hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Super-Zhao must explain that to blues-ridden Grover
Liberal Creationism, or: Yippee, It’s Bell-Curve Time Again!
- Thread starter Guybrush
- Start date
N
nomadologist
Guest
You know, I expect this sort of rabid bullshit from Vimothy, but frankly given Mr. Tea's science background I'm appalled at a lot of what he's posted in this thread.
Surely you must be on a campus with quite a few biologists floating around? Go talk to them about it, since you seem to have no clue that the scientific establishment at large does not recognize race as "biologically" based.
Surely you must be on a campus with quite a few biologists floating around? Go talk to them about it, since you seem to have no clue that the scientific establishment at large does not recognize race as "biologically" based.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Zhao, what do you think genes are actually there for?
Without genes, you wouldn't have any IQ or intelligence at all, as you wouldn't exist in the first place.
Do you think that everybody is genetically identical?
If you don't, then you must accept that some of the causes of obvious differences between people are genetic.
Why do you think that humans are different from other animals? Could it be the genes or is it because the media is particularly effective in convincing us not to be lichen, porpoises or orangutans?
Last edited:
dear mixed_up, you fail to grasp the meaning of my question. i don't understand how it is possible because the entire conversation has been about inequality between black americans and white americans, or between white europeans and black africans. and not about inequality between stephen hawking and your next door neighbor. a simple addendum should make it more clear:
do you or do you not at least partially agree with a geneticist explanation of inequality between (what are perceived as) different "racial" groups?
do you or do you not at least partially agree with a geneticist explanation of inequality between (what are perceived as) different "racial" groups?
Last edited:
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
I agree that 'race' as such does not exist, that's just silly. Also 'inequality' implies a value judgment that none of us as humans are qualified to make. But these are inaccurate terms to begin with.
What if we were to talk about 'breeds' and 'difference'? In terms of dogs would it really be sensible to say that poodles did not exhibit genetically derived characteristics that were identifiably distinct from beagles? That's what defines a breed. Of course we're all mutts and I am certainly not saying that poodles are superior to beagles, but they are different enough in a consistent way to be identifiable as such. So let's not let squeamishness about 'racism' get in the way of making reasonable observations.
What if we were to talk about 'breeds' and 'difference'? In terms of dogs would it really be sensible to say that poodles did not exhibit genetically derived characteristics that were identifiably distinct from beagles? That's what defines a breed. Of course we're all mutts and I am certainly not saying that poodles are superior to beagles, but they are different enough in a consistent way to be identifiable as such. So let's not let squeamishness about 'racism' get in the way of making reasonable observations.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Indeed, this is a discussion worth having. Maybe another thread though.
I wonder if this isn't rather more calculated then straight up paranoid 'racism'. Demonising the islamic denizens of the middle-east obviously serves more than just a psychological purpose. The human tribal capacity to fear members of other groups is well understood and cynically employed to political and economic ends.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Like what? What have I posted in this thread that's so desperately unscientific? All I'm saying is that a large part of what people look like, and certain other biological (eg. metabolic, immunological) characteristics, is hereditary. And that these patterns of heredity are correlated to where in the world one's ancestors happened to come from. I mean, is there anything I've written there that's factually incorrect? If there is, I'd be delighted to see some hard evidence to the contrary.
Edit: as a case in point, surely it's pretty obvious from watching any international sports or athletics competition that people of different (here we go, hold tight) race - or colour, ethnic origin, whatever you want to call it - are inherently suited to different kinds of events? I mean, when was the last time there was a heavyweight boxing champion who wasn't of west African origin? Or a world-class swimmer who wasn't a north European? Most of the best long-distance runners are east Africans, east Asians and east Europeans dominate gymnastics events...these correlations are far too strong to be explained by cultural differences. I mean, I'm sure there are plenty of white boxers who'd give their right arm to be world heavyweight champion, but the fact is they're just not as good at it as black guys.
