Hallam
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by Hallam on Mar 22, 2005 16:28:20 GMT -5
like i said. intelligence is largely socio-economic, i believe the races are moreorless the same in intellect. if there are any differences then they're certainly a LOT smaller than what some of the posters, such as you seem to suggest. We agree then that the differences obsreved are largely if not totally environmental. I always maintained that it was. Yes it does. It has evereything to do with inferiority complexes. You didjn't read the whole thread or you didn't understand jack shit about it. The poster "whosyourdaddy" had posted that European and Arabs are the most creative because of inventions. I showed that that is BS because first, on a per million bases, in developed Asian nations this is not only fasle but exactly the opposite from teh facts. It also shows that differences in inventiveness has little to do with innate ability but environment since there are poor caucasian contries are are not inustrious and inventive at all just like there are those for Asian and other countries. That's the point. You said this. Not me. ;D My point was that patents cannot be an indicator of innate creativity which was whosyourdaddy's assertion, not mine..
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 22, 2005 16:41:11 GMT -5
And your point being? Chimps and humans diverged millions and millions of years ago. You don't need a rocket scientist to figure out the differences between chimps and humans. If proteins between different races of humans are different, furnish some evidence. What sort of proteins are different between different races of humans? My point was you were suggesting something by yourself which you cannot prove and it seems that there might be still a big surprise... You talked so much about proteins above without having any proof for a so great similarity between the human races at all. You read what I wrote in the "chimp-thread"? No, I didnt wanted to say "we know all" but that all the people speaking about the minor genetic difference have no idea about the real important genetic, protein and structural differences SO FAR. Right, thats the reason I quote this whenever someones comes with the stupid "genetic equality" song... Average, statistical average. Do you know how big the European population was at the crucial time? ... Population wasnt that big in the past and selective processes in no way comparable with the contemporary situation. Alone if you look at the death rate of infants... Even more important, who said all Europeans have the genes? No, they dont! There are differences in Europe too and just some lines have the higher potential, some the average, others are under it and approximate the intelligence level of f.e. Negrids. But the pervasion rate of the whole population with positive genes for intelligence is significantly higher. Well, such theories prove just the lack of rationality and logical thinking of those who made it. Because such a situation of individual murder means oftentimes a lack of active group selection as important factor. To live in bigger groups and to have to rely on each other more than in the tropical regions changed both intelligence and behaviour in a positive way. The aggressive-brutal way of individual selection was not the main factor in Eurasia and that was one of the reasons of their success. Destructive individuals with too much masculine aggression were selected out for the survival of the group. Cultural and social determinations and believe furthered a structure which was against such stupid-destructive behaviour. Thats a "chicken-egg" problem, what was first huh? Sure this had to have a serious impact on the way of individual and group selection+sociocultural evolution. Its just absurd to see the physical selection and to say there "was no shift to new personality traits and intelligence", the brain stayed the same. Just absurd. As I said, "races" or however you call it are evolutionary strategies-tendencies. The main point is you belong to one type and different strategies have a different value in different situations. Some are promising, others aren't. F.e. the Panda bear. Looks nice, is ok, but just a mistake of evolution if you judge hard. Same is true for Australopithecus robustus or the Homo neandertalensis. Races are no species, the tendency is not that strong and often on the long run easier to reverse, but still you can already see the goal if it would be going further in the same direction. The Europid direction is just one of the most promising and progressive ones. Well, just be sceptical with the enemies of race and the "equality" apologists too.
