Ok, if it's not heredity...

[Ravi]

Ravi, we're talking ABOUT you, not to you. Get a clue, girl.

Damn, I hate it when you give yourself away by replying faster than it could possibly take you to read my post.

 

[AllieBaba]

Experience has taught me there's nothing of substance there.

Now shhhh..you're wrecking the vibe.

 

[Ravi]

Experience has taught me there's nothing of substance there.

Allie, I am not your boyfriend.

 

[Anguille]

Race is a cultural concept. It has nothing to go with genetics.

 

[Shogun]

Yes, our differences in potential are due to many factors. We are indeed not clones and race is not a predictor of intellectual capacity.

One of those many factors, though, IS race. Specifically, the genetic potential of a common ethnicity.

for instance, if I breed 100 generations of mentally retarded dogs should I expect the 101 generation litter to be full of mentally retarded or mentally superior dogs? I fully acknowledge that social factors play an equal part in the equation but disregarding the finite range of abilities per common ethnicity in the name of political correctness is just foolish.


Do you think we all have the same physical potential for blue eyes? If not, then why would you say this genetic trait is different from the physical genetic traits associated with intelligence? This is not to say that GENERALLY black people are less intelligent that white people but a generalized range of IQs per ethnicity will not match every other ethnicity's results.

I'm not speaking in the name of political correctness. I'm speaking in the name of those who may be discriminated against as a result of an incorrect conclusion. I'm not saying you're incorrect, either. I think you're right about the heredity of physical traits. I'm just not comfortable assigning such "proof" to our measured intellectual differences according to race. I posted a scientific study earlier in the thread that dispels the entire argument since race is a social construct and most scientists can't even agree on how to define intelligence.

which.. IS political correctness. And, I understand your hesitation. I am not out to give David duke fodder for a newsletter. But, should we ignore science if it makes us socially uncomfortable?


I agree with James Watson

I have always fiercely defended the position that we should base our view of the world on the state of our knowledge, on fact, and not on what we would like it to be. This is why genetics is so important. For it will lead us to answers to many of the big and difficult questions that have troubled people for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

...Since 1978, when a pail of water was dumped over my Harvard friend E O Wilson for saying that genes influence human behaviour, the assault against human behavioural genetics by wishful thinking has remained vigorous.

But irrationality must soon recede ... science is not here to make us feel good. It is to answer questions in the service of knowledge and greater understanding.

...We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things. The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science.

To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers.

James D. Watson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shogun]

Race is a cultural concept. It has nothing to go with genetics.

you are simply wrong.

 

[Anguille]

Race is a cultural concept. It has nothing to go with genetics.

you are simply wrong.

I should have said it's a social construct.

 

[Amanda]

Race is a cultural concept. It has nothing to go with genetics.

you are simply wrong.

I should have said it's a social construct.

Can you please explain what you mean, I'm very confused.

 

[Ravi]

We've noticed.

 

[Diuretic]

Colour me confused too. I keep reading there is no such thing as "race".

Why not?

 

[Ravi]

Linnaeus presented a concept of 'race' as applied to humans, also including mythological creatures. Within Homo sapiens he proposed five taxa of a lower (unnamed) rank. These categories were Africanus, Americanus, Asiaticus, Europeanus, and Monstrosus. They were based on place of origin at first, and later on skin colour.[17] Each race had certain characteristics that he considered endemic to individuals belonging to it. Native Americans were choleric, red, straightforward, eager and combative. Africans were phlegmatic, black, slow, relaxed and negligent. Asians were melancholic, yellow, inflexible, severe and avaricious. Europeans were sanguine and pale, muscular, swift, clever and inventive. The "monstrous" humans included such entities as the "agile and fainthearted" dwarf of the Alps, the Patagonian giant, and the monorchid Hottentot.[18]

Carl Linnaeus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Diuretic]

So this bloke invented a sort of taxonomy of humans. Was it wrong? I mean has it been superseded? I'm conscious of the obvious stereotypes there which I'll just ignore but in terms of the concept of "race" has it been dumped or something? I mean humans are pretty different in appearance from each other but there are physical similarities between humans in different regions of of the plant. That's what I understand as "race". Has that been canned?

