups are who are short statured. If you want to look at the number of black vs. white athletes in America as a survival of the fittest thing, who did the slave traders pick when they took Africans as slaves? Who survived to reproduce? The bigger, stronger ones. They weren't bringing Tutsis or pymies over her to do the hard labor. So there are a greater number of black NBA players or sprinters maybe we can attribute it to the "unnatural" selection by which their ancestors arrived in America. Whereas the rest of the immigrants to the United States were just a hodgepogde of whoever could make their way here from their homeland.

[CapnEnnui]

Sure, but people create culture, at least at first. I would say that the most simple explanation of this cultural difference would be that black culture is more emphasized towards physical activity because that is what, on average, they are quite good at it, while white culture emphasizes intellectual pursuits because they are, on average, quite good at it. People usually assign their strenghts as what they find to be desirable, if anything as a personal justification.

Blacks in America suffered under segregation, and had extremely poor education and no opportunities. That may have ended 40 years ago, but the impact doesn't just go away in a generation. Those under segregation teach their values, knowledge, etc. to their children. There are many more factors to what causes IQ than just race. Doesn't the fact that Africans in Africa have an average IQ 15 points below those in America strike you as clear evidence that IQ is more than just race? That alone suggests culture plays a huge role in the test. Unless the American africans have somehow mutated and become smarter. Their survival in America as slaves would've depended on strength and endurance, not intelligence, so that they separated and somehow became more intelligent is unlikely. In fact, those that attempted to read or learn were killed, so if anything the intelligent ones would be weeded out. This also helps explain athletic african-americans, as the strong slaves were often bred purposely.

[MacGuffin]

Anyone that has played sports in a multi-racial setting knows that people from Africa have a distinct advantage in the fast twitch muscle movements - sprinting, jumping etc. To argue otherwise is to be willfully blind.

Take a look at Canada. How white is that country? How black are their Olympic sprinters? You know the answer.

[MaroonBells]

I think the personal difference between any two individuals is larger than the difference between any two races.

MB

[Lee]

Erm... Maroonbells, that is totally dependent on the two individuals involved.:huh:

[MaroonBells]

Exactly my point, not on the race!

[MacGuffin]

Exactly my point, not on the race!
We're not talking about individuals on this thread.

[Robespierre]

Doesn't the fact that Africans in Africa have an average IQ 15 points below those in America strike you as clear evidence that IQ is more than just race?

I don't think that racial genetics has anything to do with overall intelligence. As one previous poster stated, there are more differences between any two individuals than between any supposed races. However, your above statement makes no sense at all.


That alone suggests culture plays a huge role in the test.

Why? If it is divided along racial lines, would you suppose that culture plays the primary role? Not that I disagree, I am just testing your logic here.


Unless the American africans have somehow mutated and become smarter. Their survival in America as slaves would've depended on strength and endurance, not intelligence, so that they separated and somehow became more intelligent is unlikely. In fact, those that attempted to read or learn were killed, so if anything the intelligent ones would be weeded out. This also helps explain athletic african-americans, as the strong slaves were often bred purposely.

First of all, the group to which you refer is not african-americans, but blacks. African-americans are people who were born on the continent of africa, but are now americans. These people make up a tiny minority of blacks in america, most are simply americans who are black.

Second, the myth of black athletic superiority is greatly played up by various media, and is a fairly insulting and racist concept.

[Architectonic]

I think the personal difference between any two individuals is larger than the difference between any two races.

MB

Actually, no. This entirely depends on the definition of race. It is true however, that most peoples conception of race is somewhat incorrect.
For example, just because someone is black and from africa doesn't mean they are of the same race, likewise, just because someone is white and from europe does not mean they are of the same race.

A definition of race:
A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

Currently, there is simply not enough scientific evidence to form relatively accurate conclusions - scientists have far from a complete understanding of how genes define the physical characteristics of humans. (secondly, we also have an incomplete understanding of how these different physical characteristics can be of practical use in a given circumstance)

It is true that a large majority of the genetic content is indeed shared between all people, hence why we are all classified under the same species. However, not all humans are identical clones of one another - there are differences so we are by definition unequal. But this does not mean that some races are 'superior' than others, because that would be an incorrect generalization. Actual (ie in reality) superiority/inferiority depends entirely on context - the individuals involved and the objective differences when applied to a given situation.

Unfortunately, in some societies, some people make entirely subjective racial judgements that have no grounding in reality.

[mgb]

Anyone that has played sports in a multi-racial setting knows that people from Africa have a distinct advantage in the fast twitch muscle movements - sprinting, jumping etc. To argue otherwise is to be willfully blind.

Take a look at Canada. How white is that country? How black are their Olympic sprinters? You know the answer.

The country isn't as "white" as you think.

And like I said before, we are talking about slight differences in time, a second tops. I know that really matters in the olympics when you see a white guy finish behind a black guy, but in the larger sense of the world, the difference in times isn't that great, in fact it's pretty microscopic.

And not all black people can run faster than all white people. I would agree with you if that was the case, but it isn't.

[Robespierre]

Take a look at Canada. How white is that country? How black are their Olympic sprinters? You know the answer.

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with racism...

No, I'd say that the idea of racial sports ability is far fetched. What evidence would you provide to back up your claim?

[cjs55]

The country isn't as "white" as you think.
"British Isles origin 28%, French origin 23%, other European 15%, Amerindian 2%, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab 6%, mixed background 26%"

And I know there are quite a few Asians in that 'other' category. I've been to Vancouver ; )


Couldn't possibly have anything to do with racism...

I don't really see how it could, could you explain?



No, I'd say that the idea of racial sports ability is far fetched. What evidence would you provide to back up your claim?

Your side has the burden of proof, not mine. The evidence in the real world points towards my hypothesis, not yours. Where's your evidence?

Originally posted by me:

'Why is the NBA 80% black? And why are there are no black olympic swimmers?'

'BTW, check out how many running backs in the NFL are white. But obviously, white people must be culturally influenced to never play professional running back, only QB. Rarely CB, but safety, sure, they can do that.'


From the link I...linked to...before:

Blacks have narrower hips giving a more effecient stride. They have a shorter sitting height which provides a higher center of gravity and better balance. They have wider shoulders, less body fat, and more muscle. Their muscles include more fast twitch muscles which provide power. Blacks have 3-19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than whites or asians. The testosterone translates into more explosive energy.


Mgbradsh is missing the point of this theory, which would be that in a distribution of people using something like a bell curve, there will be a few white people that can compete at the same level. But they will be outnumbered by a large number by Black people (which is the case). Black people make up 15% of the population and such huge percentages in many sports. This real world evidence backs up the theory, regardless if some white or asian people can compete at that level.

I again ask why white people can play safety or quarterback but not running back at a professional level?

[cathmc]

Guns, Germs, and Steel is a fascinating examination of the history of humankind from an ecological perspective.

Some things to consider:

Most of the world's major grains originated in the fertile crescent and, from there, spread along east-west lines to Europe, North Africa, Northern India, etc.

Epidemics grow with populations. The first ones spread from East Asia to Europe and so on.

The only pack-animal native to the Americas (that didn't die out in concordance with human population growth) is the llama.

And so on and so forth... It makes an excellent case for geography being the overwhelming factor behind the way civilisations have interacted and evolved.
Aw, man, you stole my post!
I second the recommendation of this book. Fascinating stuff.

[cjs55]

OK, we, as in humans. Some of "us" stayed.
Why did some of us leave and some of us stay?

I'm not genetically inferior. [quote] You would be in the context of living in Africa, if only because you would get sunburned. If you don't think so, you're willfully ignoring the meaning of the word inferior. Being 'less suited' for is the same as saying inferior, just putting sugar on top of it.

[quote]I remember Greece. I also remember how The Greek Empire only lasted 400 years and then the Romans were completely wiped out and all things Greek or Roman were forgotten for 1000 years. Using an ethnocentric argument, how do you explain that? How did "Europeans" go from being really smart to really dumb and back to smart? Are we genetically incapable of being smart for a long time?
Empires are hard to build. The Greeks legacy does not remain in their empire but rather their philosophical thought and social achievements, however. This is a great example of intelligence, if not greater than building an empire. Philosophical thought continued into the middle ages, even if it was blinded by religion. But its hard for the person to see out of the ocean of idealogy they were born into. Most people cannot remove it from their thinking, and it will remain an everlasting veil over all their perceptions. It happened then negatively with religion...and its happening today as well. Anyways though, Empires fall, and often people can do little to stop it. I don't find that to be a vanishing of intelligence by any means.

[Robespierre]

I don't really see how it could, could you explain?

The coaches most likely believed in the black-athlete superiority myth, and tailored their recruiting and training to suit their belief. I have seen this to be the case on many occasions. Need a running back? Doesn't matter if the white guy can beat the black guy in every drill, sprint, etc. The black guy will get the job simply because he is black. It sounds stupid, but so are most highschool football coaches.


Your side has the burden of proof, not mine.

Not at all. You are making a positive claim, you must defend your claim. Had I stated that mars is made of red bubble-gum, and you denied it, would you have the burdon of proof?


The evidence in the real world points towards my hypothesis, not yours. Where's your evidence?

Okay, if there exists, real world evidence, put it forward to support your claim.



'Why is the NBA 80% black? And why are there are no black olympic swimmers?'

Because the NBA is providing an style of basketball which is aimed at entertaining teenage boys, not at playing an athletic sportsman like game, as the olympic failure should have pointed out to many. Should cameroon have at least as good a team as the US if race is the deciding factor in basketball skill?


'BTW, check out how many running backs in the NFL are white. But obviously, white people must be culturally influenced to never play professional running back, only QB. Rarely CB, but safety, sure, they can do that.'

See my above point. Before it became popular, most coaches wouldn't dream of having a black QB. Perhaps white running backs will get popular too.


I again ask why white people can play safety or quarterback but not running back at a professional level?

White people CAN and DO play running back at the professional level, but the system which selects them is informed by mental dinosaurs.

[cjs55]

Not at all. You are making a positive claim, you must defend your claim. Had I stated that mars is made of red bubble-gum, and you denied it, would you have the burdon of proof?

You are making a postive claim as well, instead of attacking mine with evidence against it. Thus, you have to provide evidence for your side. I have provided evidence for my own. You have to prove that in every instance of evidence I have provided, every discrepency between the races in sports is the result of racism. Have fun.

I'm glad I have occam's razor on my side.


(PS. And you really think that there is a bias against black swimmers?)

[mgb]

"British Isles origin 28%, French origin 23%, other European 15%, Amerindian 2%, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab 6%, mixed background 26%"

And I know there are quite a few Asians in that 'other' category. I've been to Vancouver ; )



I don't really see how it could, could you explain?



Your side has the burden of proof, not mine. The evidence in the real world points towards my hypothesis, not yours. Where's your evidence?

Originally posted by me:

'Why is the NBA 80% black? And why are there are no black olympic swimmers?'

'BTW, check out how many running backs in the NFL are white. But obviously, white people must be culturally influenced to never play professional running back, only QB. Rarely CB, but safety, sure, they can do that.'


From the link I...linked to...before:

Blacks have narrower hips giving a more effecient stride. They have a shorter sitting height which provides a higher center of gravity and better balance. They have wider shoulders, less body fat, and more muscle. Their muscles include more fast twitch muscles which provide power. Blacks have 3-19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than whites or asians. The testosterone translates into more explosive energy.


Mgbradsh is missing the point of this theory, which would be that in a distribution of people using something like a bell curve, there will be a few white people that can compete at the same level. But they will be outnumbered by a large number by Black people (which is the case). Black people make up 15% of the population and such huge percentages in many sports. This real world evidence backs up the theory, regardless if some white or asian people can compete at that level.

I again ask why white people can play safety or quarterback but not running back at a professional level?

I'm not missing your point at all. It's a matter of practice. If you want to do something, you'll practice more.

Your question about football and running backs is retarded.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/103001/photos/sports-alstott.jpg
Or is he a full back and not a half back?

And look at Rugby. Lots of big white guys there, that should make you feel better.