|
|
|
Post by jay (mulatto) on Mar 22, 2005 16:44:23 GMT -5
by reading this fierce debate here id like to point that intelligence may not be that much worth. under a biological point of view may be more normal down to mildly retarded may be a better thing. these people procreat so much. the really intelligents, on the other hand, are immersed on doubt and thoughts. bobby fischer and kazinsky, both men well above the average level of intelligence, had a rather troubled life, and none of them were biologically speaking successful. kazinsky may never have had a relationship or something, immersed as he was in his thoughts in his lonely Montanas cabin. so the somehow paranoical bobby fischer. i know many pretty normal people and those mildly retarded who seem to endure life with much more resilience and ultimately biologically speaking the succeed. the very fact that europeans, after such an expansion, and such an explosion of intellectual breakthroughs, seem to be at risk as a biological entity, may point to that direction as well... Human. i agree with u 100%. sometimes i wish i wasn't so intelligent. and part of me would gladly trade places with an average regular joe, who sees the world very simplisticly, without worring about too much stuff. the problems of being too intelligent is you can easily cross over to the insane, schizophrenic, especially if u lock yourself up in a cabin lol. that's why it's very important for intelligent people to socialize with the average joe's, to stay in touch with the simplistic human mentality. sometimes i find myself talking too 'intellectually' with people in real life, and i have to remind myself to dumb it down, and keep it real. - intelligence is overrated imo.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 22, 2005 16:50:43 GMT -5
by reading this fierce debate here id like to point that intelligence may not be that much worth. under a biological point of view may be more normal down to mildly retarded may be a better thing. these people procreat so much. the really intelligents, on the other hand, are immersed on doubt and thoughts. bobby fischer and kazinsky, both men well above the average level of intelligence, had a rather troubled life, and none of them were biologically speaking successful. kazinsky may never have had a relationship or something, immersed as he was in his thoughts in his lonely Montanas cabin. so the somehow paranoical bobby fischer. i know many pretty normal people and those mildly retarded who seem to endure life with much more resilience and ultimately biologically speaking the succeed. the very fact that europeans, after such an expansion, and such an explosion of intellectual breakthroughs, seem to be at risk as a biological entity, may point to that direction as well... This is only possible in the LIBERAL-INDIVIDUALISTIC ENVIRONMENT! Because in the past, especially in the times in which the selective pressure was higher, more intelligent people just had a better chance to survive. Now we live in a time of contraselection, dysgenic times! The worst reproduce more than the best and thats a danger both for our societies and the whole species. F.e. in a classic war in the Neolithic age, the stronger group, the winners, would have had better access to ressources, both natural ones and females, whereas the losers would have been probably totally wiped out. Now in the modern world wars just the best died and the worst were not even in the army! So even if your groups win, those who risked, who fought for the group and had better features had no real advantage because of it. Thats why we need Eugenic or our societies will really get "retarded" and not just culturally... What you are saying is exactly the problem what we face! Because in the Neolithic f.e., even if Negrids would have come to Europe, oh well, they would have been selected out very fast and maybe only single useful gens would have survived. But the type himself would have had no chance... In the modern society, especially the liberal one in which people are hedonistic-materialistic and individualistic-career oriented, they dont get enough children especially if they are more intelligent. That wouldnt have been the case to the same extend in the past, even on the contrary. Now the neoliberal policy which makes people just producers and consumers, the reproduction rates especially of the more intelligent ones still decreasing. Its a sociocultural problem, an important symptom of our degenerated Western society. A problem which must be solved or we have no future...