 

[Ravi]

So this bloke invented a sort of taxonomy of humans. Was it wrong? I mean has it been superseded? I'm conscious of the obvious stereotypes there which I'll just ignore but in terms of the concept of "race" has it been dumped or something? I mean humans are pretty different in appearance from each other but there are physical similarities between humans in different regions of of the plant. That's what I understand as "race". Has that been canned?

That depends on who you talk to...just like everything else.

Ethnic groups have different physical features, just like dog types have different physical features. Dogs are one race, humans another. And even in ethnic groups there can be more differences between members than there are between other ethnic groups.

You could get really crazy and claim people with blue eyes are one race. And I declare us superior.

 

[Diuretic]

So this bloke invented a sort of taxonomy of humans. Was it wrong? I mean has it been superseded? I'm conscious of the obvious stereotypes there which I'll just ignore but in terms of the concept of "race" has it been dumped or something? I mean humans are pretty different in appearance from each other but there are physical similarities between humans in different regions of of the plant. That's what I understand as "race". Has that been canned?

That depends on who you talk to...just like everything else.

Ethnic groups have different physical features, just like dog types have different physical features. Dogs are one race, humans another. And even in ethnic groups there can be more differences between members than there are between other ethnic groups.

You could get really crazy and claim people with blue eyes are one race. And I declare us superior.

I think I understood that last one. I'm not being a difficult prick (really) I just don't understand the idea that there are no races. Dogs and humans are mammals, but we're different species aren't we? One is canis and the other is homo - I think. People in the cheap seats can stop sniggering about "homo" now. So within the species homo there are variations - physical variations - based on genetic adaption to environment. Is that right? Again because the forum can be so bloody combative at times I need to stress that I don't know the answer and I'm asking anyone - not trying to pin it on you Ravi - if they can help me out with an answer. There are some folks here who are very well educated in various areas and they might be able to help out. I get it that we're all humans. I just need to know what the current thinking is regarding variation across our common species.

 

[Ravi]

So this bloke invented a sort of taxonomy of humans. Was it wrong? I mean has it been superseded? I'm conscious of the obvious stereotypes there which I'll just ignore but in terms of the concept of "race" has it been dumped or something? I mean humans are pretty different in appearance from each other but there are physical similarities between humans in different regions of of the plant. That's what I understand as "race". Has that been canned?

That depends on who you talk to...just like everything else.

Ethnic groups have different physical features, just like dog types have different physical features. Dogs are one race, humans another. And even in ethnic groups there can be more differences between members than there are between other ethnic groups.

You could get really crazy and claim people with blue eyes are one race. And I declare us superior.

I think I understood that last one. I'm not being a difficult prick (really) I just don't understand the idea that there are no races. Dogs and humans are mammals, but we're different species aren't we? One is canis and the other is homo - I think. People in the cheap seats can stop sniggering about "homo" now. So within the species homo there are variations - physical variations - based on genetic adaption to environment. Is that right? Again because the forum can be so bloody combative at times I need to stress that I don't know the answer and I'm asking anyone - not trying to pin it on you Ravi - if they can help me out with an answer. There are some folks here who are very well educated in various areas and they might be able to help out. I get it that we're all humans. I just need to know what the current thinking is regarding variation across our common species.

I was using the term race to refer to species...yes humans are one species. I believe that genetic research has shown that the only differences in dna between ethnic groups is those genes that result in skin color, eye color, nose size, etc.

But you probably can't get a noncombative answwer from anyone, Di, because scientists themselves don't agree. If you have some time to read through this it highlights some of the arguments.

Race (classification of human beings) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[Diuretic]

That depends on who you talk to...just like everything else.

Ethnic groups have different physical features, just like dog types have different physical features. Dogs are one race, humans another. And even in ethnic groups there can be more differences between members than there are between other ethnic groups.

You could get really crazy and claim people with blue eyes are one race. And I declare us superior.