[Robespierre]

(PS. And you really think that there is a bias against black swimmers?)

Not particularly. Much like hockey, swimming is a sport for the rich.

[cjs55]

Should cameroon have at least as good a team as the US if race is the deciding factor in basketball skill?

Good point. However, basketball is a sport where one usually must start at a young age and have exposure to the game. Training is essential. They don't get trained in Cameroon. Why take people from Cameroon that you'd have to train for years yourself when you can get black people from America that have been playing the game at a high level from a young age?

As far as the state of basketball goes right now...yes and no. There are certainly problems with the way it is played, but I think that teams like Phoenix show that you can have great teamwork and play at that 'teenage' level as well. Well, at least as long as you have a white point guard =p

[cjs55]

Or is he a full back and not a half back?

One out of hundreds. Again, you miss the point. One counter example means nothing. You need to look at things as a whole.

[cjs55]

Much like hockey, swimming is a sport for the rich.

No, its a sport that anyone can participate in if you live next to a body of water (last I checked, some of Africa might fit this criterion!). Sort of like hockey is a sport anyone can participate in if you live next to some ice and can manage the horrid expense of a beat up stick and used skates. Next.

[mgb]

Why did some of us leave and some of us stay?

I'm not genetically inferior. You would be in the context of living in Africa, if only because you would get sunburned. If you don't think so, you're willfully ignoring the meaning of the word inferior. Being 'less suited' for is the same as saying inferior, just putting sugar on top of it.


Empires are hard to build. The Greeks legacy does not remain in their empire but rather their philosophical thought and social achievements, however. This is a great example of intelligence, if not greater than building an empire. Philosophical thought continued into the middle ages, even if it was blinded by religion. But its hard for the person to see out of the ocean of idealogy they were born into. Most people cannot remove it from their thinking, and it will remain an everlasting veil over all their perceptions. It happened then negatively with religion...and its happening today as well. Anyways though, Empires fall, and often people can do little to stop it. I don't find that to be a vanishing of intelligence by any means.

The intelligence did vanish though, for 1000 years in Western Europe. The people that kept the "intelligence" were those "inferior" as some are claiming, Islamics. And the wisdom of anything up to the Roman Empire disappeared completely for 1000 years. How did that happen if white people are more intelligent? When Brunelleschi was looking at the aqueducts and arches of Rome (which at that time was pretty much a farming village) he was the first person to realize in a long time that Roman wasn't previously inhabited by giants.

As for the move out of Africa...it happened because there wasn't enough food. The continent could not support a large number of people in a hunter/gatherer society. The whole world can only support 1 million people that way.

They didn't just move out one day. There would have been a slow progression.


Most people cannot remove it from their thinking, and it will remain an everlasting veil over all their perceptions. Exactly. Which is why people should drop some of their perceptions about race.

[Robespierre]

No, its a sport that anyone can participate in if you live next to a body of water (last I checked, some of Africa might fit this criterion!). Sort of like hockey is a sport anyone can participate in if you live next to some ice and can manage the horrid expense of a beat up stick and used skates. Next.

In most of the US, if you want to play hockey, you have to go to an ice-rink, because there are no natural and safe sources of thick outdoor ice. This means two things. First, you must pay for the ice time. Second, you will also be required to spend lots of money on safety equipment to limit the liability of the rink owner.

So what about the Massai body type makes them bad swimmers?

["InsertNameHere"]

'Why is the NBA 80% black? And why are there are no black olympic swimmers?'



Considering that Africa is mostly land massed, why would they need to swim? Take western Africa for example... Where would they want to go? There's no point in swimming, unless you come from a fisherman tribe. Land travel is much easier. (You could say that because of this they evolved to have denser bones, yaddy blah blah) And life guards, forget it. Only if you are living in an affluent country with a high # of white people, will you ever see any. So who's going in the water, if there isn't anyone to watch out for them? There is great fear of the ocean. Shit, i'd be too.

There aren't any black olympic swimmers now but it is still early. I'm sure given time there will be more.

[cjs55]

Exactly. Which is why people should drop some of their perceptions about race.

I agree. People should drop their perception that there are no differences between them. Lee posted an interesting list, you should focus on that for a while, I've got class.

I was just being annoying about the hockey thing, sorry. Most hockey players are canadian or from places black people don't really live. Obviously black people will have more oppurtunity to play basketball than hockey, I wouldn't dispute that. Whether hockey is a sport which emphasizes their average strengths or not, is another matter entirely.



So what about the Massai body type makes them bad swimmers?
Regardless of the Massai specifically..From the link I posted: Black people on average have smaller chest cavities and heavier skeletons.

Gotta go to class. (this is exhausing during finals week)

[mgb]

One out of hundreds. Again, you miss the point. One counter example means nothing. You need to look at things as a whole.

I'm not missing the point. You said that white people aren't running backs at the professional level. I showed you one that is. I have disproven your point. Now you are changing your point to say "as a whole".

As a whole, who cares who the running backs are? What is the difference whether or not a running back is white or not? You are trying to make slight distinctions among people based on genetic lines. The fact is, there are no hard and fast rules.

We can go through every sport on this thread and analyze whether or not it's more "white" or "black". It's a waste of time. Most sports are going to have cultural influences as one of their main basis for enrollment. You can't seperate the culture from the person. Are their more blacks in professional sport in America? Sure. There's a good chance that they tend to join sports more, because they want to, because the image of a black athlete is reinforced to them through various marketing strategies. You can try and claim genetic superiority of blacks over whites when it comes to athletics, but it's a fallacy and you haven't shown any empirical evidence to the contrary.

[Robespierre]

Regardless of the Massai specifically..From the link I posted: Black people on average have smaller chest cavities and heavier skeletons.

Gotta go to class. (this is exhausing during finals week)

The problem here is considering an average black physical structure. There isn't a meaningful average. This is like considering the average fish. Does that average help us in any way, in real life? Perhaps in some grand abstract way, but not in any direct meaningful way. If I say I have caught a fish, does it matter if I am speaking of a neon-tetra or a whale shark? The body type of all "races" varies too much to be considered a property of the "race".

[mgb]

I was just being annoying about the hockey thing, sorry. Most hockey players are canadian or from places black people don't really live. Obviously black people will have more oppurtunity to play basketball than hockey, I wouldn't dispute that. Whether hockey is a sport which emphasizes their average strengths or not, is another matter entirely.


Regardless of the Massai specifically..From the link I posted: Black people on average have smaller chest cavities and heavier skeletons.

Gotta go to class. (this is exhausing during finals week)

What is this on average stuff? And what is the correlation? How does smaller chest cavity make someone a worse swimmer? And for that matter, is it such a large correlation that it's significant?

And no more regardlesses. Every single "regardless" disproves another rule you are making.

[mgb]

Re-posted from a previous thread.

Race does exist in a biological sense, the difference may not be that great in terms of genetics but there is a difference.

Many medical conditions are concentrated amonst races regardless of what culture they belong to.
Inuits have developed small compact body frames to retain heat and limit surface area.
Kenyan's have developed the opposite type of body frame to inuits to keep cool in hot weather.
Many decendants of native south americans (not spanish or portugeuse settlers) are gentically prone to become obese when fatty foods are available because of the way thier psysiology has developed to deal with fat.
Skin colour is an adaptation to weather conditions.
How come olympic athletic events tend to have dissproprotianate representation from different races e.g. almost all the swimmers are white and the sprint events are dominated by blacks.
even MBTI types seem to have different proportions across races.
Yes, we are extremely similar on a genetic level and racism is counter-productive and does not achieve anything useful but even small changes in genes can result in many differences. However we are all certainly far more alike than we are different.

Sorry, if anyone eats fatty foods they are prone to get fat. I don't know if you've noticed the obesity problem.

The differences you are presenting are not huge. Or at least huge enough to consider us so much different from each other. All it proves is that humans adapt to their environments over time. Not that humans are so genetically different.

[Lee]

Sorry, if anyone eats fatty foods they are prone to get fat. I don't know if you've noticed the obesity problem.

The differences you are presenting are not huge. Or at least huge enough to consider us so much different from each other. All it proves is that humans adapt to their environments over time. Not that humans are so genetically different.
The fat bullet point was a reference to a race of peoples in south america that gain weight extremely easily.

These differences are not huge and they are genetic, I am not claiming that there is a huge difference, I am actually claiming the opposite, ultimately the differences are minor but to pretend that different races do not exist is just silly.

[MacGuffin]

Take a look at Canada. How white is that country? How black are their Olympic sprinters? You know the answer.
Couldn't possibly have anything to do with racism...
Damn those racist stopwatches!

[Robespierre]

Damn those racist stopwatches!

Blacks are steered into such sports by coaches who believe in the same myths as you. If you think the coaches go purely by times, you are mistaken.

[MacGuffin]

Blacks are steered into such sports by coaches who believe in the same myths as you. If you think the coaches go purely by times, you are mistaken.
Oh hell. I may be an INTP, but I am far more interested in sports than the vast majority of INTPs. Played them, follow them, watch ESPNews every freaking morning before I go to work. I am currently pissed at my fantasy baseball team cuz my starting pitching staff sucks ass.

Your "myth theory" doesn't hold up. Yeah, maybe a football coach will get a white kid to bulk up and play linebacker instead of receiver. But all we are talking about is running here. Line up and time it. The fact that I cannot recall a white man on the U.S. 4x100m team in my life is not due to racism. Every athlete outside of swimming or something runs. If you can run fast, you can run fast. They don't cut you off the team cause you are white.

[mgb]

Oh hell. I may be an INTP, but I am far more interested in sports than the vast majority of INTPs. Played them, follow them, watch ESPNews every freaking morning before I go to work. I am currently pissed at my fantasy baseball team cuz my starting pitching staff sucks ass.

Your "myth theory" doesn't hold up. Yeah, maybe a football coach will get a white kid to bulk up and play linebacker instead of receiver. But all we are talking about is running here. Line up and time it. The fact that I cannot recall a white man on the U.S. 4x100m team in my life is not due to racism. Every athlete outside of swimming or something runs. If you can run fast, you can run fast. They don't cut you off the team cause you are white.

Culture?

[MacGuffin]

Culture?
NO

How many white kids run track in the U.S.? Thousands? And yet nearly none of them ever become Olympic sprinters...

[crule81]

Oh hell. I may be an INTP, but I am far more interested in sports than the vast majority of INTPs. Played them, follow them, watch ESPNews every freaking morning before I go to work. I am currently pissed at my fantasy baseball team cuz my starting pitching staff sucks ass.

Your "myth theory" doesn't hold up. Yeah, maybe a football coach will get a white kid to bulk up and play linebacker instead of receiver. But all we are talking about is running here. Line up and time it. The fact that I cannot recall a white man on the U.S. 4x100m team in my life is not due to racism. Every athlete outside of swimming or something runs. If you can run fast, you can run fast. They don't cut you off the team cause you are white.

I get upset when race gets injected into sports because sports may offer the most level playing field of all careers. That's why the whole issue of black coaches in the NFL is overdone. It is true that blacks were underrepresented in the head coaching ranks. But so are white half backs and white cornerbacks. Nobody would every dream of requiring NFL teams to try out a white corner before they could sign a black one. Likewise, teams shouldn't be compelled to interview a black coaching prospect before they hire a white one. There is simply too much at stake in the NFL to bypass the best candidate because of race where winning and losing is clearly defined.

For every Tony Dungy, there is a Ray Rhodes. For every Bill Bellichick, there is a Rich Kotite. Just hire the best one.

And, by the way, the best offensive mind in football, Norm Chow, just happens to be asian.

[MacGuffin]

I get upset when race gets injected into sports because sports may offer the most level playing field of all careers. That's why the whole issue of black coaches in the NFL is overdone. It is true that blacks were underrepresented in the head coaching ranks. But so are white half backs and white cornerbacks. Nobody would every dream of requiring NFL teams to try out a white corner before they could sign a black one. Likewise, teams shouldn't be compelled to interview a black coaching prospect before they hire a white one. There is simply too much at stake in the NFL to bypass the best candidate because of race where winning and losing is clearly defined.