|
|
|
Post by whoseyourdaddy on Mar 22, 2005 16:51:54 GMT -5
My point was that patents cannot be an indicator of innate creativity which was whosyourdaddy's assertion, not mine.. Hallam, both me and you agreed on this, I was talking about inventions not patents. The problem with patents is that the majority of them go to computers, software, automobiles, and other previous inventions especially in manufactured goods, we have no way of knowing which are original and which are improvments/innovations. A automobile is still an automobile despite the fact that there are thousands of patents around that single invention. Like I said earlier, if all of those patents were original inventions, we'd be living like its 2544. Add, that with the large amount of patent stealing going on nowadays, and you have a poor indicator for creativity. We also both agreed that there is no way to know which culture is more creative because both cultures had their own original inventions, (BOTH me and you agreed on this) and don't take my trolling too seriously, you should see my posts on whether egyptians were black. You should also see my anti-european posts on www.eurasiannation.com. (and no im not anti-european, but sometimes i have to sound that way to prove a point) (This has been edited)
|
|
|
Post by jay (mulatto) on Mar 22, 2005 17:05:00 GMT -5
We agree then that the differences obsreved are largely if not totally environmental. I always maintained that it was. Yes it does. It has evereything to do with inferiority complexes. You didjn't read the whole thread or you didn't understand jack shit about it. The poster "whosyourdaddy" had posted that European and Arabs are the most creative because of inventions. I showed that that is BS because first, on a per million bases, in developed Asian nations this is not only fasle but exactly the opposite from teh facts. It also shows that differences in inventiveness has little to do with innate ability but environment since there are poor caucasian contries are are not inustrious and inventive at all just like there are those for Asian and other countries. That's the point. You said this. Not me. ;D My point was that patents cannot be an indicator of innate creativity which was whosyourdaddy's assertion, not mine.. Hallam, my bad (you're right i didn't read the whole topic, i just looked at the first 3 pages, didn't read it all fully either, and was eager to make a post). sorry about that ;D - my point with the East Asians, was similar to your point about the patents. I was highlighting how the commonly perceived intellect of East Asians, needs to be understood further (e.g. if East Asians are so smart. Then why do African immigrants in the US have higher rates of professional qualifications than Indian immigrants which in turn have higher rates of professional qualifications than Chinese immigrants). I don't have anything against East asians, it's just it gets annoying when you hear people say "wow those chinese are so smart. I could never be that smart cause I'm black, or white", thus attributing it mostly to biological reasons, rather than the environmental (doesn't bother me. im mixed race, and thus generally undefined academically). it's unfortunate that so many people think that way, the simplistic biological reasoning irritates me. Most of this is anecdotal, people in the west usually grow up in a school, with a small chinese minority, descendents of immigrants. and those chinese academically perform well. in the uk it's indians & chinese that perform very well academically. although anecdotally in my university, the chinese didn't perform well, and since many people used anecdotes to justify their vote, i exercised my voting right, even though i don't believe in their being significant differences in intelect between races. under the right, fair circumstances. all races perform moreorless the same. that's my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 22, 2005 17:15:00 GMT -5
Jay you have a point since there is a social selection as well.
So certain types of immigrants are almost always more intelligent, no matter from which race they come from. Many Chinese which go abroad are business people or at least very motivated and rather intelligent people who follow the call of the degenerated Western society for a "career and money" like so many nowadays.
This is an unfair selection, since they are not really representative for the whole Chinese nation.
Furthermore like I said, Europeans are more intelligent than f.e. Negrids because of the higher rate of positive genes for intelligence in the genpool of the population, but that doesnt mean every European is more intelligent (as individual) nor that Negrids cant be very intelligent too. Its a statistical difference.
Since there is variation inside every group too, if we speaking about the main modern races (Europid, Mongolid, Negrid) which have huge populations, it depends on the preselection.
The difference is just you have to search under Mongolids longer for sprinters as good as West Africans and the percentage is lower, whereas the same is true if its about certain tasks involving higher intelligence just the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by ramsharma on Mar 22, 2005 17:32:06 GMT -5
Hmm, I just read a little bit of the chimp-human protein difference paper that agrippa posted. The question is can we make any prediction based on only 127 protein and chimp orthologous proteins? Given that humans have 30,000 genes, I would assume that human beings have a lot more than 127 proteins. So as I said, structurally solving proteins will take a long, long time. The number of proteins that have been solved of course is growing rapidly, but without getting more data, I don't even think we can really *know* for a fact how different chimps and humans are. Also, we are comparing apples and oranges: 1. Chimps and humans are two different species 2. When we're comparing human beings, we're comparing homo sapiens--people within one species. If the races have diverged, it's obvious that the differences *cannot* be that drastic. Just think about it. How long has it been that modern humans have migrated from Africa?? If you're talking about human history, which goes back millions of years, this time is nothing.
Also, Agrippa mentioned somewhere before that even though Europe was in the dark ages, Europeans always had potential. I also mentioned that Hungarians had an IQ about 20 points less than what they have at present. Again, his response was that they had potential. I am wondering though, how exactly is Agrippa determining this "potential"?
