The Facts of Race

[Berter]

Professor William Shockley, 1947-1989, inventor of the transistor and winner of the 1956 Nobel prize for Physics: His views on race so incensed the so-called liberals that he had to be escorted by guards as he went to give lectures on campus.

‘Man is a mammal and subject to the same biological laws as other animals. All animals, including Man, have inheritable behavioural traits. The concept of complete environmental plasticity of human intelligence is a nonsensical wishful-thinking illusion.’

www.heretical.com/miscellx/race.html

[Faelcind]

because of course a physicist is the most qualified person to talk about human biology, and anyone who disagrees with him must be a liberal. Now I beleive that intelligence has highly heritable component, but I see no convincing evidence to suggest that it varies much between populations. Remember the vast majority of variability in human is within populations not between them.

[Berter]

Faelcind said:

because of course a physicist is the most qualified person to talk about human biology, and anyone who disagrees with him must be a liberal. Now I beleive that intelligence has highly heritable component, but I see no convincing evidence to suggest that it varies much between populations. Remember the vast majority of variability in human is within populations not between them.

Darwin's view :
" The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said. "

www.heretical.com/darwin/darwin1.html

[Faelcind]

I have the utmost respect for Darwin but he was product of his time and much that was so notirious as to not need mentioning then has been debunked since.

[Faelcind]

In darwins time in genereal sub species level differences through out biology were considered highly significant and taxonomically important. Modern biology has show that in most species especially higher mammals sub species level differences are not very significant. There are much better explantions for charecter, intellectual and achievments level differences between races. Clinging to the racial paradigm of human achievement is is simply outdated and contrary to the facts.

[Anima Eternae]

Remember the vast majority of variability in human is within populations not between them.

I hate that PC rhetoric bit.

So what? It doesn't change general population truths and averages.

[Faelcind]

You may dislike it if it conflicts with your own racialist ideas but its a fact and it indicates that trying to to find generealized biological differences between geographic populations is dangerous enterprise.

I disagree with those who use the fact to dismiss race, but the other side of the debate genereally has less robust evidence to back there own asseretions. Sure races exist there the evidence just indicates their not very biological signficant.

[buddyrydell]

Faelcind said:

You may dislike it if it conflicts with your own racialist ideas but its a fact and it indicates that trying to to find generealized biological differences between geographic populations is dangerous enterprise.

I disagree with those who use the fact to dismiss race, but the other side of the debate genereally has less robust evidence to back there own asseretions. Sure races exist there the evidence just indicates their not very biological signficant.

I agree Faelcind. I think it's pretty obvious that biological differences between human populations are quite miniscule. We are all very similar in origin. However, no doubt there has been a certain stigma in most circles with regards to the discussion of race as politically incorrect.

For example, anthropologists will acknowledge that there is such a thing as tracing one's ancestry by DNA as to whether a person is of European, African, East Asian, etc. origins, however that anthropologist will immediately try to minimize that by saying that many people who claim to be "Caucasian" or "Black" are a mixture of different ancestries (which is true but it still does not negate the fact that there is some validity to the concept of race).

The reason I used this example is because recently at the university I attend, there were professors who teach courses about race relations allowing students to test DNA to debunk the race concept. These professors have good intentions in that they are anti-racist and hope to lessen the incidence of segregation on campus (which admittedly does occur to a certain extent), however I feel that they used the examples of students who self-identified as one race but showed DNA indicating several ancestries as evidence that race does not exist at all, which I think is flawed.

Please add to this, I think more of this discussion is needed.

[Faelcind]

Yeah between the PC mainstream with their head in the sand and the Extremist fringe with there racist bias and allegiance to outdated figures like Coon, its hard to sort through the bull in the Human race debate.

[Berserk15]

"You may dislike it if it conflicts with your own racialist ideas but its a fact and it indicates that trying to to find generealized biological differences between geographic populations is dangerous enterprise."

If the differences between us are so insignificant (which is pure BS) and we're all basically the same, then why are you even at this site? Consider this quote by Steve Sailer......

"Most variation is within racial groups, not between racial groups. Two members of the same race are likely to differ from each other more than the average member of their race differs from the average member of another race.

Sure, but so what? No single human category can account for a majority of all the many ways humans differ from each other. Try substituting other categories like "age:" "Most variation is within age groups, not between age groups." Yup, that's true, too. But, it doesn't mean that Age Does Not Exist.


You often hear that between-group racial differences only account for 15% of genetic variation. This number comes from a 1972 study by Richard Lewontin of 17 blood types, comparing variation between continental-scale races and between national-scale racial groups (e.g., Swedes vs. Italians). Now, blood types are, I suppose, important, but they hardly represent all we want to know about human genetic diversity. Certain other traits are known to be more racially determined -- the figure for skin color, not surprisingly, is 60%. What the overall number is for all the important genes remains unknown.

Still, let's assume that Lewontin's 15% solution is widely applicable. That's like going to a casino that has American Indian and African American croupiers, and 85% of the time the roulette spins are random, but 15% of the time the ball always comes up red for Indian croupiers and black for the black croupiers -- pretty useful information, huh?"




So Faelcind,F*ck you and your pseudo scientific theories. I'm an empirical man, I rely on truth and reality not ideology.

[ulvesang]

OK, well it's getting quite flameish in here already... pretty disappointing considering the thread is so young.

But anyway, I think BOTH sides can be correct: There are differences between races, but keep in mind that only some 10% of our genes are our appearance. So the GENETIC difference between races may be minimal, but the PHENOTYPICAL difference can be still quite evident.

All creatures share this same concept: Black bears in one part of the world may look different and even act different than other black bears, but they are all black bears.

I'd even venture out further on a limb to say that there may indeed even be racial differences in mental function and/or physical stamina, endurance, etc. But these differences are so small that they make little difference in our modern world.

Even more, it seems any claims that ultra-racists have of superiority can be focused more on the superiority of the SOCIETY, and not the race(s) that comprise it. If a say, child born in Zanzibar is raised in the Netherlands, he will lead a much more successful life on average and achieve more than a Dutch-born person raised in Zanzibar, GENES OR NO GENES, and also be infinetely more Dutch than the "genetic" Dutchman.

[Anima Eternae]

But these differences are so small that they make little difference in our modern world.

Yawn...

[Anima Eternae]

Blacks being violent, asians being smart, etc....

These are often denounced as "stereotypes", but they are backed up by statistical truths. What is debatable is the cause behind these truths.

Did I mention eurasians have a stereotype for being very attractive and smart?

[Springa]

The difference between scientific proof and statistical evidence is that the first tells us why and how something happens while the latter only tells us how often it happens, with no imput on the reasons and the process.
Thus: those things are proven statistically, but there's no scientific proof that that the causes are actually biologic/racial. May be. In some cases, very likely, but until someone comes up with conclusive scientific proof, you can't really use statistics as proof.

Anima said:

Blacks being violent, asians being smart, etc....

These are often denounced as "stereotypes", but they are backed up by statistical truths. What is debatable is the cause behind these truths.

Did I mention eurasians have a stereotype for being very attractive and smart?

[visigodo]

on Today at 13:29:41, Anima Eternae wrote:

Blacks being violent, asians being smart, etc....

These are stereotypes, which you should be smart enough not to fall for. No research exists on this.

on Today at 13:29:41, Anima Eternae wrote:

Did I mention eurasians have a stereotype for being very attractive and smart?

This is only your opinion.