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

[Furunculus]

http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15867956&source=most_commented


Sex and the single black woman
How the mass incarceration of black men hurts black women

Apr 8th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

IMAGINE that the world consists of 20 men and 20 women, all of them heterosexual and in search of a mate. Since the numbers are even, everyone can find a partner. But what happens if you take away one man? You might not think this would make much difference. You would be wrong, argues Tim Harford, a British economist, in a book called “The Logic of Life”. With 20 women pursuing 19 men, one woman faces the prospect of spinsterhood. So she ups her game. Perhaps she dresses more seductively. Perhaps she makes an extra effort to be obliging. Somehow or other, she “steals” a man from one of her fellow women. That newly single woman then ups her game, too, to steal a man from someone else. A chain reaction ensues. Before long, every woman has to try harder, and every man can relax a little.

Real life is more complicated, of course, but this simple model illustrates an important truth. In the marriage market, numbers matter. And among African-Americans, the disparity is much worse than in Mr Harford’s imaginary example. Between the ages of 20 and 29, one black man in nine is behind bars. For black women of the same age, the figure is about one in 150. For obvious reasons, convicts are excluded from the dating pool. And many women also steer clear of ex-cons, which makes a big difference when one young black man in three can expect to be locked up at some point.

Removing so many men from the marriage market has profound consequences. As incarceration rates exploded between 1970 and 2007, the proportion of US-born black women aged 30-44 who were married plunged from 62% to 33%. Why this happened is complex and furiously debated. The era of mass imprisonment began as traditional mores were already crumbling, following the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the invention of the contraceptive pill. It also coincided with greater opportunities for women in the workplace. These factors must surely have had something to do with the decline of marriage.

But jail is a big part of the problem, argue Kerwin Kofi Charles, now at the University of Chicago, and Ming Ching Luoh of National Taiwan University. They divided America up into geographical and racial “marriage markets”, to take account of the fact that most people marry someone of the same race who lives relatively close to them. Then, after crunching the census numbers, they found that a one percentage point increase in the male incarceration rate was associated with a 2.4-point reduction in the proportion of women who ever marry. Could it be, however, that mass incarceration is a symptom of increasing social dysfunction, and that it was this social dysfunction that caused marriage to wither? Probably not. For similar crimes, America imposes much harsher penalties than other rich countries. Mr Charles and Mr Luoh controlled for crime rates, as a proxy for social dysfunction, and found that it made no difference to their results. They concluded that “higher male imprisonment has lowered the likelihood that women marry…and caused a shift in the gains from marriage away from women and towards men.”
Learning and earning

Similar problems afflict working-class whites, but they are more concentrated among blacks. Some 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock. The collapse of the traditional family has made black Americans far poorer and lonelier than they would otherwise have been. The least-educated black women suffer the most. In 2007 only 11% of US-born black women aged 30-44 without a high school diploma had a working spouse, according to the Pew Research Centre. Their college-educated sisters fare better, but are still affected by the sex imbalance. Because most seek husbands of the same race—96% of married black women are married to black men—they are ultimately fishing in the same pool.

Black women tend to stay in school longer than black men. Looking only at the non-incarcerated population, black women are 40% more likely to go to college. They are also more likely than white women to seek work. One reason why so many black women strive so hard is because they do not expect to split the household bills with a male provider. And the educational disparity creates its own tensions. If you are a college-educated black woman with a good job and you wish to marry a black man who is your socioeconomic equal, the odds are not good.

“I thought I was a catch,” sighs an attractive black female doctor at a hospital in Washington, DC. Black men with good jobs know they are “a hot commodity”, she observes. When there are six women chasing one man, “It’s like, what are you going to do extra, to get his attention?” Some women offer sex on the first date, she says, which makes life harder for those who prefer to combine romance with commitment. She complains about a recent boyfriend, an electrician whom she had been dating for about six months, whose phone started ringing late at night. It turned out to be his other girlfriend. Pressed, he said he didn’t realise the relationship was meant to be exclusive.

The skewed sex ratio “puts black women in an awful spot,” says Audrey Chapman, a relationship counsellor and the author of several books with titles such as “Getting Good Loving”. Her advice to single black women is pragmatic: love yourself, communicate better and so on. She says that many black men and women, having been brought up by single mothers, are unsure what role a man should play in the home. The women expect to be in charge; the men sometimes resent this. Nisa Muhammad of the Wedded Bliss Foundation, a pro-marriage group, urges her college-educated sisters to consider marrying honourable blue-collar workers, such as the postman. But the simplest way to help the black family would be to lock up fewer black men for non-violent offences.

[Furunculus]

Honest answers please folks.

I want it understood that voting "no" does not imply any xenophobia or racism, it could simply be recognition of what clearly exists as a fact, i.e. that attractiveness for some people includes a affinity to the same race, for a variety of different reasons, in addition to all the other social and cultural reasons that spark attraction between two individual.

If you are an overly sensitive PC type who is subject to this then please, vote first and comment later to anonymize your shame rather than pander to the liberal stereotype of being hip and 'modern' about all things racial, i want genuine reactions.

This post/poll is prompted by my surprise that african american woman weren't prepared to look outside the limited pool of african american men for a partner, a fact which i find strange, so I am wondering how prevalent this attitude is outside the single demographic mentioned..........................?

I personally would be delighted to go out with a smokin' hot lady of african descent, the more exotic the better in my opinion, as too me that in itself is a powerful cause for physical attraction.

But i realize not everyone has the same impulses for attraction.
Go for your life.

[Centurion1]

i like most girls who are good looking, i have had asian and latino girlfriends. honestly though im not really attracted to blakc women.

[Rhyfelwyr]

For me the problem wouldn't be that people of different races aren't attractive (although I've got to say I never really think black women look that attractive).

But when I think of having half-black or half-Chinese children, I just can't imagine seeing them as my own. :skull:

Terrible thing to say I know, but that's just the way it is. Maybe it's nature, maybe it's a social thing, idk.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This post/poll is prompted by my surprise that african american woman weren't prepared to look outside the limited pool of african american men for a partner, a fact which i find strange, so I am wondering how prevalent this attitude is outside the single demographic mentioned..........................?

I would say it's a culture thing more than a race thing...that would be my guess (in America anwyay).

[Beskar]

I don't think I could stick with a 250 metre, since I am a big fan of the 100 metre.

[Furunculus]

que?