For every Tony Dungy, there is a Ray Rhodes. For every Bill Bellichick, there is a Rich Kotite. Just hire the best one.

And, by the way, the best offensive mind in football, Norm Chow, just happens to be asian.
That is why I mostly discount racism as the reason for black athletes dominance. Sports, probably more than any other area of society, is all about winning. Performance. Racism can be a factor, but the coach that really lets that dominate his decision making and does not play the best players does not last long.

[SheepDog]

There is simply too much at stake in the NFL to bypass the best candidate because of race where winning and losing is clearly defined.

It seems to my cynical mind that the NFL is about marketing. Sure, winning helps with that, but at the same time, is it inconceivable that choosing players based on race might be a tool for reaching "target audience"?

[coffeezombie]

It seems to my cynical mind that the NFL is about marketing. Sure, winning helps with that, but at the same time, is it inconceivable that choosing players based on race might be a tool for reaching "target audience"?

Winning is the best marketing. I doubt special racial selection occurs at the NFL level. Whoever is best, plays.

On the other hand, if you follow Major League Soccer, check out Chivas USA, a soccer team based upon a Mexican professional team, with mostly Latino players.

[crule81]

It seems to my cynical mind that the NFL is about marketing. Sure, winning helps with that, but at the same time, is it inconceivable that choosing players based on race might be a tool for reaching "target audience"?

Then there should be more Jason Sehorns and John Riggins in the league. As an NFL season ticket holder, I can tell you that about 90 to 95% of the stadium is non-black. Likewise, although I have no statistics to back this up, I would think that similar percentages exist of those who who regularly follow the NFL. At this point, the NFL is the biggest sport going in the US. If it wants to reach its new target audience, it would compel teams to draft hispanic players (if we're going on conspiracy theories, that might explain San Diego drafting Castillo in the first round. Not only did he test positive for drugs at the combine, he wasn't even that good in college. I watch a lot of Big Ten football, and I don't even remember his name being mentioned in the many N'Western games I've seen in the last few years.)

[misutii]

when i think of race i think in terms of civilizations. skin colour is irrelevent. Thus i believe that once civilization can be considered "better" than another but of course what is it better at? i don't think there's an 'overall' criteria to work with, and the future is a bit difficult to tell, but in the end the civilization that comes out on top will be the 'superior' civilization from an evolutionary standpoint... of course that civilization may then be toppled by another that will take its place so it's all relative just like anything else

[mgb]

NO

How many white kids run track in the U.S.? Thousands? And yet nearly none of them ever become Olympic sprinters...

Is the US a sufficient sample of the entire world?

And like I said before, the time differences between an elite olympic calibre athlete and say someone who does well at the college level isn't very much. The difference can come down to something that's as fast as the blink of an eye. Which doesn't translate into "Blacks are faster."

And a white person in the US might feel like they have more options for making it than a black person does. We'd have to get into the psychology of sport and athletes to answer a lot of these questions, which is way beyond the scope of this thread.

What I am saying is the difference between 10:10s and 9.90s is very marginal and not enough to say that a black elite athlete and a white elite athlete are of such different genetic make up that the black athlete has a distinct advantage. I am saying there are a ton of other reasons that you might see more blacks in sports, reasons that would spiral this thread out of control, but they are hardly reasons that exist because of genetic makeup.

[MacGuffin]

Is the US a sufficient sample of the entire world?

And like I said before, the time differences between an elite olympic calibre athlete and say someone who does well at the college level isn't very much. The difference can come down to something that's as fast as the blink of an eye. Which doesn't translate into "Blacks are faster."

And a white person in the US might feel like they have more options for making it than a black person does. We'd have to get into the psychology of sport and athletes to answer a lot of these questions, which is way beyond the scope of this thread.

What I am saying is the difference between 10:10s and 9.90s is very marginal and not enough to say that a black elite athlete and a white elite athlete are of such different genetic make up that the black athlete has a distinct advantage. I am saying there are a ton of other reasons that you might see more blacks in sports, reasons that would spiral this thread out of control, but they are hardly reasons that exist because of genetic makeup.
You are correct, the U.S. is not representative of the entire world (I also threw Canada in there as well).

There are just too many examples to fall back on, from Kenyans (its not altitude, its been scientifically measured), to Samoans.

No one has come up with a better theory than genetics to explain why certain "races" dominate certain athletic events.

[MaroonBells]

[QUOTE=tragula]The social construct people should really read this article:

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14leroi.html?QUOTE]

Thanks for the link. Interesting read. I agree with the general line. Only downside is that "genetics" is taken as the holy end-all-be-all. Even in science, social and cultural aspects are real!

Bow-and-arrow Billies!

[tragula]

I think whether or not people see races is a bit of an S vs. N thing.

If you look at the details and the specifics the races disappear.

If you look at the patterns and the bigger picture then they are obvious.

It's sort of like not seeing the forest for the trees. (Which covers a lot of the debating above.)

It is also why it is wrong to stereotype. Individuals need to be judged on an individual basis, not based on what group they are lumped with. It is also why many people find it so hard not to stereotype.

[coffeezombie]

If you look at the patterns and the bigger picture then they are obvious.


Well, you can look at the patterns that the sensors like to make, I suppose, which often base race on skin color.

Or you can base it on ethnicity, culture and religion, which are more important concepts in determining sociological traits than "race."

[Robespierre]

Most of the arguments involving race are based upon a fallacy, the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, or, It happened after, therefor it happened because of. Corrolation does not show causation.

[mgb]

I think whether or not people see races is a bit of an S vs. N thing.

If you look at the details and the specifics the races disappear.

If you look at the patterns and the bigger picture then they are obvious.

It's sort of like not seeing the forest for the trees. (Which covers a lot of the debating above.)

It is also why it is wrong to stereotype. Individuals need to be judged on an individual basis, not based on what group they are lumped with. It is also why many people find it so hard not to stereotype.

Let's not turn this into an S vs N thing.

But I agree with judging individuals on an individual basis.

[Wilde Mutton]

"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS."

Isn´t fair for everyone to be equal. What about those who are simply better? :devil:

Seriously though, what is counted as of equal value? Similarity I shall not delve into; rather, can there even exist a theoretical model for equality, can a universal definition be attained through inquiry of any sort? There might be cases where equal treatment is a given because of the invalidity of the arguments used to justify unfair, injudicious treatment, if nothing else, but the wherein lie the foundations for heartfelt acceptance despite possible dissimilarity? In cases where the arguments for racistic and specistic points of view and other attitudes of the sort are torn down it is usually because there is no logical reason for considering the two...dare I say objects?...dissimilar in any profound way. The argument for inherent value stays outside mere logical deduction. How does one then attain information about it? Through presumptions, be they educated or not. (And the thing about educated suppositions is that they are inherently easier to believe.) Treating an object as equal to another or contrariwise means presuming a lot. Do presumptions count as fair treatment?

[CapnEnnui]

I don't think that racial genetics has anything to do with overall intelligence. As one previous poster stated, there are more differences between any two individuals than between any supposed races. However, your above statement makes no sense at all.

I don't think it does either. I was referring to this website that was posted by cjs55:

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

The racial IQ chapter starts on page 22, and tries to suggest that races have different levels of IQ based on their race, not other factors. It also claims that brain size has to do with intelligence, and some other bunk. However, it contradicts itself by showing that North American blacks test significantly higher on IQ test than African blacks. That evidence pretty clearly disproves the point the author is trying to make, which (from what I gathered as I skimmed) is that IQ average is racially innate.


Why? If it is divided along racial lines, would you suppose that culture plays the primary role? Not that I disagree, I am just testing your logic here.

If the IQ of Blacks in America has a much greater average than that of Blacks in Africa, then clearly race cannot be the only factor in IQ, likely not the main factor, and there are other factors at work. I don't know if culture plays a primary role, but I'm sure that it plays a large one given that IQ varies among the same race in different cultures.


First of all, the group to which you refer is not african-americans, but blacks. African-americans are people who were born on the continent of africa, but are now americans. These people make up a tiny minority of blacks in america, most are simply americans who are black.

Second, the myth of black athletic superiority is greatly played up by various media, and is a fairly insulting and racist concept.

Well, whatever about how to refer to blacks. I used African-american to make sure I got across the point that they are blacks who live in America. As for the black athletic superiority, I don't disagree with you, but there is certainly a dominance of blacks in most sports. I was merely suggesting one reason why this may be. I'd think their culture also promotes sports and athletics.

[moni]

People here all have their own concept/definition of what "race" is...

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition of it!

1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition


I should've looked this up earlier to clarify my own definition of what it was. Yes there are notable differences between ethnic groups (or breeds), and I'm sure all of you have agreed upon that. So... what's the argument about now?

*edit*

Originally Posted by Robespierre
First of all, the group to which you refer is not african-americans, but blacks. African-americans are people who were born on the continent of africa, but are now americans. These people make up a tiny minority of blacks in america, most are simply americans who are black.

So the minority of Asians that are born in America... do you call them yellows? I thought African-Americans are referred to people living in the United States of African descent... and same goes for Asian-Americans... people who live in the U.S. with asian descent. At least... all the organizations around campus here refer to their groups that way.

[mgb]

People here all have their own concept/definition of what "race" is...

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition of it!


I should've looked this up earlier to clarify my own definition of what it was. Yes there are notable differences between ethnic groups (or breeds), and I'm sure all of you have agreed upon that. So... what's the argument about now?

You might find after some time here that we tend to make our own definitions having found dictionaries woefully inadequate at describing complicated social (as well as many other) issues.

[moni]

Yeah... but I thought that I should give it a try anyway. If people are going to use a specific word, I figure they should use the definition it was originally given...(otherwise I get confused :blink: ) I'm not against people defining concepts and issues though

[Miss Anthropic]

Sorry, if anyone eats fatty foods they are prone to get fat. I don't know if you've noticed the obesity problem.

The differences you are presenting are not huge. Or at least huge enough to consider us so much different from each other. All it proves is that humans adapt to their environments over time. Not that humans are so genetically different.
Actually, some people are more prone to storing fat than others. It was a genetic advantage for people in times of famine to be able to store fat, or have a slow metabolism so what fat they did have could keep them from starving. Those who didn't have that gene(s) died off....and here we are today, with many people very good at storing excess calories when we are living in the land-o-plenty-too-much and no daily exercise that would come with day-to-day hunting and gathering.

mg, don't you think we can recongnize and/or appreciate these genetic differences in people without using them to segregate or stereotype? I personally find this genetic stuff fascinating. There is a geneticist who is doing gene mapping as a sort of world family tree. Apparently we all have a specific genetic marker that indicates where we came from genetically. There are very few markers, I want to say about 4, and it has been suggested that most new life originated in Africa. It is a huge study and I heard about it on NPR. If I find any links about it (if I'm motivated to look I'll post them.) So yes, we are all so very much alike but how interesting to study the genetic differences--if for nothing else to examine how they evolved. One little tidbit, one recessive gene for sickle cell anemia can prevent one from getting sick from malaria. Mostly those of African descent carry that gene. Two recessive genes for that trait will cause the disease sickle cell anemia. How interesting to find that in those who lived in areas where malaria is and has been a problem...how did things like that evolve so specifically to one group.

[mgb]

Actually, some people are more prone to storing fat than others. It was a genetic advantage for people in times of famine to be able to store fat, or have a slow metabolism so what fat they did have could keep them from starving. Those who didn't have that gene(s) died off....and here we are today, with many people very good at storing excess calories when we are living in the land-o-plenty-too-much and no daily exercise that would come with day-to-day hunting and gathering.

mg, don't you think we can recongnize and/or appreciate these genetic differences in people without using them to segregate or stereotype? I personally find this genetic stuff fascinating. There is a geneticist who is doing gene mapping as a sort of world family tree. Apparently we all have a specific genetic marker that indicates where we came from genetically. There are very few markers, I want to say about 4, and it has been suggested that most new life originated in Africa. It is a huge study and I heard about it on NPR. If I find any links about it (if I'm motivated to look I'll post them.) So yes, we are all so very much alike but how interesting to study the genetic differences--if for nothing else to examine how they evolved. One little tidbit, one recessive gene for sickle cell anemia can prevent one from getting sick from malaria. Mostly those of African descent carry that gene. Two recessive genes for that trait will cause the disease sickle cell anemia. How interesting to find that in those who lived in areas where malaria is and has been a problem...how did things like that evolve so specifically to one group.