If the population is really small, genetic drift is really important. Europe is a relatively *huge* territory. To suggest that everybody was able to intermingle or interbreed is ludicrous. Furthermore, I wonder about variations within *Europe* itself. Painting a group so diverse with a broad brush does not sound right to me.
IQ studies based on race is quasi-science. Variations within a race is *more* striking than variations between two races. I am talking about genetic differences here.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 22, 2005 17:47:46 GMT -5
Hmm, I just read a little bit of the chimp-human protein difference paper that agrippa posted. The question is can we make any prediction based on only 127 protein and chimp orthologous proteins? Given that humans have 30,000 genes, I would assume that human beings have a lot more than 127 proteins. So as I said, structurally solving proteins will take a long, long time. The number of proteins that have been solved of course is growing rapidly, but without getting more data, I don't even think we can really *know* for a fact how different chimps and humans are. Also, we are comparing apples and oranges: 1. Chimps and humans are two different species 2. When we're comparing human beings, we're comparing homo sapiens--people within one species. If the races have diverged, it's obvious that the differences *cannot* be that drastic. Just think about it. Dont do so as I would have said anything different, since that wouldnt be true. Sure the intraspecific differences MUST be smaller, but that doesnt mean that they are insignificant. Lets say we speak about a time frame of 100.000 years. Thats enough me thinks, especially for an explorative and expanding species which had a much higher selective pressure in this time than chimps had between the disconnections of Humans and Chimps and now. If you have people which are starving, those which have the potential to grow higher are usually still taller, they are just under their potential. The people without the potential are even smaller than they are in bad times. So potential means what you can reach - higher potential means that someone or a group can reach more under the same circumstances than the other. Yes, that would go to far. But if you look at the y-group and mtDNA maps you might see how mixed Europe is, so certain genes could have spread almost all over Europe. Furthermore I dont say its necessary fot he intelligence issue to have the same ancestors, its much more important that your group went through the same processes in the same time. Yes, differences in Europe, between populations and between individuals exist. But the differences between European populations are rather small compared to those of tropical ones. Ok, that makes clear where you coming from. You are against such studies at all! Now just think, if someone could be able to prove a serious racial difference with a new method, in a way that it is no longer in question, like that the Earth is no disk, would you like to see this method published? I'm serious, answer in a honest way. You should think about the fact that doing so is now politically correct, arguing about races not. In the 60s and 70s, especially in Europe, even the idea that individual intellectual differences could be heritable were very, very disputed and "politically incorrect" at least for all the leftist. So think about it again, especially about the needs of the Neoliberal ideology. They need individual differences for justifying social injustice, but they dont need group differences for their "one world scheme". Thats the reason because this "equality dogma" exists. In fact both is legitimate and should be done, individual and group differences and the responsible genes and structures should be identified.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Mar 22, 2005 17:49:44 GMT -5
Quasi-science? I think you mean 'pseudo-science', no? Although it is also quasi-science since it's generally 'hidden' from view. This has become like an invincible catch phrase to deflect all attacks...but most people who come to this board aren't buying it.
|
|
|
Post by ramsharma on Mar 22, 2005 17:59:51 GMT -5
Well melnorme, thanks for the correction. I wasn't trying to suggest that these studies are just pulled out of their ass or something. I meant that these sorts of science(aka pseudo-science) just have a cult-like following, much like these UFO believers. Agrippa, I am a totally open-minded person. If, in the future, scientiests manage to prove without a shadow of a doubt that races differ in terms of IQ, hey, I will most probably accept it. As I said, it has to be good proof. They got HAPMAP studies going on at present. If they find protein functions that are different in different races, then I'm converted.
As it is today, most scientists in fact do not forward the some-races-are-superior-to-others type of theory. Look at what happened to some of the so-called researchers. They are shunned upon by the scientific community. And look at some of the people who believe in them. They're mostly speaking White Nationalists and Eugenicists and the like.