[Furunculus]

i like most girls who are good looking, i have had asian and latino girlfriends. honestly though im not really attracted to blakc women.

that's ok, you aren't expected to find every race equally attractive.


For me the problem wouldn't be that people of different races aren't attractive (although I've got to say I never really think black women look that attractive).

But when I think of having half-black or half-Chinese children, I just can't imagine seeing them as my own. :skull:

Terrible thing to say I know, but that's just the way it is. Maybe it's nature, maybe it's a social thing, idk.

not really, personal preference trumps all, whatever that might be. this is your own personal preference we are talking about, not society's group expectations.


I would say it's a culture thing more than a race thing...that would be my guess (in America anwyay).

sure i accept culture is part of it, might be a bit of a nature/nurture argument where is it impossible to properly disentangle the two for absolute accuracy.

[Husar]

I don't mind, every race has beautiful women and if the character fits, might actually be more exciting due to the cultural differences etc.
Not that I'm talking from experience or anything. :laugh4:

[seireikhaan]

None of the responses really fits my view. If she is good looking, she's good looking. However, finding someone who's a good, decent person ranks slightly higher on my priority list. My answer would be a "yes", but not really because I have an affinity for "exotic" girls or only want one who's "sorta white". Like Husar, I'd say there's plenty of pretty girls in most races. It comes down to the girl, not the race.

[Viking]

Honest answers please folks.

I can't really answer honest when I have to choose between

a ) Yes - The more exotic the better from my point of view
or b)Yes - Provided they are not too disimilar (e.g. different asiatic, or different caucasian))

A middle ground would be nice. :inquisitive:


I won't answer about "marriage", but I cannot say that I've encountered "ugly races". Nice question, though.

[Furunculus]

perhaps we can take (a) to mean that race is simply not an issue, and that other factors will determine attraction.

[rory_20_uk]

That's what I assumed.

~:smoking:

[Prince Cobra]

I can't really answer honest when I have to choose between

a ) Yes - The more exotic the better from my point of view
or b)Yes - Provided they are not too disimilar (e.g. different asiatic, or different caucasian))

A middle ground would be nice. :inquisitive:


I won't answer about "marriage", but I cannot say that I've encountered "ugly races". Nice question, though.

Absolutely agree. It's not really a matter of race. I will even put the way "b" is formulated under a criticism. I've met some really attractive African women and I doubt that any person from whatever race he/she is will question their beauty.

[Ronin]

I will say that while I find beautiful women of all races......I find more white women to be beautiful then women of any other race.

so while it is certainly possible that I would marry outside my race I don´t find it the most likely scenario.

[Furunculus]

personally i would say that finland, poland and slovenia are tied for creating the prettiest ladies, so perhaps there is a Caucasian element to my preference, but I am certainly keen yo 'experience' beauty wherever it is to be fond, and that beauty to me is at least in part defined by its difference to what i perceive as the norm.

no english roses for me i'm afraid.

[Centurion1]

Vietnamese chicks

[ajaxfetish]

As for marriage, too late. I am not at all likely to marry outside my own race and 100% likely to already be married within it.

As for a broader question of attraction, I am certainly not equally attracted to women of varying races. I'd say I prefer women of my own race, then women of mixed races including my own, and then women entirely of others, with some races more preferred than others. I would separate attraction and beauty, though, as I can recognize women as beautiful (sometimes stunningly so) but still not my type, and not a source of attraction.

Ajax

edit: for marriage of course, other factors play at least as big a role as beauty/attraction, or at least I certainly think they should.

[PanzerJaeger]

But the simplest way to help the black family would be to lock up fewer black men for non-violent offences.

I don't agree with the undercurrent of the article, which essentially follows the oft-repeated theme of blaming every one and every thing for black society's problems except for black people. The simplest way to help the black family would be for fewer black men to commit criminal offences. Oh, and to start acting like men, not dogs.

I believe PJ is using "dogs" here in its metaphorical sense, i.e. behaving in a self-serving manner and not setting aside personal interest in favor of family and committment. As such, it is not intended as a racist slur, but is a behavioral critique. SF

I live in a majority black city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis_TN#Demographics), and I must say that I am not at all impressed with American "black" culture as I have experienced it. As I believe Sasaki mentioned, though, it is about culture - not race. Many blacks do not live their lives in the way the article describes.

As for the OP's question... probably not.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It is (another) good argument against the war on drugs though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Decision already made for me. Turns out I married another white Catholic like myself. Can't say as race figured into it so much as her being attracted to me did. Nineteen years together and I still can't believe I got that lucky.

Race? Race is a very small thing when you really think about it. Rather said it has marred so much of our history as a species.

Poll also lacks a: "couldn't care less one way or the other" option.

[pevergreen]

For some reason, I don't see attractiveness in other races. Don't see a lot of it in any girl/guy.

[Cute Wolf]

for some interesting and unknown factor, I always think that Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese girls are much prettier than Japanese, even when most can't tell the difference between them..... maybe that was the result of watching too much JAV...

[Furunculus]

Poll also lacks a: "couldn't care less one way or the other" option.

i kind of intended for the for option to include that viewpoint, but seeing as you're the second person to point out the flaw in the phrasing of option (a) I would be happy for you to edit the poll to include a more specific "couldn't care less one way or the other" option.

[InsaneApache]

Funny really, I don't see 'mom' as black. She is of course but she's just 'mom' to me. It's worked out well for 'mom' and my dad. Two very different cultures but somehow they seem to dovetail together nicely. We treat her to yorkshire pudding and curries, traditional English foods and she treats us to jerk chicken and gumbo, traditional black American foods. She does have a very good sense of humour which helps. It took her some time to 'get' the English humour but now she has, she thinks it's hilarious. Plus she loves the UK, like she said she didn't have to learn a new language when she first moved over here, she just had to learn how to spell properly. :laugh4:

People are just people.

As for myself, I had a negro girlfriend when I was in my teens. Never really thought anything of it. If you fancy a bird you ask them out. If they say no, hard cheese, if yes, whoopee!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I voted for option four, not because I find non-white women unattractive, but because my ideal is the "English Rose", one of the most attractive things for me is alabaster skin, along with slightly flushed cheeks and full mouth, add dark hair and warm dark eyes and I'm likely to be poleaxed.

Having said that; I've met some real corkers from other locales.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Jerk chicken is more of a carribean specialty. Gumbo is Cajun.