I'd like to say that differences can be appreciated. I'd love to actually. But people seem incapable of it. I'll give you an example of why. I went to the KKK site after reading Swift's threads. Mostly just to find him a new more suitable avatar. Anyways, they really want to see genetic diversity. In fact, they want to see it so much they believe that people of different "races" should have no contact with one another. See what I mean, humans don't seem to function well when they are in a position to exploit one another, and differences is a great way to do it.

There might be some genetic differences between humans, like you say, the science seems to change on this a lot, so pardon my skepticism, it's not for what you say, but science on the whole. If there are genetic differences, I think they are probably slight. They are probably slight enough to say that if all cultural boundries suddenly disappeared one day, it wouldn't take long for all 4 genes to be blended.

It's not that I don't believe you, I just don't believe that for all practical purposes we as humans are so different from one another. I can see how individuals can be extremely different from one another, but not humans as the group.

I think the main differences between people are bred through history and culture. And those differences have nothing to do with genetics.

[Miss Anthropic]

Why do I keep reading "racism" and athletics in the same posts over and over again. I don't think anybody said that ALL blacks are better the ALL other races in athletics...and it would be ridiculous to even consider that pro teams would hire anybody for any reason other than that person will (hopefully) help the team win which translates into $$$. (In my opinion, the quarterback example was kind of funny, maybe the QBs are the token white guys because the black guys are better at other positions...and they have to keep a couple white guys around to make it look fair) Athletics is all about winning. The absolute truth is different people have different physical qualities that predispose them to be better in athletics, and from there better in specific sports. Even if you trained a whole bunch of black athletes for swimming in the olympics, because of their body structure (denser skeleton, more muscle mass, less fat) instead of for some other event where they are more physically suited they wouldn't do as well as somebody else who has more of a swimmer's physique. Some people are cut out to be gymnasts, some people are built for sprinting, others for long distance. We all have a genetic predisposition suited for certain physical activities. Stop trying to make the sports thing into a racial thing--the people who are paid big bucks to play the sports they do have the job because they are the ones who are really good at it..... with attitudes like I've read on here pretty soon we'll have affirmative action in the Olympics stating the US must have equal numbers of persons of various races representing all events. That amounts to the same PC bullshit kids are spoonfed today about "everybody's a winner." "You can be anything you want to be!" Well, you can't! We have have to recognize our limitations and strengths. Some of those are physical. If they are physical they are genetic. IQ however, is a mixed bag. I think we are all individually somewhere on the bell curve....you can't test IQ accurately because the tests are culturally based. Give and IQ test to an albanian goat herder and he might appear to be dumb as a brick. Give him an education in country where there is an advanced education system, and he may have the capability of a nuclear physicist.

[moni]

There might be some genetic differences between humans, like you say, the science seems to change on this a lot, so pardon my skepticism, it's not for what you say, but science on the whole. If there are genetic differences, I think they are probably slight. They are probably slight enough to say that if all cultural boundries suddenly disappeared one day, it wouldn't take long for all 4 genes to be blended.

It's not that I don't believe you, I just don't believe that for all practical purposes we as humans are so different from one another. I can see how individuals can be extremely different from one another, but not humans as the group.

I think the main differences between people are bred through history and culture. And those differences have nothing to do with genetics.

i second that... for the most part

[Miss Anthropic]

I

There might be some genetic differences between humans, like you say, the science seems to change on this a lot, so pardon my skepticism, it's not for what you say, but science on the whole. If there are genetic differences, I think they are probably slight. They are probably slight enough to say that if all cultural boundries suddenly disappeared one day, it wouldn't take long for all 4 genes to be blended.

It's not that I don't believe you, I just don't believe that for all practical purposes we as humans are so different from one another. I can see how individuals can be extremely different from one another, but not humans as the group.

I think the main differences between people are bred through history and culture. And those differences have nothing to do with genetics.

I agree with you on the culture thing....but I'm not looking at that at all. The 4 genes---and I know I'm not describing that well...they are genetic markers that show where we came from. It isn't about blending, it is about being able to recognize we all have a common ancestor----a couple of them. What I am saying is we are all related into a couple of familial lines that are traceable by this genetic material. So you and I might send in a swab samples of our cells. There is a marker they are looking for, and it would tell whether you and I shared that common ancestor way back at the dawn of man. What that whole study is going to show is that we as human being do have more in common than we have separating us. Genetics is not a science that changes..it is pretty factual-the way it changes is we learn more and more all the time.

As for humans being similar within groups it is just a fact. Gene groupings give different groups certain physical traits. For example: It really ticks me off when someone refers to my niece or nephew as Chinese, like its generic Asian or something. They are Korean and they look Korean...different from Japanese, and Chinese etc. Now your common neo-nazi type would probably glom them all into one group without appreciating the finer distinction. Take the racial conflict between the Tutsis and Hutus. I think the Hutus were the tall, socially upward people who decided to take out their short, poorer farmworking counterparts via genocide. The neo-nazi would categorize them in with all other black people everywhere. If you go to Mexico you can see people who clearly descend from tribes that have specific physical characteristics particular to their tribe (or ancestral tribe) and there are the Mexicans of Spanish descent who look entirely different all together. The racist makes assumptions about the greater ethnicity of these people and seeing them only as Chinese, or Mexican, or African (black). (or not white, as the case my be)
I see nothing wrong with noticing these finer distinctions. They are not going to go away...at least not for thousands of years, if we last that long. It isn't my problem that there are some igorant people who have the need to establish a pecking order based on looks in order for them to feel better. I have no idea on how to get the ignorant of our species to look at the individual and not the group.

[shum]

does it matter?

[Miss Anthropic]

Does what matter?

[shum]

Does what matter?

thank you

[aether]

I think some people in this forum are racists, but so is everyone. Everyone should understand that there are more pronounced differences among personalities (ESTJ vs INTP's for example) than between racial groups....I think governments should take in account different MBTI personality types instead of racial differences. It would definately help in many aspects of society...but of course...we INTP's LIVE AHEAD OF THEIR TIME!....INTP's Rule! :nerd:

[MacGuffin]

The reason I use athletics as an example to illustrate the differences between races is that athletic performance is easliy measureable. Mark out 100m and get a stopwatch. Something like IQ on the other hand, is a whole other ballgame (yes its a sports metaphor). There are still discussions about how to define IQ, let alone measure it.

And if one race is more athletic than another doesn't really mean anything. Does not mean one race is superior to another.

When we talk about race, we are boiling masses of people down to some vague characteristics of ancestry and appearance. There is plenty of bleed over from one category to another. And differences between individuals are usually greater than general differences between races.

You can make generic statements about races, but often cannot about specific individuals. I've met plenty of black guys that I can school on the basketball court. My wife is asian and she sucks at math. Watching her calculate the tip in a restaurant can be highly frustrating. I usually calculate it for her, from across the table, upside down... "and carry the one...good..."

[Lee]

Exactly, I don't understand why people are getting up in arms on this.

IQ is probably best left out of it though, it is highly questionable as a measure of intelligence and has been proven to be a bad indicator as to success in life. Often social skills or EQ actually play a bigger role in peoples lives and eventual successes.

[MacGuffin]

I don't understand why people keep hammering away at culture, culture, culture. Your body size, muscles, etc. are all determined by genetics for the most part. One cannot become an olympic sprinter through training alone. You have to be born with that ability to hone it.

What is so bad about genetics determining things? And what if genetics do create differences between races beyond skin color? Does that scare people?

[Lee]

I don't understand why people keep hammering away at culture, culture, culture. Your body size, muscles, etc. are all determined by genetics for the most part. One cannot become an olympic sprinter through training alone. You have to be born with that ability to hone.

What is so bad about genetics determining things? And what if genetics do create differences between races beyond skin color? Does that scare people?
What if genetics created culture?

[coffeezombie]

It's both genetics and environment. Certain genetic traits became valued in certain environments, and thus they were sexually selected.

[cjs55]

Of course genetics did. When humanity spread across the globe, filling different niches, different strengths were necesary to survive in various places. Those varying strengths and weaknesses result in different cultures, from asia to europe to the incas. There's more to it than just this, but this has to be at least one determining factor. Sure geography plays a part, but genetics is what led to certain people living in certain geographies in the first place (or different genetics evolved when people tried to live there in the first place, regardless, the effect is the same.)

I find this important because I seek truth and will not be disallowed from it because of popular idealogy. It is important because I need to have a system of humanity that explains everything around me without convolution.

[cjs55]

IQ is probably best left out of it though, it is highly questionable as a measure of intelligence and has been proven to be a bad indicator as to success in life. Often social skills or EQ actually play a bigger role in peoples lives and eventual successes.
Reply With Quote

Success in life if we are using the modern use of the term (which means making money and living in a big house) doesn't require much intelligence, so this isn't really causing cognitive dissonance for me. I don't doubt that there are some issues with IQ tests. However, I don't find it suprising that the most brilliant philosophers I've read have very high IQs either. I thus find it more likely that the more intelligent would often reject the notion of success as defined by society than IQ being a bad measure of intellect.

[mgb]

I don't understand why people keep hammering away at culture, culture, culture. Your body size, muscles, etc. are all determined by genetics for the most part. One cannot become an olympic sprinter through training alone. You have to be born with that ability to hone it.

What is so bad about genetics determining things? And what if genetics do create differences between races beyond skin color? Does that scare people?

All I was saying is that just because you are say Chinese, it doesn't mean you are going to be a bad sprinter. I'm not blind, I realize their are differences among people. But I also realize that if you started pairing off white people and black people and made them race, the black people aren't going to inherently win. I'm also saying that the differences in times at the elite levels of running aren't very high.

Here, I'll show you what I mean;


Marian Woronin of Poland ran the 100 metres in 10.00 seconds flat (a long time ago)
Carl Lewis's best time for the 100m is 9.86s
Tim Montgomery currently holds the world record at 9.78s

Is Tim Montgomery genetically better than Carl Lewis and pre-disposed to run faster? I mean, it's .08 seconds. That's huge in running terms. And is Carl Lewis more genetically predisposed that Marian Woronin, a white man, to run faster, I mean .14s is even longer. Maybe someone should have told Marian that he shouldn't be a runner because he isn't fast enough?

My point here and in general is that I know A. People are different. I think people are too complicated for skin color to be used as the sole determinate of their differences. People have different metabolic rates, different blood oxygen capacities, differences in hormonal systems, etc. Everyone is just plain different from everyone else in ways we can't see. Which leads me to B. Because of this, people shouldn't get boxed into certain categories like, bad at sports, not a good swimmer, makes a good quarterback but not a good receiver, whatever.

One day, I imagine there is a good chance a Black person might become the world record holder for a swimming competition. He might have dense bones and such and such, but he'll win anyway, despite his predisposition to being a poor swimmer.

[cjs55]

However, it contradicts itself by showing that North American blacks test significantly higher on IQ test than African blacks. That evidence pretty clearly disproves the point the author is trying to make, which (from what I gathered as I skimmed) is that IQ average is racially innate.

No. African-Americans are a somewhat mixed race partly due to the rampant sexual exploitation of them by whites during the abhorrent practice of slavery. Let me point out a quote from what I linked: "Mixed-Race students in South Africa had an IQ of about 85, the same as Blacks in America, the Caribbean, and Britain. Genetic Methods show these people to have 25% white ancestory." There are also variations in IQs across Africa, since different tribes will have formed somewhat different strenths in order to survive in whatever niche they are filling. This is similar to how scandenavians are different than other europeans (not a huge difference, but still there).

