Black woman single cos the black men are in jail - would you marry outside your race?

[Louis VI the Fat]

looks like we'll be burning the new galileo's just like we burnst the original.I agree with what you say. Although I prefer a comparison with Darwin's reception 150 years ago.

To this day, creationists have not come to terms with the implications of evolution for the understanding of the human being. Another group that stubbornly refuses to accept evolution's consequences, is precisely the most outspoken critic of creationists: liberal Western thought, which never passes up an opportunity to ridicule the attempts by creationists to put the genie of Darwin back in the bottle.

[Furunculus]

Nope, we are keeping of the ghosts in the past sealed and shut in the cupboard. We are to learn from History, not repeat it.

Heritable properties play a minimal effect compared to that of the environment, as if you go to a bad school, your grades would be significantly lower than if you went to a good school, no matter what genes you have. Even then, genetic disorders which affect performance can already be tested (down symdrone, for example), and thus we should help enable them reach their potential.

Ultimately, you are trying to open up a can of worms. Trying to find something in the dirt that really isn't there.

Edit:

Reminds me of when I was doing reading and came across what is called "Law of the Instrument", basically they used to perform these tests on discriminated minorities to reinforce negative stereotyping, and it turned out it was pretty much a case of "the shoe doesn't fit the foot, therefore, there is something wrong with the foot". They neglected the situations and the other variables, and it turned out that these discriminated minorities didn't have problems at all, since those in the exact same situations had effectively the same exact scores.

These occured around the 1960's.. which would make your "new galileo" 50 years behind the times.

so on the one hand, you admit that intelligence is a heritable property, but on the other we still can't admit that or talk about it even if it is to point out as i did:

why is it ridiculous?

this is not to say that any evolutionary difference is significant

that the variation due to evolution is much less important than variation due to social and educational factors.

but why is it ridiculous to make that statement, is it becuase it frightens you?
but never mind science or progress, or even just plain old honesty, it's just too dangerous so we'll invent double-speak and pretend it doesn't exist.

[Watchman]

why?"Why" what ? The definition of intelligence or the failure of your Galilei reference ? Because AFAIK nobody's yet come up with a comprehensive, unambigious and universally applicable definition for intelligence and because Galilei was't burned but rather put under house arrest, that's why.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't see the need to divide intelligence into all sorts of categories.

While there are prodigies and people who might have great abilities in one respect, but be dumb on the whole, for the most part, people tend to be either generally clever or generally thick.

Surely, everything that goes on in our brain is a sort of calculation. Intelligence would simply be how effectively we can carry those out. Hand-eye coordination is based on calculations. For example, to catch a frisbee, you have to work out how fast it is travelling, then consider the length of your arm, the speed to move it to reach the frisbee as it arrives etc. Over time, as you make more of these calculations, your brain starts to learn the patterns, it takes on board past experiences and stores information away so your reactions in future become instinctual. It's the same with playing an instrument, there's no special 'creative' intelligence, its just recognising patterns till you can play a piece of music. When that information is efficiently stored away, you can play the piece without doing all the calculations and do it barely thinking about it.

[Furunculus]

"Why" what ? The definition of intelligence or the failure of your Galilei reference ? Because AFAIK nobody's yet come up with a comprehensive, unambigious and universally applicable definition for intelligence

and because Galilei was't burned but rather put under house arrest, that's why.
so what, can we not look at these matters using the measures for intelligence that already exist? i can well imagine that doing so would do far more to expose the flaws in current intelligence tests than any great variation in intelligence resulting from heritability. the important thing to ask the questions, to explore, to scientifically observe, not to close down debate because you feel uncomfortable.

allegory.

[PanzerJaeger]

so what, can we not look at these matters using the measures for intelligence that already exist? i can well imagine that doing so would do far more to expose the flaws in current intelligence tests than any great variation in intelligence resulting from heritability. the important thing to ask the questions, to explore, to scientifically observe, not to close down debate because you feel uncomfortable.

It's so much easier to dismiss all measures of intelligence, throw his hands in the air, and yell FAIL at you. Seems to be a common theme in this thread. :shrug:

[The Stranger]

I don't see the need to divide intelligence into all sorts of categories.

While there are prodigies and people who might have great abilities in one respect, but be dumb on the whole, for the most part, people tend to be either generally clever or generally thick.