[Furunculus]

interesting results so far, with twelve votes for totally unconcerned, and twelve votes where race plays some part in determining attraction, with just half a quarter of those who have a decided preference.

[InsaneApache]

Jerk chicken is more of a carribean specialty. Gumbo is Cajun.

Indeed. Curry on the other hand is a well known English dish. :balloon2:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Indeed. Curry on the other hand is a well known English dish. :balloon2:

To each their own "cup of tea," but I though Tim was a yank....

[Strike For The South]

I don't agree with the undercurrent of the article, which essentially follows the oft-repeated theme of blaming every one and every thing for black society's problems except for black people. The simplest way to help the black family would be for fewer black men to commit criminal offences. Oh, and to start acting like men, not dogs.

I believe PJ is using "dogs" here in its metaphorical sense, i.e. behaving in a self-serving manner and not setting aside personal interest in favor of family and committment. As such, it is not intended as a racist slur, but is a behavioral critique. SF

I live in a majority black city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis_TN#Demographics), and I must say that I am not at all impressed with American "black" culture as I have experienced it. As I believe Sasaki mentioned, though, it is about culture - not race. Many blacks do not live their lives in the way the article describes.

As for the OP's question... probably not.

I feel sorry for you, not only do you live in hillbilly land you have to endure the crap they try to pass off as BBQ.

As per the original question I certianly find women of all races attractive and have certianly had much in common with said women, however as per my agreement with grandfather, I will end up marrying a "southern belle from plantation country who has been spoiled rotten by her daddy" which will become a sexless marrige about two weeks after the honeymoon. But hey I'll probably end up screwing my secratary and depending where I end she'll probably be black :shrug:


If I were to tell you my real choice though it would be a cajun from the bayou. 1. Because that accent drives me nuts and 2. Because she'll be able to cook cajun food and that is my favorite kind.

She'll be catholic, does that count?

[Megas Methuselah]

would you marry outside your race?

Hell no, never. And I seem to attract native girls a lot more easily than others; I don't mind.

By the way, why are black men so likely to be in jail? Don't you think something is wrong with that? What the heck did you guys do to them? :dizzy2:

Oh wait, here we go:


The simplest way to help the black family would be for fewer black men to commit criminal offences. Oh, and to start acting like men, not dogs.

Great, man, good for you. How?

[Banquo's Ghost]

There seems to be a general assumption that attraction is the main requisite for marriage. This may be, but is fraught with danger, in that marriage is a long term commitment and other attributes, less affected by the passage of time, are a more important consideration.

No one has touched on the issue of social pressure (although Strike did note his grandfather's preference :beam:). In my world, which is implicitly racist, peer group expectations of marriage are very clearly set. Class used to be the absolute barrier (which made race a minor issue unlikely to be confronted) but race is most certainly now a major disqualifying attribute for all but the bravest or most eccentric. Whilst my sub-set is somewhat mediaevalist in its expectation, I think a similar attitude can be found in a number of cultural groups.

Being a bit of a traditionalist in family matters, I followed convention and expectations for my marriage, although outside my "normal" group but within my class (slightly above, in truth) and race. Recognising my own innate racism in this and other choices, I was simply not prepared to challenge existing boundaries and by so doing, inflict (a horrid word, but accurate in describing my feelings on the matter) a hereditary millstone around the necks of my descendants. Lady Ghost is rather attractive, but possesses much finer and lasting qualities that make her a perfect spouse in my world - and more important, enables her to feel happy in that world, and I in hers.

Marrying outside one's race and culture can be fraught with extra issues. These can often make the marriage strong and resilient, but only if properly recognised beforehand, I feel. As I noted, marriage is not the same as simple attraction or a dalliance based thereupon.

[Furunculus]

I feel sorry for you, not only do you live in hillbilly land you have to endure the crap they try to pass off as BBQ.

As per the original question I certianly find women of all races attractive and have certianly had much in common with said women, however as per my agreement with grandfather, I will end up marrying a "southern belle from plantation country who has been spoiled rotten by her daddy" which will become a sexless marrige about two weeks after the honeymoon. But hey I'll probably end up screwing my secratary and depending where I end she'll probably be black :shrug:


If I were to tell you my real choice though it would be a cajun from the bayou. 1. Because that accent drives me nuts and 2. Because she'll be able to cook cajun food and that is my favorite kind.

She'll be catholic, does that count?

Strike, are you REALLY that sensitive, i mean REALLY, are you?

Complaining over what PJ said is ridiculous, this is something of a sensitive topic but your PC hair-trigger will doing nothing but help to derail it.

Chill out d00d!

[PanzerJaeger]

I feel sorry for you, not only do you live in hillbilly land you have to endure the crap they try to pass off as BBQ.

Me too, I hate Memphis. Perennially in America's top 5 most dangerous cities and America's top 5 unhappiest cities! Don't know where you're getting your information about BBQ though. That's one thing the locals do very right.



Great, man, good for you. How?

I don't think I really need to explain how not to commit crimes and how to treat women with respect, do I? Common sense stuff, here.



Strike, are you REALLY that sensitive, i mean REALLY, are you?

Complaining over what PJ said is ridiculous, this is something of a sensitive topic but your PC hair-trigger will doing nothing but help to derail it.

Chill out d00d!

I didn't take his post as a complaint against mine - just a friendly jab at the city I live in. :grin:

[Furunculus]

There seems to be a general assumption that attraction is the main requisite for marriage. This may be, but is fraught with danger, in that marriage is a long term commitment and other attributes, less affected by the passage of time, are a more important consideration.

No one has touched on the issue of social pressure (although Strike did note his grandfather's preference :beam:). In my world, which is implicitly racist, peer group expectations of marriage are very clearly set. Class used to be the absolute barrier (which made race a minor issue unlikely to be confronted) but race is most certainly now a major disqualifying attribute for all but the bravest or most eccentric. Whilst my sub-set is somewhat mediaevalist in its expectation, I think a similar attitude can be found in a number of cultural groups.

Being a bit of a traditionalist in family matters, I followed convention and expectations for my marriage, although outside my "normal" group but within my class (slightly above, in truth) and race. Recognising my own innate racism in this and other choices, I was simply not prepared to challenge existing boundaries and by so doing, inflict (a horrid word, but accurate in describing my feelings on the matter) a hereditary millstone around the necks of my descendants. Lady Ghost is rather attractive, but possesses much finer and lasting qualities that make her a perfect spouse in my world - and more important, enables her to feel happy in that world, and I in hers.