As far as the brain size/IQ thing goes: [paraphrasing] "The overall correlation between IQ and brain size (.44) is as high as the correlation between social class at birth and IQ." As robespierre pointed out, correlation does not equal causation. But, correlation is all we ever have as Hume shows, so the rest is up to human's reasoning ability to decide which is the most likely cause. We can never be certain of causation.

Mgbradsh, we are concerned with averages and charts here. The reason looking at sports is supposed to help with this, is that if we are looking at a bell curve chart of people's abilities, this will help us find averages. When I look at college sports, Blacks still dominate most of the positions and I listed from football and in Basketball as well, even though it's a step down from the best. However, the percentages are somewhat more even, which is what I would predict if the bell curve theory was correct. I'm not necessarily concerned that the fastest sprinter is black, but that almost all of the fastest sprinters are black. One fast white sprinter does not ruin this sort of reasoning: You'd need quite a few of them to do that. The best way to figure this out would be to take 500 random of people of each race of similar backgrounds and have them sprint/measure their vertical/measure their dimensions/etc. Don't have that luxury though. It's possible that a black person may become a great swimmer. He/she will be an extreme rarity however.

There are no absolutes in the world, and this includes stuff like statements like 'black people can't swim', white people can't jump'. However, if we can say that black people usually can't swim very fast, and white people usually can't jump very high (obviously comparing the two to each other), this is interesting knowledge. No knowledge is absolute, so I'd suggest not thinking in those terms.

[MacGuffin]

Mgbradsh, we are concerned with averages and charts here. The reason looking at sports is supposed to help with this, is that if we are looking at a bell curve chart of people's abilities, this will help us find averages. When I look at college sports, Blacks still dominate most of the positions and I listed from football and in Basketball as well, even though it's a step down from the best. However, the percentages are somewhat more even, which is what I would predict if the bell curve theory was correct. I'm not necessarily concerned that the fastest sprinter is black, but that almost all of the fastest sprinters are black. One fast white sprinter does not ruin this sort of reasoning: You'd need quite a few of them to do that. The best way to figure this out would be to take 500 random of people of each race of similar backgrounds and have them sprint/measure their vertical/measure their dimensions/etc. Don't have that luxury though. It's possible that a black person may become a great swimmer. He/she will be an extreme rarity however.
Right. We can always find exceptions. We are talking about how things average out over a period of time for many different people.

We are getting closer to causation all the time. Preponderance of fast twitch muscle fibers are not caused by culture. Living among black people isn't going to let you dunk from the free throw line.

[cjs55]

We are getting closer to causation all the time.

This is the goal yes, and the best way we can do this is by forming theories which work in as many situations as possible and logically are sound (which mine does and is). However, this still isn't 100%. Never will be. If I ever find something better I'll abandon my current theories in a heartbeat. I doubt I will, however. I'm sure they'll be refined over time, nonetheless.

[mgb]

Exception That Proves The Rule:

a specific example of Cliche Thinking. This is used when a rule has been asserted, and someone points out the rule doesn't always work. The cliche rebuttal is that this is "the exception that proves the rule&quot. Many people think that this cliche somehow allows you to ignore the exception, and continue using the rule.

In fact, the cliche originally did no such thing. There are two standard explanations for the original meaning.

The first is that the word "prove" meant test. That is why the military takes its equipment to a Proving Ground to test it. So, the cliche originally said that an exception tests a rule. That is, if you find an exception to a rule, the cliche is saying that the rule is being tested, and perhaps the rule will need to be discarded.

The second explanation is that the stating of an exception to a rule, proves that the rule exists. For example, suppose it was announced that "Over the holiday weekend, students do not need to be in the dorms by midnight". This announcement implies that normally students do have to be in by midnight. Here is a discussion of that explanation.

In either case, the cliche is not about waving away objections.

I don't think discussing "averages" in sports is fruitful, and yes I see the wider discussion, because there are so many exceptions. Perhaps so many exceptions that the rule needs to be changed.

[cjs55]

What exeptions are you talking about, excatly? If 85% of high-end sprinters are black and 15% are white, this is not an exception, rather a confirmation of my theory. Basically, it is actually exactly what I would predict. I would predict that most running backs and cornerbacks would be black because they require blazing speed. I would predict a few white people would be able to perform excellently at these positions, but many many more black people would. This is true as well.

There are no absolutes when dealing with the 'real world', I'll say once again.

[MacGuffin]

I don't think discussing "averages" in sports is fruitful, and yes I see the wider discussion, because there are so many exceptions. Perhaps so many exceptions that the rule needs to be changed.
That's funny because a lot of discussion about sports falls into statistics and averages.

[Robespierre]

That's funny because a lot of discussion about sports falls into statistics and averages.

And we all know how scientific is the analysis of most sports commentators.

["InsertNameHere"]

No. African-Americans are a somewhat mixed race partly due to the rampant sexual exploitation of them by whites during the abhorrent practice of slavery. Let me point out a quote from what I linked: "Mixed-Race students in South Africa had an IQ of about 85, the same as Blacks in America, the Caribbean, and Britain. Genetic Methods show these people to have 25% white ancestory." There are also variations in IQs across Africa, since different tribes will have formed somewhat different strenths in order to survive in whatever niche they are filling. This is similar to how scandenavians are different than other europeans (not a huge difference, but still there).

So let me see if I'm getting you, right... Because African Americans tend to be mixed raced (have a lil "white" in them) therefore that makes them have a higher IQ? Therefore to be an intelligent black or African person you must have some kind of mixed blood in you, whether it be Asian or Caucasion? Sounds racist to me. Did you ever take into thought that the reason that these black Africans (South Africans) received lower IQ's was because they were oppressed for many many years with little chances for receiving good education? What about other African countries that are run and inhabited buy bLACK Africans that haven't been oppressed by other races, would you say that they also have lower IQ's? I just don't get your point because from what I know, majority of the Africans I have met that now live in America have become highly skilled professional individuals, accountants, doctors, delegates and embassordors...and so on.

And I know for a fact that IQ test are very subjective. Being of African decent I tend to think of ideas differently than an average black or white american. I had to be trained by the school system to think the way "they" wanted me to think. Different cultures have different thought patterns. So don't tell me that most black Africans have lower IQ's of black Americans because that is false information.


excuse the spelling errors, didn't feel like spell checking ;P

[cjs55]

Therefore to be an intelligent black or African person you must have some kind of mixed blood in you

Of course not. This ties in to what you said later...
I just don't get your point because from what I know, majority of the Africans I have met that now live in America have become highly skilled professional individuals, accountants, doctors, delegates and embassordors...and so on.

This is because they are intelligent. Africans who are not intelligent do not come to America and do great things. Just like White people who are not intelligent usually end up as 'trailer trash'. There ARE intelligent Africans. Their population/IQ graph is just skewed to the left of Whites, which is skewed to the left from asians. All of them overlap. When you mix two races, an average will occur, which will form a population/IQ graph for blacks in america that is inbetween the african and white graphs.

I've definitely met black people that were as smart as I am, and I'm fairly smart.

[crule81]

So let me see if I'm getting you, right... Because African Americans tend to be mixed raced (have a lil "white" in them) therefore that makes them have a higher IQ? Therefore to be an intelligent black or African person you must have some kind of mixed blood in you, whether it be Asian or Caucasion? Sounds racist to me. Did you ever take into thought that the reason that these black Africans (South Africans) received lower IQ's was because they were oppressed for many many years with little chances for receiving good education? What about other African countries that are run and inhabited buy bLACK Africans that haven't been oppressed by other races, would you say that they also have lower IQ's? I just don't get your point because from what I know, majority of the Africans I have met that now live in America have become highly skilled professional individuals, accountants, doctors, delegates and embassordors...and so on.


I think what he's trying to say is that the different IQ results between blacks in Africa and blacks in America cannot be compared to either demonstrate or disprove the link between IQ and race because blacks in America are not as "racially pure" (hate using that term) as blacks in Africa.

[cjs55]

And I know for a fact that IQ test are very subjective. Being of African decent I tend to think of ideas differently than an average black or white american. I had to be trained by the school system to think the way "they" wanted me to think. Different cultures have different thought patterns. So don't tell me that most black Africans have lower IQ's of black Americans because that is false information.

There is no question that IQ tests measure a certain kind of reasoning. Since it was made in western culture, it would probably measure a reasoning that western culture finds to be useful. However, Asians in Asia do better on it than Europeans do. So I don't think cultural bias can explain away all the differences. When you say 'think how they wanted me to think' what do you mean exactly? The biggest proof I have of all of this is in my current overarching 'out of africa' theory, which would explain it all clearly, simply, and logically. The sort of reasoning measured in IQ tests is not as needed in Africa as it is in the colder climate of Europe.

["InsertNameHere"]

Of course not. This ties in to what you said later...

This is because they are intelligent. Africans who are not intelligent do not come to America and do great things. Just like White people who are not intelligent usually end up as 'trailer trash'. There ARE intelligent Africans. Their population/IQ graph is just skewed to the left of Whites, which is skewed to the left from asians. All of them overlap. When you mix two races, an average will occur, which will form a population/IQ graph for blacks in america that is inbetween the african and white graphs.

I've definitely met black people that were as smart as I am, and I'm fairly smart.

Umm no! the only reason my parents came to this country was because of Wars not because "Smart people come to America 8O " :thelook: I still have family at home (native country in west africa)who decided to stay, who are also professionals and doing quite well. So does my Nigerian and Ivorian friend. Not everyone wants to come to America and many make it a point not to. So don't tell me that they come to do great things. Some are home doing great things, thank you very much!

[cjs55]

the only reason my parents came to this country was because of Wars not because "Smart people come to America

I didn't mean to insinuate that all Africans who are intelligent leave Africa by any means! However, some intelligence is required to make such a drastic transition from Africa to America. Thus, I would guess that Africans who made the move to America would be more intelligent than the average. And (obviously in my opinion) in order to do great things like you listed, intelligence is a pre-requisite for anyone.


What about other African countries that are run and inhabited buy bLACK Africans that haven't been oppressed by other races, would you say that they also have lower IQ's?

They do. I do not currently believe that IQ has to do that much with cultural oppression.

[Lee]

STOP using individual examples to try and disprove avareges!

[Robespierre]

STOP using individual examples to try and disprove avareges!

Stop using averages to generalize where no generalizations are meaningful.

[Lee]

Stop using averages to generalize where no generalizations are meaningful.Of course avareges are meaningful. As long as they are just avareges where individual exceptions are expected... nobody is proposing blanket rules.

["InsertNameHere"]

There is no question that IQ tests measure a certain kind of reasoning. Since it was made in western culture, it would probably measure a reasoning that western culture finds to be useful. However, Asians in Asia do better on it than Europeans do. So I don't think cultural bias can explain away all the differences. When you say 'think how they wanted me to think' what do you mean exactly? The biggest proof I have of all of this is in my current overarching 'out of africa' theory, which would explain it all clearly, simply, and logically. The sort of reasoning measured in IQ tests is not as needed in Africa as it is in the colder climate of Europe.

'out of africa' theory? I have to go back and read all you said about the theory but if basically meaning that the evolution the of bigger brain individuals started the exodus out of African. thats a bunch of BS, if you excuse capital letters. That theory was proved false by the findings in Dmanisi! That kind of teachings have led black people into thinking they are inferior. Mental abuse adding to the already physical abuse that have been inflicted upon us. ANYWAYZ. back to your question about the way i think... i'm not sure on how to explain, I'll have to get back to you on that :lol:

[Robespierre]

Of course avareges are meaningful.
Can be meaningful. They are not always.


As long as they are just avareges where individual exceptions are expected... nobody is proposing blanket rules.

All of this hinges on the intended use. If you want to build a home, knowing the average lay of the land in your area will not do you much good.

["InsertNameHere"]

ahhhhh... i hate the word averages when they can be skewed based on what the statistician wants it to be. Why not use median?

[Robespierre]

Why not use median?

A better question to ask is: "Why use median?"