Surely, everything that goes on in our brain is a sort of calculation. Intelligence would simply be how effectively we can carry those out. Hand-eye coordination is based on calculations. For example, to catch a frisbee, you have to work out how fast it is travelling, then consider the length of your arm, the speed to move it to reach the frisbee as it arrives etc. Over time, as you make more of these calculations, your brain starts to learn the patterns, it takes on board past experiences and stores information away so your reactions in future become instinctual. It's the same with playing an instrument, there's no special 'creative' intelligence, its just recognising patterns till you can play a piece of music. When that information is efficiently stored away, you can play the piece without doing all the calculations and do it barely thinking about it.

yet why is a person like einstein considered intelligent then, lets assume he did all that he did, only he was bad at languages, bad at any kind of physical activities, bad at social contact etc. we might say he was a savant, but we would not deny his intelligence. yet his intelligence only flourishes at one field. so much is clear. yet when the intelligence flourishes more in the bodily part, the athletic sportive part, than in the mental scientific part(reading, maths, analytics, knowledgable) people are not as fast considered intelligent.

while in school/uni though ive met alot of knowledgable people, who werent exactly intelligent. and they are found on the highest educational levels of one of the most intelligent (according to the IQ tests) in the country. and I went to an fairly elite school (in both the sense of rich white kids and level of education). there is a obvious double standard, and a bias towards certain "forms" of intelligence.

and to go more deep into your definition of intelligence, for as far as i understand it, i think i agree with you though mostly, and what qualifies one as more or less intelligent is with what ease and speed of person learns these patterns as opposed to another person (or actually a whole bunch of other persons). but as said before, at least in day to day life who attribute intelligence mostly only to the artificial, wholly mental and "self"conscious activities, such as reading, writing, stating facts, etc.

[Fragony]

Given that we can't even unambigiously define intelligence...
FAIL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy).

IQ test comes pretty close, problem is that it's snapshot. And something isn't fail just becaus you dismiss it, can't just decide these things this isn't the DDR's ministry of truth.

[Meneldil]

So wait...according to this thread, the wide spread of genital herpes within the black american society is some form of natural selection, of evolution?

I admit I'm kind of lost here :-?

[Furunculus]

no, sadly we have gone off on a tangent, and should return the thread to its proper course which is;

how much of a role does ethnic identity play in defining the attractiveness of a partner?

[Fragony]

Not that much probably, we all have preferences. More likely we want as broadly a pool to fish from by instinct but the reluctance to do so is cultural.

[Lemur]

how much of a role does ethnic identity play in defining the attractiveness of a partner?
Well, that depends on what "type" turns you on, which is an idiosyncratic phenomenon if ever there was one. How do we awaken sexually and discover what/who arouses us? If you thought the intelligence debate was bad ...

[Beskar]

Then there is the argument about the media telling us "what is attractive or not" and society standards affect us.

[Furunculus]

granted, but i think i have my answer in the poll results as much as anything else.

[al Roumi]

I was about to post some tedious joke along the lines of "Lolz what iz teh race?" but then realise that i really don't want to cause this thread to go down that route. I was intrigued though by the choice of "race" as the determining factor here, is that just PC for "looks different"? Race is a fair old quagmire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question) of a term...

Man I am such a namby-pamby liberal.

[Beskar]

I was about to post some tedious joke along the lines of "Lolz what iz teh race?" but then realise that i really don't want to cause this thread to go down that route. I was intrigued though by the choice of "race" as the determining factor here, is that just PC for "looks different"? Race is a fair old quagmire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question) of a term...

Man I am such a namby-pamby liberal.

I already did that on the first page. Talking about how I was more of a 100 metre race person, and I don't think I could get along with a 250 metre race follower (talking olympic running races). Unfortunately, it was lost on Furunculus, as he replied with "huh?".

[Husar]

I already did that on the first page. Talking about how I was more of a 100 metre race person, and I don't think I could get along with a 250 metre race follower (talking olympic running races). Unfortunately, it was lost on Furunculus, as he replied with "huh?".

Ooooooh, now I get it!

[The Stranger]

i never really understood why people would actually drop one word for another when the context and content stays the same. its just potatoes patatoes then... race or ethnic groups... really...?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

i never really understood why people would actually drop one word for another when the context and content stays the same. its just potatoes patatoes then... race or ethnic groups... really...?

They changed race to ethnicity, and racism to ethnocentrism. But if they want to insult someone, they still call them a racist :laugh4:

[ajaxfetish]

I already did that on the first page. Talking about how I was more of a 100 metre race person, and I don't think I could get along with a 250 metre race follower (talking olympic running races). Unfortunately, it was lost on Furunculus, as he replied with "huh?".

Ooooooh, now I get it!
I totally missed it, too. I don't think I've ever used a distance as a name for the person who runs that distance, so the connection to something you could marry didn't hit home for me. Now I feel sad that I didn't get the joke until it was explained to me nine pages later. ~:(

Ajax

[Furunculus]

I already did that on the first page. Talking about how I was more of a 100 metre race person, and I don't think I could get along with a 250 metre race follower (talking olympic running races). Unfortunately, it was lost on Furunculus, as he replied with "huh?".

ahhhhhh......

[al Roumi]

i never really understood why people would actually drop one word for another when the context and content stays the same. its just potatoes patatoes then... race or ethnic groups... really...?

AFAIK, race is a very clumsy term which isn't actually very accurate or specific enough. Mostly though, it is especially tainted with the politics of "race" that were in vogue throughout the Imperial & modern age and of course culminated in the excesses of teh nazis.