So Melnorme, I take it you're okay with the fact that Askenazi Jews have higher IQ, than, say Sephardic? Greeks supposedly have lower IQ than Northern Europeans, for example, according to some of these IQ studies. How many Greeks believe that sort of tripe?
If you're not a Northern Euro or Northeast Asian or Ashkenazi Jew, nothing explains it but some sort of inferiority complex. Sorry people, but that's how I feel.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Mar 22, 2005 18:09:40 GMT -5
Look at what happened to some of the so-called researchers. They are shunned upon by the scientific community. Not all of them are shunned, but they're always nervously ignored. Actually, it doesn't really bother me - because it's apparently not a big enough difference to cause an uncomfortably large difference in standards of living between the two populations. And in the end, that's what matters, not "who gets more Phds".
|
|
|
Post by ramsharma on Mar 22, 2005 18:18:06 GMT -5
Well, that's a good way of looking at things I guess.
As someone who was born a brahmin( I am more of a buddhist these days) I could easily choose to believe that, say, Hindu dalits are born inferior. I don't though and it's my opinion. But hey whatever floats your boat.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 22, 2005 18:26:22 GMT -5
Do you see the contradiction in what you said?
First you said you would accept results which prove the differences, on the other hand you say:
Well, what do you have against Eugenic? Earlier you said its ok that I'm a racist for you, well, does that mean somebody who believes in Eugenic is no trustworthy source?
So you don't believe people like James Watson, Eysenck or Raymond B. Cattel?
What those people achieved if its about genetic science or psychology is just great and they were born and raised in a time political correctness didnt governed science like it is the case today.
In my opinion Rushton f.e. is right about many things, but not about all, but the point is what happened to him just because he published what he found out for himself.
Furthermore the brain size-intelligence issue is not that unimportant and the correlation is now from more than one side proven. Just an annotation.
He's not the only case, there are many people which lost there job or get serious problems just because they presented their results, might they be right or not.
Whats the point about that? Well, if some idiot (literally an idiot) is saying "we are all the same blabla, there is no race blabla all people applauding like apes after a lobotomy, but if a scientists presents his charts, his data and his arguments, he usually just get hooted and serious troubles...
What climate is that? A climate of scientific freedom or a proof for the quality of the "there is no race" apologists?
For sure not.
Hey, I personally know an anthropologists who's such a "there is no race" apologist and he worked for the UNESCO proclamation and fought various scientists. He's a great at anatomy and craniology. Now in an abstract he wrote about "that there is no race and that he can prove this blabla..." But if you read, what most people might not do anyway, the whole article, you could read out even the contrary if looking at the data!!!
Then he worked for a palae-anthropological study and he took values from various human groups, now he is very exact and for the robust Homo sapiens he explicitly took the Australoid skull, a typical one, with very exact data. If its no "race study" you can speak about the differences more openly...because then the data is "neutral".
Now whats the funny thing of this story? He doesnt use "races", thats no word in his vocabulary, he fights "racism" and people who want to establish racial categories, BUT he exactly knows were the differences are and any free minded person can use his data to support the race theory. Because he is ideologically motivated, but otherwise honest and precise!
He will not admit it, but he knows better than you or me the differences, but if you ask him, at least officially, he will just negate the existence of race and will downplay all differences...
And thats not just routine in my university, but all over the Western world. Many of them know it better, but even in front of their students, they know that they are "watched" and could get problems if saying something wrong.
There were such cases and they made an example out of them what will happen...
We live in a media and opinion dictatorship and every reasonable human being, no matter of which race, can see it. Some just dont want to...
You think this climate is good for an open discussion which might destroy the neoliberal-politically correct "there is no race and all are the same" dogma?
You aren't serious, are you?
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 22, 2005 18:28:54 GMT -5
Well, that's a good way of looking at things I guess. As someone who was born a brahmin( I am more of a buddhist these days) I could easily choose to believe that, say, Hindu dalits are born inferior. I don't though and it's my opinion. But hey whatever floats your boat. Upper casts are more Caucasoid, namely more progressive Nordindid-Indid on average. Though it depends on the region too
|
|