["InsertNameHere"]

And no you don't have to be intelligent to come here! Are you crazy? There were and are so many idiots that have come to this country. From the beginning 'til now. AND THAT is not based on race and brain size... :rolleyes2




ok.... "Why use median?"

[cjs55]

I think the evidence for the 'out of africa' theory is stronger than the evidence against it. I also don't think finding 2 fossils can prove anything at all, other than there existed at that spot a human with those features at a certain time periods.


And no you don't have to be intelligent to come here! Are you crazy?

If you are poor, manage to make it to America and end up making something greater of yourself, you have to be intelligent or ridiculously charasmatic/manipulative. I don't see dumb americans moving across the globe. We should also remember that the vast majority of black people would not be in America if it weren't for slavery.



All of this hinges on the intended use. If you want to build a home, knowing the average lay of the land in your area will not do you much good.
However, knowing that on average there are mountains in one area and plains in another will help you quite a bit in narrowing down an area.

To class/endless schoolwork again.

["InsertNameHere"]

[QUOTE=cjs55]

If you are poor, manage to make it to America and end up making something greater of yourself, you have to be intelligent or ridiculously charasmatic/manipulative. I don't see dumb americans moving across the globe. We should also remember that the vast majority of black people would not be in America if it weren't for slavery.
[QUOTE]

But of course :rofl: yes slavery and war would be because of force. Not because of "Wow, I'm smart...let me move to America because smart people live there". People can make something of themselves where ever they live. That is true, dumb americans are not moving across the globe, intelligent ones are. Preferably to get away from Bush...

[mgb]

What exeptions are you talking about, excatly? If 85% of high-end sprinters are black and 15% are white, this is not an exception, rather a confirmation of my theory. Basically, it is actually exactly what I would predict. I would predict that most running backs and cornerbacks would be black because they require blazing speed. I would predict a few white people would be able to perform excellently at these positions, but many many more black people would. This is true as well.

There are no absolutes when dealing with the 'real world', I'll say once again.

I'm not looking for absolutes. I think your rules are fucked because they are based on incorrect information.

For example: Your rule. Black people are better athletes in certain sports than white people.

Every time I give you an example of a white person excelling at the sport, I get, "but he is just an expection." The exceptions are proving that your rules are wrong.

A better rule might be: People whose muscles have developed a certain memory (twitch) make much better short distance runners, and therefore excel in certain sports.

Notice I didn't use the words white or black. Skin color is an unreliable determinate in defining who will be good at what. It's requires (enjoy the pun) and skin deep analyzation of a person, when we are so much more complicated than our skin colors. There are lots of blacks with twitch muscles, lots of whites as well, probably quite a few Asians too, since they make up over one third of the worlds population. You also have to remember that not everyone with a twitch muscle configuration is going to end up being an athlete. Some might be doctors, sheep herders, telemarketers, you just never know.

[MacGuffin]

I'm not looking for absolutes. I think your rules are fucked because they are based on incorrect information.

For example: Your rule. Black people are better athletes in certain sports than white people.

Every time I give you an example of a white person excelling at the sport, I get, "but he is just an expection." The exceptions are proving that your rules are wrong.


But your exceptions aren't proving the rule wrong. That is why they are exceptions. For every single white athlete you come up with in black dominated atheltic events, we could give you 15 black athletes.

If you want a good test, calculate how many white U.S. Olympic sprinters have won medals over the last, say, 8 Olympics. Then add up the black U.S. Olympic sprinters that won medals over the same time period. Then compare the precentages versus the percentage of blacks and whites in the U.S. census.


A better rule might be: People whose muscles have developed a certain memory (twitch) make much better short distance runners, and therefore excel in certain sports.

Notice I didn't use the words white or black. Skin color is an unreliable determinate in defining who will be good at what. It's requires (enjoy the pun) and skin deep analyzation of a person, when we are so much more complicated than our skin colors. There are lots of blacks with twitch muscles, lots of whites as well, probably quite a few Asians too, since they make up over one third of the worlds population. You also have to remember that not everyone with a twitch muscle configuration is going to end up being an athlete. Some might be doctors, sheep herders, telemarketers, you just never know.
We have never said you can just look at one person and determine thier athleticism by their skin color. To do so is foolish. We are looking at the big picture here.

Finally, why are you so dead set against genetics being the explanation? Why is culture your theory? Are you afraid of genetics? Racial theories? Nazism? What is it?

[mgb]

But your exceptions aren't proving the rule wrong. That is why they are exceptions. For every single white athlete you come up with in black dominated atheltic events, we could give you 15 black athletes.

If you want a good test, calculate how many white U.S. Olympic sprinters have won medals over the last, say, 8 Olympics. Then add up the black U.S. Olympic sprinters that won medals over the same time period. Then compare the precentages versus the percentage of blacks and whites in the U.S. census.


We have never said you can just look at one person and determine thier athleticism by their skin color. To do so is foolish. We are looking at the big picture here.

Finally, why are you so dead set against genetics being the explanation? Why is culture your theory? Are you afraid of genetics? Racial theories? Nazism? What is it?

If you make a rule, it's tested and proven wrong using exceptions, the rule is wrong. You aren't looking at the big picture, you are drawing your own picture and saying it's right.

I'm not saying genetics is wrong at all. I'm saying that genetics is a complicated field that we don't know everything about so it would be alogical to make any rules or laws or conclusions about who is what.

I'm also saying that there are more factors than just genetics that determine who ends up doing what. We don't live in Gattaca or A Brave New World. Genetics is only one component and I think the arguments you are making ignore many other components that someone might use in making a decision about their future.

[Lee]

passage of time + different enviroments + limited recources + genetics = culture, races, idiots etc.

[MacGuffin]

If you make a rule, it's tested and proven wrong using exceptions, the rule is wrong. You aren't looking at the big picture, you are drawing your own picture and saying it's right.
We never crouched the rule as an absolute.


I'm not saying genetics is wrong at all. I'm saying that genetics is a complicated field that we don't know everything about so it would be alogical to make any rules or laws or conclusions about who is what.

I'm also saying that there are more factors than just genetics that determine who ends up doing what. We don't live in Gattaca or A Brave New World. Genetics is only one component and I think the arguments you are making ignore many other components that someone might use in making a decision about their future.
Looking at those other factors, the strongest case is still genetic.

It is not proven, but other factors just don't compare at this point.

[mgb]

We never crouched the rule as an absolute.


Looking at those other factors, the strongest case is still genetic.

It is not proven, but other factors just don't compare at this point.

It might be...but to say so at this point, given that the truth is pretty fuzzy, would be pretty illogical, since genetics exists in an alogical realm.

And also, why is the main genetic factor you are looking at skin color, given that the 20,000-25,000 genes play an active role in our development. (from here (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/publicat/primer2001/1.shtml))

So using genetic information, or what you know of it, you are able to make a definite determination about how a certain "race" of people, who you believe to share a common gene set, a gene set specific to them and no one else, making them completely different from all other groups of people that share a certain gene set, is able to perform at a certain task better than people from other gene sets, save a few minor and unimportant exceptions?

And at the same time rule out all other factors or at least rendering them insignificant, because you know so much about gene type, as possible reasons for a person excelling at a certain activity.

[Lee]

Nobody is suggesting that the gene that controls skin colour also contols these other characteristics, but there is a correlation between the skin colour genes and those others due to natural selection and inheritance.

[Sally]

Nobody is suggesting that the gene that controls skin colour also contols these other characteristics, but there is a correlation between the skin colour genes and those others due to natural selection and inheritance.

Prove it.

[mgb]

Nobody is suggesting that the gene that controls skin colour also contols these other characteristics, but there is a correlation between the skin colour genes and those others due to natural selection and inheritance.

I believe I covered that.

[Miss Anthropic]

I don't understand why people keep hammering away at culture, culture, culture. Your body size, muscles, etc. are all determined by genetics for the most part. One cannot become an olympic sprinter through training alone. You have to be born with that ability to hone it.

What is so bad about genetics determining things? And what if genetics do create differences between races beyond skin color? Does that scare people?

Obviously it does. Sports is an objective way to measure these genetic differences--IQ or any "measure" of intelliegence is not. There could never be an accurate universal IQ test. There are too many differences culturally--refer to my Albanian goat-herder example several posts back--to be able to compare. Intelligence is really intangible and subjective. A person's physicality on the other hand is objective and can actually be measured on anyone.

One day, I imagine there is a good chance a Black person might become the world record holder for a swimming competition. He might have dense bones and such and such, but he'll win anyway, despite his predisposition to being a poor swimmer.
It totally could happen...nobody has said thus far that it would be impossible. I'm not much of an athlete....although I do have a degree in exercise physiology,(That's sort of like, "I'm not really a doctor, but I play one on tv,") so I've studied this cultural, genetic sports stuff in depth. (It is the field I got tired of and saw as sort of pointless about time I graduated) Really athletically gifted people have quite a bit of transference in their skill levels. In other words, if you coach the black sprinter in swimming his athletic skills and training will make him a better swimmer than someone who is not a genetically gifted athlete (ability to use oxygen and metabolize waste, numbers of fast twitch vs. slow twitch muscle fibers, muscle mass, resilience of ligaments and tendons etc.) But if you take someone else, say of a different genetic heritage with the same "degree" (there's the unmeasureable variable) of athletic giftedness who has a better physical build for swimming you will have your medal winner. If you coach some random white guy to swim, and you coach the black world-class athlete to swim the world class athlete will kick ass every time. mgb, stop thinking we are all looking at it as black vs. white. Sports are example that is easy observe, measure and understand. I think we can agree that world class athletes are born, not made. While many people may have unrealized potential, you can't take just an average person and coach them into a world class sprinter, swimmer, football player, ice skater or dancer. (If you don't count the last two as athletes like football or basketball players, think again.) Take any part of movement of sports and dance, compare little snapshots of the movements and you will see that the activities are remarkably similar when taken apart, yet some people are better "built" for one sport more than another. The bottom line is genetics. And by looking at who is successful in what sports you can tell where the inherent talent lies.

[Miss Anthropic]

No. African-Americans are a somewhat mixed race partly due to the rampant sexual exploitation of them by whites during the abhorrent practice of slavery. Let me point out a quote from what I linked: "Mixed-Race students in South Africa had an IQ of about 85, the same as Blacks in America, the Caribbean, and Britain. Genetic Methods show these people to have 25% white ancestory." There are also variations in IQs across Africa, since different tribes will have formed somewhat different strenths in order to survive in whatever niche they are filling. This is similar to how scandenavians are different than other europeans (not a huge difference, but still there).

As far as the brain size/IQ thing goes: [paraphrasing] "The overall correlation between IQ and brain size (.44) is as high as the correlation between social class at birth and IQ." As robespierre pointed out, correlation does not equal causation. But, correlation is all we ever have as Hume shows, so the rest is up to human's reasoning ability to decide which is the most likely cause. We can never be certain of causation.


cjs55 shoves entire foot in mouth......


So let me see if I'm getting you, right... Because African Americans tend to be mixed raced (have a lil "white" in them) therefore that makes them have a higher IQ? Therefore to be an intelligent black or African person you must have some kind of mixed blood in you, whether it be Asian or Caucasion? Sounds racist to me. Did you ever take into thought that the reason that these black Africans (South Africans) received lower IQ's was because they were oppressed for many many years with little chances for receiving good education? What about other African countries that are run and inhabited buy bLACK Africans that haven't been oppressed by other races, would you say that they also have lower IQ's? I just don't get your point because from what I know, majority of the Africans I have met that now live in America have become highly skilled professional individuals, accountants, doctors, delegates and embassordors...and so on.

And I know for a fact that IQ test are very subjective. Being of African decent I tend to think of ideas differently than an average black or white american. I had to be trained by the school system to think the way "they" wanted me to think. Different cultures have different thought patterns. So don't tell me that mostblack Africans have lower IQ's of black Americans because that is false information.


InsertNameHere counters with a reasonable answer.....


cjs55 struggles to fit other foot in mouth




Of course not. This ties in to what you said later...