The key difference between Etnicity and Race as terms is that the former includes cultural influences rather than physical traits. AFAIK rascism is about believing an indivdual is who they are because of their appearance, genetics and ancestry; ethnicism is about believing an individual to be who they are as a result of culture, religion, language, history and ancestry.

[Husar]

So

"Brown people are silly", "Blacks are stupid", "Asians are good at maths", "White man is an imperialist pig" would be racism?

and

"Arabs are terrorists", "African culture is about gang wars and rap", "Tibetans are a bunch of monks", "French are surrender monkeys" would be ethnicism?

Please excuse if my examples sound made up, I'm not the most knowledgeable person concerning stereotypes of that sort. :sweatdrop:

[al Roumi]

So

"Brown people are silly", "Blacks are stupid", "Asians are good at maths", "White man is an imperialist pig" would be racism?

and

"Arabs are terrorists", "African culture is about gang wars and rap", "Tibetans are a bunch of monks", "French are surrender monkeys" would be ethnicism?

Please excuse if my examples sound made up, I'm not the most knowledgeable person concerning stereotypes of that sort. :sweatdrop:

Really? You've done such a good job there... must be your naturaly superior aryan genes. :wink:

[Husar]

Well, I think race, ethnicity, nationality etc. are often overlapping and different people often use somewhat different definitions so I don't find the whole concept all that clear.
You just agreed that French and arab are ethnicities for example, yet one is a nationality and the other is more of a meta-concept that includes people who speak a certain language over many different nationalities for some, and people living in a certain region for others.

[rory_20_uk]

It could be nice to see a venn diagram displaying this as there are many concepts that all mean subtly different things.

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

Well, I think race, ethnicity, nationality etc. are often overlapping and different people often use somewhat different definitions so I don't find the whole concept all that clear.
You just agreed that French and arab are ethnicities for example, yet one is a nationality and the other is more of a meta-concept that includes people who speak a certain language over many different nationalities for some, and people living in a certain region for others.

Fair point, there are differing interpretations of Ethnicity though:

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group):

Writing about the usage of the term "ethnic" in the ordinary language of Great Britain and the United States, Wallman notes that

The term 'ethnic' popularly connotes 'race' in Britain, only less precisely, and with a lighter value load. In North America, by contrast, 'race' most commonly means color, and 'ethnics' are the descendents of relatively recent immigrants from non-English-speaking countries. 'Ethnic' is not a noun in Britain. In effect there are no 'ethnics'; there are only 'ethnic relations'.[23]
Thus, in today's everyday language, the words "ethnic" and "ethnicity" still have a ring of exotic peoples, minority issues and race relations.

Within the social sciences, however, the usage has become more generalized to all human groups that explicitly regard themselves and are regarded by others as culturally distinctive.[24] Among the first to bring the term "ethnic group" into social studies was the German sociologist Max Weber, who defined it as:

Those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists.

[al Roumi]

It could be nice to see a venn diagram displaying this as there are many concepts that all mean subtly different things.

~:smoking:

er, this is the realm of social science. 'ere be dragons an' no Ven diagrams.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So

"Brown people are silly", "Blacks are stupid", "Asians are good at maths", "White man is an imperialist pig" would be racism?

and

"Arabs are terrorists", "African culture is about gang wars and rap", "Tibetans are a bunch of monks", "French are surrender monkeys" would be ethnicism?

Please excuse if my examples sound made up, I'm not the most knowledgeable person concerning stereotypes of that sort. :sweatdrop:

And any of them could get you a warning point...or three

[Devastatin Dave]

Blacker the berry, sweeter the juice... if you get a chance, get some...

[Megas Methuselah]

Where I am, ethnicity tends to mean one's ethnic background/descent (i.e. English, Scottish, German, Thai, Cree, etc.). Race, on the other hand, is a term that isn't used too much, but I think it's something to refer to white, black, etc. It seems... obselete, maybe?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Where I am, ethnicity tends to mean one's ethnic background/descent (i.e. English, Scottish, German, Thai, Cree, etc.). Race, on the other hand, is a term that isn't used too much, but I think it's something to refer to white, black, etc. It seems... obselete, maybe?

Not yet, unfortunately, but hopefully it will become so.

[Spartakus]

I went for nr. 2, not so much because it was accurate as for 1 being a bit too extreme. How attractive a woman is comes down to her femininity for me, regardless of race, and while I can think of attractive women from all races I find women of European and north-east Asian origin to be more so on average. By femininity I mean not so much behaviour as physical features; how finely chiseled and soft the lines of the face are, the size of their limbs (big hands and feet come across as manly), the pallour of the skin (the paler the better) and the amount of hair growth outside of the scalp. If she has prominent hips and breasts that's a welcome addition, but if the above mentioned are in place whether she is skinny or curvy is of second importance.