Marrying outside one's race and culture can be fraught with extra issues. These can often make the marriage strong and resilient, but only if properly recognised beforehand, I feel. As I noted, marriage is not the same as simple attraction or a dalliance based thereupon.

the problem with the use of the word "marry" is the same problem as had with the simplicity of the first "yes" option; a simple poll does not provide enough depth to describe the totality of the question in hand.

Marry does not necessarily mean marriage, what it intends to imply is that you would be up for a greater relationship commitment than would be the case with a holiday-fling, and one that will involve your family and peer group.

Exotic does not necessarily mean you have a full blown fetish for every ethnic appearance that is extremely different from ones own, what it intends is to stand apart from the next "yes" option where there is residual bias even if it is not an overriding factor.

[Fragony]

Not the more exotic the better but there are gorgeous women to be found in any race, I wouldn't mind

[The Stranger]

ble...

[HoreTore]

I won't marry, ever.

So this question doesn't really apply to me...

EDIT: No strike that, I might get married. But only a pro-bono marriage, if someone needs residence in western europe I'm available... Just to let you know...

[InsaneApache]

I won't marry, ever.

So this question doesn't really apply to me...

Civil partnership perhaps? :inquisitive:






















:laugh4:

[HoreTore]

Civil partnership perhaps? :inquisitive:

Hah!

Well I know you're very fond of me IA, but I'm sorry, our relationship will never reach that level.... I don't swing that way sorry, it's nothing to do with you, I'm sure you're great fellah and everything!!

[Major Robert Dump]

I can't link to it here, and don't have time to read this whole thread, but:

The CDC, like 1 month ago, released some numbers that said 48% of black females have genital herpes. This may have something to do with the single-ness as well.

the numbers for the black men were much lower, very much in line with the rest of the population. The number for the females seemed so high, though I thought it was a misprint. so far, I am not aware of the CDC changing their results or saying it was a mistake

[Husar]

[...]

Marrying outside one's race and culture can be fraught with extra issues. These can often make the marriage strong and resilient, but only if properly recognised beforehand, I feel. As I noted, marriage is not the same as simple attraction or a dalliance based thereupon.

But isn't attraction or attractiveness just the cumulation of all these factors? You indirectly said yourself that the class and the qualities of your wife made her more attractive to you than others that may have been more appealing to the eye or so.
That's not to say you don't have a point there, with the high divorce rates nowadays, one would have to think a lot of people may simply set the wrong priorities.

[Furunculus]

I won't marry, ever.

So this question doesn't really apply to me...

EDIT: No strike that, I might get married. But only a pro-bono marriage, if someone needs residence in western europe I'm available... Just to let you know...

please refer to:

the problem with the use of the word "marry" is the same problem as had with the simplicity of the first "yes" option; a simple poll does not provide enough depth to describe the totality of the question in hand.

Marry does not necessarily mean marriage, what it intends to imply is that you would be up for a greater relationship commitment than would be the case with a holiday-fling, and one that will involve your family and peer group.

Exotic does not necessarily mean you have a full blown fetish for every ethnic appearance that is extremely different from ones own, what it intends is to stand apart from the next "yes" option where there is residual bias even if it is not an overriding factor.

[HoreTore]

please refer to:

Another problem though; humans are so genetically similar, that trying to break us into different races is impossible, there is just one human race, the others(neanderthals) died out a long time ao. It's quite possible to divide us into different ethnicities though...

Anyway, the answer is yes. Why I should have to care about someones skin colour is beyond me, really. As long as there's no fluff on the muff... But a religious woman would be impossible.

[Furunculus]

cool, answer noted, thanks.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Another problem though; humans are so genetically similar, that trying to break us into different races is impossible, there is just one human race, the others(neanderthals) died out a long time ao. It's quite possible to divide us into different ethnicities though...

Anyway, the answer is yes. Why I should have to care about someones skin colour is beyond me, really. As long as there's no fluff on the muff... But a religious woman would be impossible.

I agree whole-heartedly with paragraph one.

Regarding paragraph two, I concur on skin-color, I generally concur on the follicle-cropping (though hirsuite is not that much of a negative to me), but disagree on the last point.

I would also note that you aren't including your possible reaction to "non-standard" religions. Perhaps a self-claimed priestess of Epona who insists on being "ridden" as part of her devotions or a devote of Ishtar. It takes all kinds.

[HoreTore]

I agree whole-heartedly with paragraph one.

Regarding paragraph two, I concur on skin-color, I generally concur on the follicle-cropping (though hirsuite is not that much of a negative to me), but disagree on the last point.

I would also note that you aren't including your possible reaction to "non-standard" religions. Perhaps a self-claimed priestess of Epona who insists on being "ridden" as part of her devotions or a devote of Ishtar. It takes all kinds.

Different skin colour is no problem; a different view of the world is. I don't see how I can be in a long-term relationship with someone who doesn't share my morals and values, or at least is somewhere close to mine. And religious people don't share my world-view, my morals or my values... But a :daisy: -friend with a religious devotion to freaky sex? Bring it on!

[The Stranger]

for me what usually yields the most stunning results is mixing. latina + african = brazilian = yummie!!!

[Fragony]

Different skin colour is no problem; a different view of the world is. I don't see how I can be in a long-term relationship with someone who doesn't share my morals and values, or at least is somewhere close to mine. And religious people don't share my world-view, my morals or my values... But a :daisy: -friend with a religious devotion to freaky sex? Bring it on!
^ that. There is something you should know about devout christan chicks though, really

[drone]

Don't the psychologists say we (men) essentially want to marry our mothers? That may play into the decision making process when choosing a mate.

[Husar]

I love my mom, but no, thanks.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

^ that. There is something you should know about devout christan chicks though, really

Heh heh, that only works in about 50% of cases, they can swing one of two ways (but generally don't swing both ways).

[HoreTore]

^ that. There is something you should know about devout christan chicks though, really

My 19-year old niece is currently a missionary in Nepal.

The less I know the better........... :smash:

[Strike For The South]

Strike, are you REALLY that sensitive, i mean REALLY, are you?
!

What are you talking about? I don't care what PJ said about marrige.