Last edited:
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Hear hear.
the following 2 quotes exhibit "superficial" surface differences that are ENTIRELY the products of culture and environment. the big, common mistake is to confuse such noticeable surface differences with something much deeper. and the racist agenda uses these frivolous differences to construct their idea of race as something fundamental, which it isn't.
all dogs are bred from the wolf. and these different breeds come from human genetic engineering.
having lived in different environments for the past 10,000 to how ever many years is accountable for these different, again, surface attributes. similar to the thing with asians as a whole not able to drink as much alcohol because we developed a different method to kill the bacteria in drinking water (your name sake).
it is a very different thing to posit that any "race" is inherently this or that. and attempting to legitimize differences in "intelligence" (whatever the hell that means) is hugely problematic.
europeans might be more adapted at survival in a european way of life the same way a New Guinean is more adapted at survival in their environment. but to use a system rooted in one lifestyle to measure qualities of people of another, is absurd and racist.
and that is exactly what the bell KKKurve people are trying to do, using trivial physical differences as well as different adaptive behaviors both deriving from (relative to the history of human species) recent development, as "proof" of fundamental differences, in order to construct a racist doctrine and contaminate the population with racist ideas.
all dogs are bred from the wolf. and these different breeds come from human genetic engineering.
having lived in different environments for the past 10,000 to how ever many years is accountable for these different, again, surface attributes. similar to the thing with asians as a whole not able to drink as much alcohol because we developed a different method to kill the bacteria in drinking water (your name sake).
it is a very different thing to posit that any "race" is inherently this or that. and attempting to legitimize differences in "intelligence" (whatever the hell that means) is hugely problematic.
europeans might be more adapted at survival in a european way of life the same way a New Guinean is more adapted at survival in their environment. but to use a system rooted in one lifestyle to measure qualities of people of another, is absurd and racist.
and that is exactly what the bell KKKurve people are trying to do, using trivial physical differences as well as different adaptive behaviors both deriving from (relative to the history of human species) recent development, as "proof" of fundamental differences, in order to construct a racist doctrine and contaminate the population with racist ideas.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
To be clear that's obviously not what I'm doing. The word 'race' is causing confusion and yes if we are not pursuing a racist agenda we should probably not use it. But just because the idea of different human 'races' is a fallacy that is used to whatever ends doesn't mean that different populations do not exhibit different characteristics, however those arise.
And environmental conditions, of which human intervention could be considered a part anyway. There would be (and are in fact) different types of wolf descendents even if humans never messed around with dogs. It just happens, populations acquire certain characteristics.
We are not as humans qualified to make biased judgments on 'intelligence', but to ignore that different populations can exhibit different qualities is also absurd.
I don't think anyone here is exhibiting a racist mindset - it's just careless use of the word 'race'. Equally it doesn't help to ignore something just because others use it as evidence to support a sick ideology. All we are really doing here is arguing about the definition of a word, as so often happens in these discussions.
The intelligence thing is ridiculous - intelligence is multi-faceted and no test, especially one designed by other humans, can possibly measure all it's aspects reliably.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Of course I agree with what you say there zhao, I just don't think it's reasonable that others here are being attacked for their 'racist' views when they are just pointing out that people are not all identical.
fair enough. and no vimothy and tea probably are not straight-up racists (that they know of anyhow). but failing to recognize and even supporting some of the claims made by racists is not really let-slide-able.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Bear in mind that general intelligence g is a statistical, rather than real, entity and that it is used precisely because it is very good at predicting performance across a range of intellectual activities (ultimately because all intellectual activity is fundamentally of a piece).
I see no-one wants to take up the training-for-IQ-test challenge. :slanted:
If there was evidence that ppl could boost their performance on respected IQ tests from average to top 5%, then I would start feeling sceptical, but I don't think that this is feasible, however many practice tests you wade through.
Someone with IQ 150 would be able to best a person with IQ 90 at any intellectual endeavour (savants excepted).
Last edited:
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Well there you go. There's a massive error here, and it's the result of cultural and scientific bias. Intellectual capacity is by no means the only aspect of intelligence. In cybernetic terms intelligence is the capacity of a system to absorb, integrate and utilise/transmit information. Humans do this on many levels, only one or two of which can be called 'intellectual' activity.
And what does 'savant' mean? Is it not just an extreme example of someone who exhibits a type of intelligence the workings of which general intelligence can not understand?
Last edited:
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Expand...
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
I don't need to. You do.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I don't need to. You do.
???
You said 'intellectual capacity is by no means the only aspect of intelligence.'
What other aspects of intelligence are there?