I think I understood that last one. I'm not being a difficult prick (really) I just don't understand the idea that there are no races. Dogs and humans are mammals, but we're different species aren't we? One is canis and the other is homo - I think. People in the cheap seats can stop sniggering about "homo" now. So within the species homo there are variations - physical variations - based on genetic adaption to environment. Is that right? Again because the forum can be so bloody combative at times I need to stress that I don't know the answer and I'm asking anyone - not trying to pin it on you Ravi - if they can help me out with an answer. There are some folks here who are very well educated in various areas and they might be able to help out. I get it that we're all humans. I just need to know what the current thinking is regarding variation across our common species.

I was using the term race to refer to species...yes humans are one species. I believe that genetic research has shown that the only differences in dna between ethnic groups is those genes that result in skin color, eye color, nose size, etc.

But you probably can't get a noncombative answwer from anyone, Di, because scientists themselves don't agree. If you have some time to read through this it highlights some of the arguments.

Race (classification of human beings) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Much appreciated Ravi, I will read through it, thanks for posting the link.

 

[Agnapostate]

We'd have to discuss the specific nature of racial and ethnic differences being referred to. I suspect that the OP was intended to refer to apparent intelligence differences between blacks and whites, but there are also notable physical differences between races.

I'm not one to often toss out anecdotal evidence, but just for the hell of it, I possess a significant amount of genetic heritage of the Tarahumara, an indigenous people of northern Mexico. The Tarahumara are renowned as being amongst the greatest long distance runners in the world, if not the greatest. Accordingly, I've always found that I've had an ability to be a fast runner with a good deal of endurance, even having the ability to outrun people significantly lighter than me. So I can't say that my own experience indicates that their running abilities are merely a result of their social backgrounds. The same may be true for the black race in terms of their apparently greater physical abilities; I don't know.

As to differences in intelligence, I'm pleased to say that I can offer somewhat more substantive statistical evidence on that matter in the way of the research of Dickens and Flynn in Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence from Standardization Samples.

We analyze data from nine standardization samples for four major tests of cognitive ability. These suggest that blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ points on non-Hispanic whites between 1972 and 2002. Gains have been fairly uniform across the entire range of black cognitive ability.

That's represented by analyzing the nature of blacks' scores on four separate tests.

Of course, it's still critical to note the manner in which IQ and standardized tests may not accurately reflect cognitive ability and related capacities due to cultural bias and such. Ultimately, even if there are genetic differences between races in terms of intelligence, I don't believe they're so significant as to warrant public policy formation in regards to that. It also remains obvious that group differences or disparities are no cause for disparaging or disrespecting individual members of that group, as this group analysis cannot function as a measurement of an individual's cognitive abilities or an intelligence.

 

[neurosport]

Let's assume for a moment that despite SOOOO many obvious physical differences between races that race has nothing to do with anything...

yes lets assume that we are adept at doublethink

for indeed we are !

fucking lemmings will believe anything their government preaches - whether it is about race or 911 or anything else

EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT

man is different from woman

negroe is different from white man

and Chevy is different from BMW

 

[Luissa]

Let's assume for a moment that despite SOOOO many obvious physical differences between races that race has nothing to do with anything...

yes lets assume that we are adept at doublethink

for indeed we are !

fucking lemmings will believe anything their government preaches - whether it is about race or 911 or anything else

EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT

man is different from woman

negroe is different from white man

and Chevy is different from BMW

giving that a black man can be more similiar to a white man than he is to a black women in terms of DNA, there isn't that much difference between us. Himans in terms of DNA are the most alike animals on the planet. The only difference between races is skin pigmatation. Everything else has to do with envirnment.

 

[Amanda]

Let's assume for a moment that despite SOOOO many obvious physical differences between races that race has nothing to do with anything...

yes lets assume that we are adept at doublethink

for indeed we are !

fucking lemmings will believe anything their government preaches - whether it is about race or 911 or anything else

EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT

man is different from woman

negroe is different from white man

and Chevy is different from BMW

giving that a black man can be more similiar to a white man than he is to a black women in terms of DNA, there isn't that much difference between us. Himans in terms of DNA are the most alike animals on the planet. The only difference between races is skin pigmatation. Everything else has to do with envirnment.

See, I have a really hard time buying that because all you have to do is look at professional sports that require a lot of physical exertion. Do you really think there are so many more black pro basketball players because they grew up near a hoop?