Me too, I hate Memphis. Perennially in America's top 5 most dangerous cities and America's top 5 unhappiest cities! Don't know where you're getting your information about BBQ though. That's one thing the locals do very right. :

I may not care how you feel about interacial marrige but just know BBQ is serious bidness and memphis is at best faux KC.

[caravel]

Have married "outside" my race already (over 5 years ago to be precise). The lovely 'Mrs Asai' is of South American origin.

:bow:

[Beskar]

Don't the psychologists say we (men) essentially want to marry our mothers? That may play into the decision making process when choosing a mate.

Thank you for the Psychological broadcast from 1905.

[Strike For The South]

Thank you for the Psychological broadcast from 1905.

I change my vote, I want to marry Beskar. Becasue he's fiesty and I like that.

[drone]

Thank you for the Psychological broadcast from 1905.

No problem. Do you smoke cigars?

[Kadagar_AV]

I am with Rhyfelwyr on this one... *gasp*

I dont mind having an asian chick (or whatever) as a one night stand, or as a sex partner... However, when it comes to having children I would like something looking remotely close to me.

I mean, I do endorse FLK as they make the world more rich, it's just not in ME to have those childs.

I can get (very much) turned on by asian women or south american women... I have never yet found a black woman who turns me on though. But still if I get turned on, I would prefer to have little ones with someone from my own race.

[The Stranger]

why?

i personally believe it shouldnt matter how the woman u marry looks like or what race she is from... its supposed to be about love and character. ofcourse u should be attracted to her (atleast in the start :P) but u wont stick unless there is something between u that glues u together.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I change my vote, I want to marry Beskar. No way, sweetie-pie.

I'm not getting a divorce.

[HoreTore]

The lovely 'Mrs Asai' is of South American origin.

So that would make her a white european then.

....And you are...?

[Beskar]

No problem. Do you smoke cigars?

No cigars here, just wanted to point out Psychology has moved on a little since then. :wink:

[Strike For The South]

So that would make her a white european then.

....And you are...?


hmmmmmmmm, if she is upper class or from the Southern Cone you'd be right but considering a large portion of South Americans are Native, black, or mixed you're probably wrong


No way, sweetie-pie.

I'm not getting a divorce.

Que?

We can just enter a Gay polygamus marrige. Seeing as we're all consenting adults and we are not harming anyone elses liberty; I fail to see why that would be a problem.

[drone]

No cigars here, just wanted to point out Psychology has moved on a little since then. :wink:

Somewhat, but your relationship with your parents do have a big impact on what you look for later on in life. How they interact with each other affects how you will interact with your partner. A culture where the male/female roles are drastically different may lead to subconscious incompatibilities that prevent a relationship from progressing.

[Megas Methuselah]

I don't think I really need to explain how not to commit crimes and how to treat women with respect, do I? Common sense stuff, here.


When you grow up in a certain way of life, you'll emulate it. In that way, such things are intergenerational, and won't stop happening because you say it's wrong and that such things must stop.

Very nice solution you got there. "Common sense," yeah, that's right. I wonder why things like these are still goin on, then? Not everyone has the gift of living the sheltered life you enjoy.


but considering a large portion of South Americans are Native, black, or mixed you're probably wrong

Yeah, South America is a lot better off in that respect than the North, our "Little Europe."

[caravel]

So that would make her a white european then.

....And you are...?

Not sure I understand the question fully - it's very much open to interpretation (and I do have a tendency to be rather paranoid) so please do elaborate somewhat.

[Strike For The South]

Yeah, South America is a lot better off in that respect than the North, our "Little Europe."
https://img202.imageshack.us/img202/9080/whininge.jpg (https://img202.imageshack.us/i/whininge.jpg/)

[Megas Methuselah]

Hey, there's nothin wrong with livin in a colonial society. You, above all people, know that.

[Strike For The South]

Hey, there's nothin wrong with livin in a colonial society. You, above all people, know that.

It must take work to be this bitter

[PanzerJaeger]

When you grow up in a certain way of life, you'll emulate it. In that way, such things are intergenerational, and won't stop happening because you say it's wrong and that such things must stop.

Very nice solution you got there. "Common sense," yeah, that's right. I wonder why things like these are still goin on, then? Not everyone has the gift of living the sheltered life you enjoy.

A time-honored excuse, which, unless you're trying to argue that these people are unaware of the laws of the land and of common decency, is not really an excuse at all.

[Strike For The South]

A time-honored excuse, which, unless you're trying to argue that these people are unaware of the laws of the land and of common decency, is not really an excuse at all.

There is a grain of truth to the statement though, however I agree that elements of the urban culture lead to this sort of thing and it's one of the reasons why Latinos are generally much more distrustworthy of blacks and see more in common with whites despite the fact that latins and blacks parllel eachothers exsistence in most cases.

What it comes down to is A strong emphasis on the family in the Latin community and the startiling abscence of one in the black community.

[The Stranger]

A time-honored excuse, which, unless you're trying to argue that these people are unaware of the laws of the land and of common decency, is not really an excuse at all.

the common decency you refer to is not at all that common, nor at all has it been that decent for a long time.

[Strike For The South]

I feel like I should expand on my last post.

I subscribe to the fact that ascrbing people inate advantages and disadvantages due to the amount melinan in there skin is completley ludacris.

As should be pointed out African immagrants achieve some of the highest sucsses in America, so clearly I do not mean to pigeonhole all blacks. Nor do I not recognize blacks who were born here who do not acheive greatness.

However as a whole Blacks tend to do worse than any other ethnic group and the main reason for that is the break up of the family (A fact which is only becooming more clear with more hispanics moving in)

The main reasons for the dengenration of the black family are as follows (IMO)

-Lack of a father figure (which has become a self repeating cycle)
-Prison time and high amounts of recidivism
-An urban culture which appeals to a mostly black auidence which in turn reinforces the above two points.

Now how are we to change these things? I dont have a comprehensive answer, I feel a great deal of good could be done by fixing the school system and giving the kids a hobby that is theres and that they can make progress in.

If you teach a boy to throw a baseball, he will be much less likely to throw a rock.

Unfortunatley this is eaiser said than done, As I frimly beilive there is money to be made in the black vicitm complex that grew out of the (completely needed and legit) 60s civil rights movement. We have moved past that stage and need new soultions for where we are at today but the power structure in allot of African American communites is still domanited by men who see things through a 60s world view

Edit: I also realize as a white man who grew up in a Hispanic town, I am probably painting with a broad brush and overlooking some sensestive issues. but you do what you can.

