- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 41,562
- Reaction score
- 31,170
- Location
- Southern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
...and how do you compensate for bias in the measurement tool?
Define race, and how do you measure mental and physical competence?
The differences are insignificant, as one would reasonably expect given extremely minor gene pool variations. Different races are not remotely the same thing as different species.
On the intelligence issue you raise, I am not aware of even a single credible study that shows a statistically significant difference.
...and how do you compensate for bias in the measurement tool?
Then you invoke the red herring of noting that races are not the same as species. This has nothing to do with anything.
Are all races capable of the same achievements as others? My answer is yes.
...and how do you compensate for bias in the measurement tool?
There is so much wrong with this statement. What is the metric that you're using to reach the conclusion that the differences are insignificant? That's nothing more that a ideological declaration because you've given no reasoning to support that conclusion. The same criticism applies to your classification of "gene pool variations" being minor. Minor by what standard when the presence or absence of one gene variant can be the difference between suffering a debilitating disease and leading a normal life? Then there is the tautological nature of your opening argument, that's like saying, "the feather doesn't weigh much, as one would expect given the low weight of a feather."
Then you invoke the red herring of noting that races are not the same as species. This has nothing to do with anything. You seem to imply that differences only matter when they exist across cross-species boundaries. Why draw such a distinction? There is a world of difference between the Xhosa and Ashkenazi Jews when it comes to Tay-Sachs disease and clearly these two population groups are not from different species.
All non-Africans are the product of Neandthal and some Denisovan introgression. That's pretty damn significant in terms of genetic diversity.
You need to read the literature more carefully:
Jensen (1998b, pp. 369–379) summarized 17 independent data sets of nearly 45,000 Blacks and 245,000 Whites derived from 149 psychometric tests and found that the g loadings consistently predicted the magnitude of the mean Black–White group difference (r = .62, p < .05). This was borne out even among 3-year-olds administered eight subtests of the Stanford–Binet in which the rank correlation between g loadings and the mean Black–White group differences was .71 (p < .05; Peoples et al., 1995).
so an eskimo can train and run a marathon as fast as a kenyan?
Discussion in another thread gave rise to this poll.
Simply, do you think evolution, with it's supposed changing of humans, left mental and physical competence equal among all races? I ask because I haven't been given much if any empirical proof or valuable evidence for either side. I, for one, am highly suspicious of the notion that evolution left all races equally intelligent. So I'm left to question each side.
Do the Chinese have an overall higher intelligence than, say, Aboriginees of Australia? Looking at history, I can see that certain races advanced far faster than other races. All humans can almost be treated like a bacteria, with different strains of the same virus, what with the way we've spread.
Do you think evolution, with it's "magical" ability to cause people to vary from physical features and skin color, change everthing save mental competence? If mental competence wasn't touched in the slightest so that all races are equally intelligent, do you think physical prowess was also untouched in the slightest? What other things do you think political correctn---ehm, evolution, decide to leave equal?
Please support your claims with evidence otherwise this'll just be a repeat of the other thread.
EDIT: "Ye" is "yes". Confound you, Computer.
You realize that at best the paper you present is controversial, at worst it is seen as faulty?
Yes, if that is what they desired to happen. No, not just any old eskimo is going to run as fast as a Kenyan but it's not important to them so they do not train to run fast. It's been argued in the past that blacks couldn't play QB or golf. Someone is always going to be the fastest. If it was the desire of Eskimo kids to run the 100, sooner or later a few of them (not all Kenyan's run fast) would be competitive.
There isn't much desire to run the 100 in Eskimo culture.
so an eskimo can train and run a marathon as fast as a kenyan?
The American Psychological Association devoted an entire issue of that journal to this question and brought together the most prominent researchers for this "battle of hypotheses" and let them go at each other. Read the paper, read the criticisms and read the responses to the criticisms.
Your calorie-free pronouncement doesn't convey any information. Who cares if YOU think it is faulty? Your assertion of this opinion carries as much weight as someone saying that the moon is made of cheese.
Dammit, some one stole my answer again. I was working up to a Cool Runnings answer. I am going to use it anyway, cuz I like it.
Why do Norway, Sweden, Canada and theSoviets tend to excell at winter athletics, while Jamaica doesn't(see the Cool Runnings reference?)? Is it genetic, or is it simply because the culture of one area emphasizes those sprots for obvious reasons, while Jaimaca, also for obvious reasons, doesn't?
Yes, if that is what they desired to happen. No, not just any old eskimo is going to run as fast as a Kenyan but it's not important to them so they do not train to run fast. It's been argued in the past that blacks couldn't play QB or golf. Someone is always going to be the fastest. If it was the desire of Eskimo kids to run the 100, sooner or later a few of them (not all Kenyan's run fast) would be competitive.
There isn't much desire to run the 100 in Eskimo culture.
If the body shape and physical conditioning is the same, why wouldn't the eskimo run the same time as the Kenyen?
Are people from Africa created differently genetically? Maybe it is because they run from the time they are very young and it keep their bodies in great condition.
Absolutely. Culture is the defining factor, not evolution. Placed in a different culture and Usain Bolt might be a great ski jumper.
There is so much wrong with this statement. What is the metric that you're using to reach the conclusion that the differences are insignificant?
You need to read the literature more carefully:
sorry, but a short thick eskimo just isn't as physically adept at running as a skinny kenyan, no matter how much they train.
can a 4' 6" pygmy train themselves to dunk a basketball?
to deny that there are, in fact, differences in people that mere training/education/whatever cannot overcome is ridiculous
not everyone can be a pro athlete or a brain surgeon.
sorry, but a short thick eskimo just isn't as physically adept at running as a skinny kenyan, no matter how much they train.
can a 4' 6" pygmy train themselves to dunk a basketball?
to deny that there are, in fact, differences in people that mere training/education/whatever cannot overcome is ridiculous
not everyone can be a pro athlete or a brain surgeon.
You realize that at best the paper you present is controversial, at worst it is seen as faulty?
Reading comprehension check: I did not say I thought it was faulty(I do not have the knowledge to judge it). I said that it was controversial, and considered by many to be faulty.
Presenting something controversial among experts on the topic as fact is somewhat dishonest, though I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked if you where aware of the problem.
The American Psychological Association devoted an entire issue of that journal to this question and brought together the most prominent researchers for this "battle of hypotheses" and let them go at each other. Read the paper, read the criticisms and read the responses to the criticisms.
Your calorie-free pronouncement doesn't convey any information.
The question isn't:
"What is the relative intelligence between races?"
You're a bit more clever than others here so I'll give you bonus points.
The real question is:
Did evolution leave all races with equal physical and mental competency?"
My question's a bit more general than your more specific question.