This is because they are intelligent. Africans who are not intelligent do not come to America and do great things. Just like White people who are not intelligent usually end up as 'trailer trash'. There ARE intelligent Africans. Their population/IQ graph is just skewed to the left of Whites, which is skewed to the left from asians. All of them overlap. When you mix two races, an average will occur, which will form a population/IQ graph for blacks in america that is inbetween the african and white graphs.

I've definitely met black people that were as smart as I am, and I'm fairly smart.
cjs55 has now fit both feet into his mouth. They both go in, far, even past the epiglottis...

Quote about meeting black people who are as smart as he is, and that he's fairly smart indicates his ego is greater than his intelligence. (I would never presume to compare intelligence as connected to race.....there cannot be any proven correlation between a given race and intelligence......because there is no objective measure of intelligence, particularly that bridges cultures, unlike physicality)


And no, you don't have to be intelligent to come here! Are you crazy? There were and are so many idiots that have come to this country. From the beginning 'til now. AND THAT is not based on race and brain size... :rolleyes2

InsertNameHere justifiably incredulous...


I didn't mean to insinuate that all Africans who are intelligent leave Africa by any means! However, some intelligence is required to make such a drastic transition from Africa to America. Thus, I would guess that Africans who made the move to America would be more intelligent than the average. And (obviously in my opinion) in order to do great things like you listed, intelligence is a pre-requisite for anyone.


cjs55 tries desperately to free at least one foot from mouth. Efforts are fruitless.


Umm no! the only reason my parents came to this country was because of Wars not because "Smart people come to America 8O " :thelook: I still have family at home (native country in west africa)who decided to stay, who are also professionals and doing quite well. So does my Nigerian and Ivorian friend. Not everyone wants to come to America and many make it a point not to. So don't tell me that they come to do great things. Some are home doing great things, thank you very much!

I believe factors such as opportunity, and education and culture play a very large role in who ends up where and doing what in this world. INTPs seem to be extremely wrapped up in the value of intelligence, maybe because some of us have to use it to compensate for a lack of ability in negotiating other realms of the world, such as sociability. Success is not defined by intelligence nor is intelligence requisite for success in this country. (GWBush) I choose to believe that there are some Albanian goat-herders, or Virginia coal miners, or Maori tribesmen (pick whatever ethnicity and role you want) who are probably a lot smarter than I am but haven't been afforded the opportunity to experience or use it in the same way through education and opportunity as I have. (disclaimer: I'm no rocket scientist, but I am on the higher end of the curve)

[cjs55]

because there is no objective measure of intelligence, particularly that bridges cultures, unlike physicality

who are probably a lot smarter than I am

So when you say smarter than you are, what do you mean?

I readly admit that the definition of overall intelligence is subjective. An objective statement would be this: Whatever an IQ test defines, certain races do worse on than others. My hypothesis: Whatever an IQ test defines, such skills are not as needed in some parts of the world than others.

Basically the only reason my foot was ever shoved in my mouth as you say was because of this problematic definition of overall intellect.


cjs55 shoves entire foot in mouth......
How?


InsertNameHere counters with a reasonable answer.....

What was reasonable about it?

This comment: "Therefore to be an intelligent black or African person you must have some kind of mixed blood in you, whether it be Asian or Caucasion? Sounds racist to me." Is about as far away as reasonable as you can get considering the premises I presented, especially if you know how IQ test scores work.



Quote about meeting black people who are as smart as he is, and that he's fairly smart indicates his ego is greater than his intelligence. (I would never presume to compare intelligence as connected to race.....there cannot be any proven correlation between a given race and intelligence......because there is no objective measure of intelligence, particularly that bridges cultures, unlike physicality)

One can easily measure specific intelligence anywhere and get the same results we get from sports (memorization skills, reaction time, etc.) These however do not relate to ntelligence as a whole, which I agree is problematic. So I will say that IQ tests show certain intelligences, not overall intelligence.


Success is not defined by intelligence nor is intelligence requisite for success in this country. (GWBush)

I posted about this somewhere. Success as defined by our current culture doesn't necessarily require intelligence at all. In fact, it is possible that the most intelligent will reject the current definition. But the current version of success is basically just, 'make alot of money'. Anyways, see if you can find a successful philosopher who wasn't intelligent, since that's my own personal definition of success.

And when I say 'intelligent' here I mean my subjective version of it, because no objective version exists, as previously stated

[Sally]

So in your subjective opinion, some races are "smarter" than others, where "smart" is an unmeasurable variable you define and measure. In your head.

Makes sense it me.

And it's ok, son. You're a racist. You don't have to be ashamed. We won't judge you. Even though I might instinctively attempt to correllate racism with "stupidity," I know that, intellectually, such assumptions are invalid. It's probably a cultural thing.

[cjs55]

Prove it.

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

There's my researched proof.

Here's my intuitive proof:

1) Humanity begins in Africa
2) A slow migration begins out of africa from those who are least suited for it.
3) These people eventually fill niches in Europe, Asia, all requiring and thus evolving different skills.
4) 'Races' as we know them are created.

(BTW, Skin color is used as a way to determine race because it is physically obvious. The reason for why it is valid is simple: Different climates require different strengths and features, and this which is the same thing that determines all racial diversity also determines skin color. All the people in Asia have a certain color, and all of the people in Africa have a certain color, and all the people in Europe have a certain color. There are variations in all of these, tribes if you will. This is why scandenavians look somewhat different than french people do. This is why there are tribes in different parts of Africa (and europe) with some different characteristics but similar skin color. Skin color isn't perfect, especially when dealing with sub-groupings, but its a good determinate of the larger category of race. The differences between scandenavians and french people are not nearly as big of a difference between scandenavians and any african tribe.)


By the way, why am I the only one who has to provide evidence for their theories. If you don't think that the concept of racial equality is a theory (just like the concept of racial diversity is a theory), that is delusion.

[cjs55]

So in your subjective opinion, some races are "smarter" than others, where "smart" is an unmeasurable variable you define and measure. In your head.

Makes sense it me.

Did you even read this? I'll say it again.


I readly admit that the definition of overall intelligence is subjective. An objective statement would be this: Whatever an IQ test defines, certain races do worse on than others. Thus my hypothesis: Whatever an IQ test defines, such skills are not as needed in some parts of the world than others.

That is all I am saying at this point, because that's all I can say about the differences in IQ's in races. This is a sort of concession which doesn't threaten my overall picture. Clear yet?

I'm definitely not a racist, by the way, if by racism you mean a prejudice towards individuals in a race.

The prejeduce in this thread is beginning to worry me. Keep it logical and coherent and make less ad hominem attacks please.

[Sally]

Evolving different skills.......... The greatest genetic boon that humans have evolved is the ability to adapt. The brain-power potential to learn skills, skills which are transmitted by culture. A child doesn't inherit skills like writing or advanced calculus. The child inherits the ability to learn these skills, and the skills are transmitted by culture. You find a test that definitively pries away cultural bias, and then you might have a leg to stand on.

IQ tests have cultural bias (http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceCulturalBias.html).

And your professor who wrote that paper may not know this, but, within the species homo sapiens, there is no correllation between brain size and intelligence. Even pretending that you can measure intelligence with IQ as your guideline, you can't use it to show that Einstein's brain or Sir Isaac Newton's skull cavity were bigger than average. Because they weren't.

The structure of nerves within the brain would be a better indicator of skills both inherited and learned (brains never stop growing and changing, by the way), but even that is just beginning to be studied.

[Sally]

IQ doesn't measure skill. It measures cultural knowledge.

Edit: And the skill to use that cultural knowledge.

But You CAN'T Use It To Compare Cultures/Races.

[Lee]

Actually Sally, Einstiens brain was slightly mishaped, it was literally a bit bigger near the back around one of the areas responsible for mathmatics... I forgot what it is called now.

[Sally]

Yeah, people with facts, please feel free to step in and back me up (or contradict me). :}

[Sally]

But even so... How do you say that a type of intelligence isn't favored by a certain *culture*, rather than by a certain race?

And it's furthermore complicated by the fact that you can't pull the two apart, no matter how hard you try. A black child raised by white parents in a white community who goes to white school and might never come into contact with a black peer group her entire life will still be treated slightly (or greatly) differently by some (or most, or all) people who meet her.

[cjs55]

IQ doesn't measure skill. It measures cultural knowledge.

Edit: And the skill to use that cultural knowledge.

So why do Asians in Asia have a higher average IQ score than white people do in the culture in which the test was designed?

Your hypothesis is certainly at least somewhat incorrect.

It should also be noted that IQ actually is correlated with many things in western society, from child abuse to crime to job performance.

It should finally be noted that IQ and intelligence (whatever that means) is far from being the only thing my theory is concerned with, and in fact I could drop it entirely with my thesis still being unshaken.

[Sally]

Have you seen Japanese pop culture these days?

And are they using the same test or a modified version of it? I doubt they take it in English. Perhaps they study specifically for an American version. I'd be interested in a comparison of Japanese and Chinese (not Japanese-American and Chinese-American) IQ results. Japan can, in many ways, be considered a Western culture.

[cjs55]

From an Amazon review of IQ and the wealth of nations (just found it while googling):



Lynn and Vanhanen benchmarked their IQ results so that Britain is 100. America scores 98 on this scale, and the world average is 90. IQ's are assumed to form a normal probability distribution ("bell curve") with the standard deviation set at 15. Here are a few examples:


Nation Avg. IQ
Eq. Guinea 59
Nigeria 67
Barbados 78
Guatemala 79
India 81
Iraq 87
Mexico 87
Argentina 96
US 98
China 100
UK 100
Italy 102
Japan 105
Hong Kong 107



I'm having trouble finding other sources, but this one shows that both China and Japan are above the U.S., although admitedely China is lower than Japan.

[Lee]

The IQ test was actually designed by a frenchman.

[cjs55]

Unfortunately the pdf I have linked is an abridged version of the full book, so I can't go into the detail that I would like to here(I need to buy the damn thing once and for all). But, and I quote:

"Is it fair to compare race and IQ? Yes. First, IQ tests predict achievement in school and on the job just as well for Blacks as they do for Whites and Orientals. Second, the very same differences show up on the tests made to be culture free as well as those on standard IQ tests. In fact, Blacks score slightly higher on standard IQ tests than they do on these culture-free tests."

Here's a book on general intelligence (which I am very interested in considering the previous discussion):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0275961036/103-9662374-6891044?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books&v=glance

Some quotes from reviews (by the way, 'g' just stands for general intelligence):

"Jensen devotes much energy to defending the validity of "g", this thing that defies direct measurement. It is real because:
a) It is statistically "there." It is highly correlated among myriad tests.
b) It works in the real world. There is no single discriminator that approaches the value of "g", usually proxied by an IQ test score, as a predictor of educational or job performance.
c) It has equal predictive power for both sexes, all ages and all populations of mankind. It is independent (as he takes endless pages to prove) of race, language and socio-economic status (SES).
d) Many seemingly unrelated kinds of tests all turn out to measure the same thing. Tests may be verbal or pictorial, or may simply measure the time it takes to react to and act upon a visual or auditory stimulus.
e) By adulthood it no longer has much to do with advantages such as hearing Mozart in the womb or a Montessori kindergarten, or disadvantages such as Jim Crow and slavery."