[The Stranger]

There is a grain of truth to the statement though, however I agree that elements of the urban culture lead to this sort of thing and it's one of the reasons why Latinos are generally much more distrustworthy of blacks and see more in common with whites despite the fact that latins and blacks parllel eachothers exsistence in most cases.

What it comes down to is A strong emphasis on the family in the Latin community and the startiling abscence of one in the black community.

african american community. plz. you go to africa and you will see that there is no lack of family empathy there. it is cultural thing, not a racial thing. in holland the emphasis is also more at the individual than the family, but this does not make it so for all white people around the world.

[Strike For The South]

african american community. plz. you go to africa and you will see that there is no lack of family empathy there. it is cultural thing, not a racial thing. in holland the emphasis is also more at the individual than the family, but this does not make it so for all white people around the world.

Yes it's clearly cultrual....I realize that

[PanzerJaeger]

the common decency you refer to is not at all that common, nor at all has it been that decent for a long time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are implying that black culture in America is less advanced than other cultures and has not yet developed modern standards of common decency; and thus should be forgiven for its lawlessness and dysfunctional social structure. Is that the point you were making?

[Megas Methuselah]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are implying that black culture in America is less advanced than other cultures and has not yet developed modern standards of common decency; and thus should be forgiven for its lawlessness and dysfunctional social structure. Is that the point you were making?

I personally believe that many blacks in the US are still suffering from the shock of centuries of crime and abuse commited against them.

As for hip hop culture, that is definitely not black culture. In my own case, we have our own culture to turn to in the struggle to stand up, and together with our treaty rights, it seems to be working. But it'll take generations to recover from a genocide that ran for centuries, and we will not heal overnight. I imagine that the blacks are going through this exact same process.

[Strike For The South]

I personally believe that many blacks in the US are still suffering from the shock of centuries of crime and abuse commited against them.

As for hip hop culture, that is definitely not black culture. In my own case, we have our own culture to turn to in the struggle to stand up, and together with our treaty rights, it seems to be working. But it'll take generations to recover from a genocide that ran for centuries, and we will not heal overnight. I imagine that the blacks are going through this exact same process.

Not all blacks subscrube to it nor should they be expected to, however the ones that do subscribe to a culture that promotes misogyny, violence, and promiscuity.

While your rant about the evil white man brings a tear to my ear, it is not even in the top 5 for reasons why blacks in America are lagging behind by almost every measurable parameter.

That is the biggest problem we are going to have to deal with if we want true progress. An acknowledgement of slavery is prudent but one cant simply look and say "oh that's the reason"

[Sasaki Kojiro]

african american community. plz. you go to africa and you will see that there is no lack of family empathy there. it is cultural thing, not a racial thing. in holland the emphasis is also more at the individual than the family, but this does not make it so for all white people around the world.

That's why he said african american :p

[Kadagar_AV]

why?

i personally believe it shouldnt matter how the woman u marry looks like or what race she is from... its supposed to be about love and character. ofcourse u should be attracted to her (atleast in the start :P) but u wont stick unless there is something between u that glues u together.

I personally believe it matters how the woman looks like or what race she is from.

Or do you argue that there are no white women I could love that has a fascinating character, so I am bound to go black (and never go back?).

OF COURSE looks or race is not the most important matter in a long relationship, but hey, the relationship wont even start if she is not smoking hot. And white. Get my point?

I do not get turned on by black women. I do not want brown children. If anyone else wants black girls and kids not looking like him, then by all means go ahed! It's just not my thing.

[Megas Methuselah]

Not all blacks subscrube to it nor should they be expected to, however the ones that do subscribe to a culture that promotes misogyny, violence, and promiscuity.


I agree, I agree, but just remember that hip hop was born in a ghetto, so I can still blame the historic evil white man for impoverishing the blacks. :laugh4:

On a more serious note, hip hop as a whole does not "subscribe to a culture that promotes misogyny, violence, and promiscuity" (nice statement), but for some strange reason, that particular branch of hip hop dominates the mainstream.

[Strike For The South]

I agree, I agree, but just remember that hip hop was born in a ghetto, so I can still blame the historic evil white man for impoverishing the blacks. :laugh4:

On a more serious note, hip hop as a whole does not "subscribe to a culture that promotes misogyny, violence, and promiscuity" (nice statement), but for some strange reason, that particular branch of hip hop dominates the mainstream.

True, but the most popular kind does. For every one Common there are ten Soulja boys....and its not only the music, I would argue the music is more of a product of the urban street cultural which in turn was dissmanted throughout the rual south where it is now more of a "Life imatating art" thing

I don't want to subscribe to much power to the music because I will come off sounding like an old man. I also want to make it quite clear that the music itself does not make someone do something or behave a certian way.

I do think however, how blacks are portrayed in the media is a huge problem and that you can blame on Americas need for stereotyping.

[Beskar]

african american community. plz. you go to africa and you will see that there is no lack of family empathy there. it is cultural thing, not a racial thing. in holland the emphasis is also more at the individual than the family, but this does not make it so for all white people around the world.

Actually, it is more than the family, from what I have been led to believe as compared to Britain, especially when it comes to children.

[Lemur]

If anyone else wants black girls and kids not looking like him, then by all means go ahed!
Not to flog the obvious horse, but unless you go through a South Korean cloning lab, your kids are not going to look like you. By definition. They're loaded up with 50% of somebody else's genome, the little traitors! Skin color is the least of it. What about teeth? Hair color? Foot size?

A focus on miscegenated children is strange and misguided.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not to flog the obvious horse, but unless you go through a South Korean cloning lab, your kids are not going to look like you. By definition. They're loaded up with 50% of somebody else's genome, the little traitors! Skin color is the least of it. What about teeth? Hair color? Foot size?

A focus on miscegenated children is strange and misguided.

Yes, tehy are loaded up with 50% of someone else's genome...

Would be sweet to have my daughter have my wifes nose and my chin...

Skin colour is quite another thing though!

And again, anyone who doesnt see that as a problem, go ahed. I just happen to do. Is that wrong? From my point of view it is a matter of personal appeal. Mind you, I am not saying it's WRONG to have sex between races (god knows I have). I don't even say it's wrong to have kids between races.

Again, if you like it, go with it. It's just.not.for.me.