"Some of Jensen's many fascinating observations:
o Incest is a bad idea. The offspring have a significant intelligence deficit.
o Smart parents, alas, can't count on having equally smart kids. On average their intelligence regresses halfway back to the mean (100 for white Americans). On the bright side, the average people manage by dumb luck to produce enough smarties for each succeeding generation.
o Breast feeding makes a huge difference, about 7 IQ points. Blacks do not breast feed as often or as long as whites. Big, easy change to make in society.
o The factors generally agreed to comprise "g" differ among races and sexes. Blacks exceed whites in short term memory. Men exceed women in spatial intelligence. When the many individual factors are aggregated they reveal different means for different races, with whites in the middle with an average of 100.
o Individuals with IQs below 70 are generally considered to be retarded. White retarded kids frequently look and act somehow different, while retarded kids of other races are more normal in terms of socialization, motor skills and energy. This is related to the two types of retardation, familial and organic. In simple words, there is something "wrong with" an organically retarded child. A bad forceps delivery, spina difida or one of a number of identifiable anomalies. Familial retardation, on the other hand, simply represents a bad spin of the chromosomal wheel of fortune that is sexual reproduction. The odds are higher in populations whose median IQs are lower.
o Cause for concern: If Vanhansen and Lynn are right in "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" there are perhaps a dozen countries in which the average citizen would be considered retarded and hence marginally educable by U.S. standards.
o Illiteracy is not always a matter of reading. Below the threshold of retardation people often have the same inability to understand a sentence whether it is written or spoken. The issue is having enough "g" to make sense out of the words.
o People with lower IQs are markedly more fertile than those with higher IQs. This dysgenic (opposite of eugenic) trend stands to lower "g" within the U.S. population. Average intelligence will of course remain at 100 because by definition it is the population mean."


Another book to read for me at least! Interesting stuff.


And please do not take this book as my own opinion. I haven't read the book, so I can't really vouch for its validity. I'm not presenting it as my own opinion, but rather an interesting point of view that could be true.

[Sally]

I see what you're saying, and I agree that it's logical that there are general differences between general race types when it comes to the workings of the brain.

And you may even be able to measure some of these differences (when you say 'removed from their culture' I hope you mean born and raised in suburbia). But to go from there and say, "Oh, so all these other things must be true!" And throw in obviously cultural achievements and values and... everything else...

On a few, very few things, you could pin it on race. But I think that the vast, vast majority of differences are cultural. And this may be obvious to you and obvious to me, but if you can't measure it, and the gut instinct of every person is xenophobia (or counter-xenophobia, I suppose)....

One doesn't justify the other. And racism is applying physical differences to mental differences you don't understand.

For example, from a recent National Geographic: Studies show that Chinese have better tonal sense because they speak a tonal language, but they also have better tonal sense when they grow up speaking a non-tonal language, suggesting that innate tonal ability evolved together with cultural tonal ability. In which case, (if it what the studies indicate is true), Chinese people are better at identifying tone. Valid. (I think that this might be what cjs55 has been trying to get at). But to say that Chinese people are "better at music" is a cultural judgement and racist. Invalid.

[cjs55]

Chinese people are better at identifying tone. Valid. (I think that this might be what cjs55 has been trying to get at). But to say that Chinese people are "better at music" is a cultural judgement and racist. Invalid.

I'm sort of having trouble distinguishing the two here. Is it because the definition of music as tonal is a cultural one?

Actually since music has so many other parts to other than simple tone recognizition it would be a narrow conclusion to come to anyways. However, if the chinese had complex musical works (complexity is not subjetive) while no other race did, I don't think it would be racist to say that chinese people are better at whatever it takes to make complex musical works.



edit: sorry, I posted too quickly and answered my own question =/

[Sally]

It's because different cultures (hell, different people) value different skills in a musician (I almost wrote magician, which could tell you something) more or less than the ability to have perfect pitch.

[Lee]

That's because culture is just a byproduct of genes...

If you want to know what causes racism look up "kin selection", this in my opinion is the biggest contributer to racist attitudes and it is a selected charactersitic of the human unconscious.

[booyalab]

culture doesn't spring out of a random rock and eat everyone within a 1,000 mile radius alive. *patronizing voice* culture comes from people!

[Sally]

How can you say that culture is a byproduct of genes? If you take a bunch of white babies and plop them down in the middle of a jungle with no other human contact, will they generate a culture that is demonstrably white?

Genes determine how you interact with your culture. What genes did in the first place was give us the ability to pass skills along from one generation to the other. (Humans are probably not the only animal to achieve this, either, but anyway...)

I would suggest that the physical environment of a place is a greater factor when it comes to culture than the occupying people's genetic makeup.

And culture is *history*, reactions and counter-reactions, and interactions.... Genetics play a part, especially in the actions of individuals, but I would not call it a byproduct.

[cjs55]

I would suggest that the physical environment of a place is a greater factor when it comes to culture than the occupying people's genetic makeup.

And I would suggest that very environment is what made races have different genetic makeup in the first place. So in a sense you are right.

However, genetics are basically all that could have initially created culture, as booyalab pointed out. Once culture moved more and more towards intellectual/philosophical pursuits, this wouldn't have to be the case. Without any philosophy or idealogy however, there's basically nothing else that culture could come from. Since philosophy needs to be created by culture, there's no way that it could have initially created culture itself.

[Sally]

What?

[Lee]

How can you say that culture is a byproduct of genes? If you take a bunch of white babies and plop them down in the middle of a jungle with no other human contact, will they generate a culture that is demonstrably white?

Genes determine how you interact with your culture. What genes did in the first place was give us the ability to pass skills along from one generation to the other. (Humans are probably not the only animal to achieve this, either, but anyway...)

I would suggest that the physical environment of a place is a greater factor when it comes to culture than the occupying people's genetic makeup.

And culture is *history*, reactions and counter-reactions, and interactions.... Genetics play a part, especially in the actions of individuals, but I would not call it a byproduct.
enviroment + time = genes
enviroment + genes = culture

Sure they will have a different culture, but it would be a different culture than the one that would develop if you dropped a bunch of asian, or a bunch or african children down in the middle of a jungle. Presuming that natural selection were allowed to take it's course eventually they would all begin to change and adapt to the enviroment, possibly diverging more than where they begun.

[cjs55]

What?

Lee said pretty much the same thing.

I just added in a little qualifier. Philosophy/Idealogy can possible create culture. However, Culture itself is the creator of philosophy/idealogy. Thus, philosophy itself could not have been the initial creator of culture.

[Sally]

So what you're saying is that you can't separate race and culture.

[Lee]

So what you're saying is that you can't separate race and culture.
If you study how natural selection crafted our genes (relative to enviroment*) you will suddenly begin seeing how much of culture and society is a product of and and at the mercy of our genes.

* this is where inherent cultural differences come from.

[Sally]

But you can't look at genes and see how they did it. Or at least I can't.

I can see (a version of) history. I can see geography. I can read biographies. I can understand myth and prejudice and economics. I can't look and say, "Oh yeah, that AGTCican'tevenremember" sequence played a part in this right here.

I'm not denying that it exists, but it doesn't carry weight with me, and I don't understand how anyone could pick it out and see it for themselves, as you appear to do (feel free to educate me).

Maybe now that we have greater (complete now? or did I mis-learn that somewhere recently?) knowledge of the human genome, a genetic history together with cultural and geographic histories will make a more complete picture.

[Sally]

I guess what I'm not seeing is the mental evolution - the ability to learn a skill vs the learning of that skill. I can see how it would be implied, but I don't see how it could be equated. Complex culture = complex intelligence. Because culture leaps across genetic boundaries. How long did it take Native Americans to learn to use all the things that the European immigrants used? That isn't a genetic evolution; it's a cultural evolution; they *are* different. And maybe Native Americans do carry a few genetic disadvantages when it comes to, I dunno, processing steel. But how the hell could you find them? How could you pin it down to genetics and not to culture - the culture conscious of being a conquered and decimated race within a white society?

Edit: I'm going to argue your side (if there are sides) and say that culture interacts with different genetics in different ways, selecting for genomes that are more compatible with surviving as a conquered and decimated race (in addition to the obvious susceptibility to germs).

So I call truce. To recall Miss Anthropic, I think the more argumentative aspects of this discussion have been due to certain feet in certain mouths. I feel that genetic evolution will play a slightly larger role in my understanding of history from now on, and I'll agree that you can pin down a few physical traits, but as for the rest, it's dangerous to go by logic without proof. Every idiot knows that the world is flat, just like everyone knows that a woman's genetalia are the exact inverse of a man's.

[MacGuffin]

I have tried to stay away from IQ mostly because of this entire page of posts. It is hard to define, and harder to measure while correcting for influences. Physical attributes are far easier.

[pangolin]

None of the given options is precisely correct.

[ChristopherL]

I'll get the ball rolling by stating the obvious: That all men (and women) are created equal. An obvious truth that is easily grasped by morally intelligent people.

Wrong.



What is less obvious is whether there is actually such a thing as race. Some people here are aware that recent scientific studies indicate that the common sense notions of distinguishable races are in fact accurate. Others are still convinced that race is more of a "social construct".

Race is just another way for men to find someplace to displace their inherent insecurities and find somewhere to inherent aggression as a means to vindicate themselves as men.

[cripple]

All men and women humans are born unequal: A fact that is easily grasped by any perceptive non-delusional person.
Exactly.

But it's a truth with modifications. Some people can share blood(without dying at least), even hearts and other stuff. To get a perfect match if you cut and paste might be a challenge. Due to exactly differences. Small they might be, but there non the less.

Has anyone ever had the same fingerprints?

[LongSilence]

Race is just another way for men to find someplace to displace their inherent insecurities and find somewhere to inherent aggression as a means to vindicate themselves as men.

It can be but its not just that. When taken lightly its a simple way of attaching language to differences that help differentiate between people with various superficial and lineage characteristics. Everyone makes presumptions based upon these instinctively but a smart person doesn't assume these presumptions will always hold water with further knowledge. For instance, if someone has asian features I'll assume that they or at least someone in their family at some point came from asia. Once I hear them speak I'll make a further assessment based upon their accent and mannerism with regards to how long they've been in the country we're in.

It's not like I base my judgments on a person around these factors but people often actually play with the idea and ask others to guess where they are from. Although the lines are getting so very much more blurred every day 'race' and its mixtures remain a constant that can declare things about a person's ancestry. Ancestry remains a way that people identify themselves and others, although to a limited and not too significant extent.

[cripple]

It can be but its not just that. When taken lightly its a simple way of attaching language to differences that help differentiate between people with various superficial and lineage characteristics. Everyone makes presumptions based upon these instinctively but a smart person doesn't assume these presumptions will always hold water with further knowledge. For instance, if someone has asian features I'll assume that they or at least someone in their family at some point came from asia. Once I hear them speak I'll make a further assessment based upon their accent and mannerism with regards to how long they've been in the country we're in.

It's not like I base my judgments on a person around these factors but people often actually play with the idea and ask others to guess where they are from. Although the lines are getting so very much more blurred every day 'race' and its mixtures remain a constant that can declare things about a person's ancestry. Ancestry remains a way that people identify themselves and others, although to a limited and not too significant extent.
Racism is basically just habits. And habits are hard to break. Try to fuck a sheep for pleasure or any reason, I can almost guarantee you will encounter mental barriers.

[LongSilence]

Racism is basically just habits. And habits are hard to break. Try to fuck a sheep for pleasure or any reason, I can almost guarantee you will encounter mental barriers.

It's a natural habit for the mind to see the difference when looking from afar between a blonde and a brunette. When you get closer you and actually give more than a glance you'll see more and hopefully think more about what you're looking at. It's the same with racial differences.

What do you mean by racism by the way?

[md5fungi]

ROFL today I was told that I was removed from an interview schedule because I was not a US Citizen.

Punchline: I was born a U.S. Citizen and clearly stated so in my application, tho i guezz peeple with foreign names can't be citizenz.

[Faust06]

Racism, like nationalism, is just an "us vs. them" mentality. You can group people and subdivide them indefinitely. From your neighborhood, sports team, religion, city, state, on and on. With race it's really much easier to draw differences between one group and another (not just by looks alone). Humans are social beings and we compete over ressources with the respective groups we belong to. It almost always comes down to fighting over territory and ressources. Tell me if this sounds familiar:

"They took rrrr jobs!"

[Digital Future]

As we become more genetically diverse I wonder if "race" will be replaced with something like "significantly related genetic group". But then what will each groups be called?

The caramels? The chocolate whips? The icy, fudgy butternut squashes?

[Architectonic]

ROFL today I was told that I was removed from an interview schedule because I was not a US Citizen.

Punchline: I was born a U.S. Citizen and clearly stated so in my application, tho i guezz peeple with foreign names can't be citizenz.

You should sue!