[Megas Methuselah]

@Strike I think we hit some common ground, man. Lucky for me, my people have a strong culture to embrace. I don't mean to sound racist or anything, but merely seek brush aside my ignorance: is hip hop the closest thing the blacks have to their own independant culture?



I do not get turned on by black women. I do not want brown children. If anyone else wants black girls and kids not looking like him, then by all means go ahed! It's just not my thing.

My skin's a tad bit too pale. Too much Metis blood, see? Must purify my line with a real woman, a strong-willed, red-skinned beauty.

Or maybe just go tanning instead. Whatever.

[Strike For The South]

@Strike I think we hit some common ground, man. Lucky for me, my people have a strong culture to embrace. I don't mean to sound racist or anything, but merely seek brush aside my ignorance: is hip hop the closest thing the blacks have to their own independant culture?
.

No and I don't want to make that impression. the big problems massive urban poverty combined with broken homes combined with an antiquated power strcuture which has out lived its usefullness. Blacks are all to often portrayed as entertainers or criminals in the media and that is also a problem. At a certain point life imitates art.

Modern hip hop is simply music and has no more bearing on culture than Marylin Mansons hard rock.

[drone]

I can't link to it here, and don't have time to read this whole thread, but:

The CDC, like 1 month ago, released some numbers that said 48% of black females have genital herpes. This may have something to do with the single-ness as well.

the numbers for the black men were much lower, very much in line with the rest of the population. The number for the females seemed so high, though I thought it was a misprint. so far, I am not aware of the CDC changing their results or saying it was a mistake

For our internet-challenged, DoD censored troops, a quick google is the least I can do.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/hsv2pressrelease.html

About 1 in 6 Americans (16.2 percent) between the ages of 14 and 49 is infected with herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2), according to a national health survey released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HSV-2 is a lifelong and incurable infection that can cause recurrent and painful genital sores.
...
The study finds that women and blacks were most likely to be infected. HSV-2 prevalence was nearly twice as high among women (20.9 percent) than men (11.5 percent), and was more than three times higher among blacks (39.2 percent) than whites (12.3 percent). The most affected group was black women, with a prevalence rate of 48 percent.
Yikes. :ahh:

[PanzerJaeger]

For our internet-challenged, DoD censored troops, a quick google is the least I can do.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/hsv2pressrelease.html

Yikes. :ahh:

That should be the first lesson in every sex-ed class.... with lots of pictures.

[The Stranger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are implying that black culture in America is less advanced than other cultures and has not yet developed modern standards of common decency; and thus should be forgiven for its lawlessness and dysfunctional social structure. Is that the point you were making?

ehm no that is not what im implying at all. i was actually reffering to the common decency of how to treat women. which is something which has not been around for very long in the same fashion as it is now. im just hinting at the subjectivity of the point and the relativity of it.

[The Stranger]

That's why he said african american :p

he said black.

[The Stranger]

I personally believe it matters how the woman looks like or what race she is from.

Or do you argue that there are no white women I could love that has a fascinating character, so I am bound to go black (and never go back?).

OF COURSE looks or race is not the most important matter in a long relationship, but hey, the relationship wont even start if she is not smoking hot. And white. Get my point?

I do not get turned on by black women. I do not want brown children. If anyone else wants black girls and kids not looking like him, then by all means go ahed! It's just not my thing.

well i can understand that u are more attracted to the people you grow up around which are usually of same race. but i dont see why the "race" should be more important than the actractiveness.

i mean u have hot ... girl and hot white girl, the first is nice the latter a *****. will you chose the latter because she is white?

[The Stranger]

Actually, it is more than the family, from what I have been led to believe as compared to Britain, especially when it comes to children.

the individual is holy... its funny cuz were all individuals by the millions of us. and we buy our individuality and identities in mass production slave labour shops.

[Kadagar_AV]

well i can understand that u are more attracted to the people you grow up around which are usually of same race. but i dont see why the "race" should be more important than the actractiveness.

i mean u have hot ... girl and hot white girl, the first is nice the latter a *****. will you chose the latter because she is white?

In my ninth grade, I was known as "the swede in the ninth"... So no, the people I grew up with were not of the same race.

When it comes to attractiveness..

I just dont find black people attractive... Asians and south americans I do find attractive, but the cultural difference is HUGE, 'specially with asian women.

I much prefer to corrupt a good ol' catholic girl...

[PanzerJaeger]

When it comes to attractiveness..

I just dont find black people attractive...

Somewhat related to that point is an interesting cultural phenomenon I have noticed. Most black women in American entertainment do everything they can to look like white women.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/tyra_banks-766.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Beyonce-beyonce-230799_1024_768.jpg

Those two could very well be white girls with heavy tans.

What does this say about our society... about our standard of beauty?

[Kadagar_AV]

PJ, a very good point!

I very much hope people understand that I talk about personal preference, and not about a racistic view at large.

Hey, I wish I was turned on by black women, would have broadend my playing field (before I had my English rose).

But if you look at society at large, yes, black women are not as lucrative on the market as others. And from what I have seen, nor are black men (if anyone have other experiences please do share! I can only speak from a very personal standpoint, and from what I have read/seen/heard black men aren't exactly seen as a "catch" when it comes to intriducing your new spouse to the family, I would blame bigotry on this, and if not, well maybe they have some other reason, like statistics or whatever).

Hmmm... I forgot I was on an american forum with american standards!

Sorry for refering to black people as black people... But "afro-american" just don't jibe on an international board. And you can't really say africans as then you have to include people from, say, Tunisia or South Africa.

So let's go with "blacks".

[Shaka_Khan]

The African character (Sheva Alomar) in Resident Evil 5 is hot.

I live in an area where there are no African-American women. So it's very unlikely that I'll date one anytime soon.

From what I've seen, Northern and Eastern Europeans, Central Asians, and East Asians have the most hottest women in proportion to their entire population. Particularly, Finland, Sweden, Slovenia, Poland, Czech Republic, Iran, Kazakhstan, Korea, and Vietnam have the prettiest women. It's ironic that these countries are some of the least known to the rest of the world. They don't do well in Miss Universe pageants either. These countries keep choosing women who are average looking in their own countries to participate in the pageant for some reason (maybe money or politics?).

[drone]

PHmmm... I forgot I was on an american forum with american standards!

Sorry for refering to black people as black people... But "afro-american" just don't jibe on an international board. And you can't really say africans as then you have to include people from, say, Tunisia or South Africa.

So let's go with "blacks".
It's not an American board. And the poll is about multi-racial relationships, the accompanying story is specifically about the plight of African American women. So if you are talking about your preferences, feel free to use black, or African. If you want to discuss why American women of African descent can't find life partners, use African American. Or black. Whatever. :shrug:

PJ raises a good point about women in entertainment. But I think a similar thing happens with Hispanic women (watch novellas on Telemundo for examples), so that could just be promoters and programming execs tainting the process with their prejudices.

[Shaka_Khan]

Sex and the single black woman
How the mass incarceration of black men hurts black women

Apr 8th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

I remember reading an article on the bolded part in the mid-90s. I didn't realize that it would come to a point in which African-American women would have a hard time finding a boyfriend. It sounds like a joke, but it's actually authentic since it's from The Economist.

[Furunculus]

PJ, a very good point!

I very much hope people understand that I talk about personal preference, and not about a racistic view at large.

Hey, I wish I was turned on by black women, would have broadend my playing field (before I had my English rose).

But if you look at society at large, yes, black women are not as lucrative on the market as others. And from what I have seen, nor are black men (if anyone have other experiences please do share! I can only speak from a very personal standpoint, and from what I have read/seen/heard black men aren't exactly seen as a "catch" when it comes to intriducing your new spouse to the family, I would blame bigotry on this, and if not, well maybe they have some other reason, like statistics or whatever).

Hmmm... I forgot I was on an american forum with american standards!

Sorry for refering to black people as black people... But "afro-american" just don't jibe on an international board. And you can't really say africans as then you have to include people from, say, Tunisia or South Africa.

So let's go with "blacks".

frankly i am with you on the whole black/ afro-american/person-of-colour knicker-twistiness, i have no time for it.

black white asian whatever, i refuse to pander to the sensitivities of deeply inadequate people.

[Furunculus]

What are you talking about? I don't care what PJ said about marrige.
.

my apologies strike, i presumed (wrongly) that it was you that had caused PJ's comment to be edited (needlessly).

[Viking]

Somewhat related to that point is an interesting cultural phenomenon I have noticed. Most black women in American entertainment do everything they can to look like white women.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/tyra_banks-766.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Beyonce-beyonce-230799_1024_768.jpg

Those two could very well be white girls with heavy tans.

What does this say about our society... about our standard of beauty?

Though at the same time, "whites" are not too keen to keep their "whiteness", rather they like to have some tan.

[The Stranger]

In my ninth grade, I was known as "the swede in the ninth"... So no, the people I grew up with were not of the same race.

When it comes to attractiveness..

I just dont find black people attractive... Asians and south americans I do find attractive, but the cultural difference is HUGE, 'specially with asian women.

I much prefer to corrupt a good ol' catholic girl...

im not saying that you have to find black, asian, latinas etc attractive. im just saying (in general) that i believe that when you find the abstract epithet, race/religion/possibly even sexe/etc, more important than the reality, girl in front of you, in any way, you are not going about it the right way.

[The Stranger]

Though at the same time, "whites" are not too keen to keep their "whiteness", rather they like to have some tan.

thats true for banks, much less for beyonce i believe but besides the point. somehow girls always want that what they dont have. curved girls want less curves, thin girls want more or less thin, straight hair wants curls and the other way around. pale girls want tan, tanned girls want pale, asian girls want to be white. etc. almost everywhite girl i know would spend ages on the beach trying to get a tan, knowing perfectly well the past thousand attempts ended in a burn. when i was in asia my friend was dumbfounded by all the whitening commercials showing skin from darker to paler. he thought it was stupid untill i told him that the excact same commercials of the same branch were shown in holland, but then the other way around. i know of girls in africa who try to bleach their skins... ignorant, but looking globally not a very uncommon phenomena, only in other parts of the world they have more sophisticated rescourses.

for men i guess its a bit different, i havent seen many men really try to be black or white, except that they might dress different... but i believe its stupid to say that armani suites belong to whites and every black who owns one wants to be white and that baggy pants are only for blacks and every white who wears one wants to be a ghetto black boy...

so the point made by PJ is again very subjective and relative and onesided. because there is also a tendecy of bottomlifting, bigger lips, showing curves, tanning etc. but ofcourse in a mixed society one can only suspect that there is a very wide scala of desires. and as a superstar to reach that wide audience they will try to meet everyones demand.

[The Stranger]

PJ, a very good point!

I very much hope people understand that I talk about personal preference, and not about a racistic view at large.

Hey, I wish I was turned on by black women, would have broadend my playing field (before I had my English rose).

But if you look at society at large, yes, black women are not as lucrative on the market as others. And from what I have seen, nor are black men (if anyone have other experiences please do share! I can only speak from a very personal standpoint, and from what I have read/seen/heard black men aren't exactly seen as a "catch" when it comes to intriducing your new spouse to the family, I would blame bigotry on this, and if not, well maybe they have some other reason, like statistics or whatever).

Hmmm... I forgot I was on an american forum with american standards!

Sorry for refering to black people as black people... But "afro-american" just don't jibe on an international board. And you can't really say africans as then you have to include people from, say, Tunisia or South Africa.

So let's go with "blacks".

well ill let it slide. this time. because ive been saying whites. but dont make it a habbit. seriously, its important to phrase correctly. :laugh4:

[Beskar]

I think we should go with "pinkskins" when we describe ourselves.

(You get +1 balloon if you get the reference)

[The Stranger]

:balloon2:

[Strike For The South]

I would argue allot of black women spend trying to live up to white beauty standards because its been drilled into there heads since they were kids that is whats "pretty"

[Lemur]

I would argue allot of black women spend trying to live up to white beauty standards because its been drilled into there heads since they were kids that is whats "pretty"
It's not as though the desire of racial characteristics is a one-way street, anyway. Go visit Europe and you'll realize just how black American culture really is.

Besides which, explain Michael Bolton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u2_GQlwxbI) and Joss Stone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEtVGxKfQ4A). Racial cross-pollination is going on all the time, and it ain't always a negative.

[The Stranger]

I would argue allot of black women spend trying to live up to white beauty standards because its been drilled into there heads since they were kids that is whats "pretty"

perhaps in america it is so. i can imagine it was so for the generations of 1900-1980s. it is not something i have witnessed here in holland.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not to flog the obvious horse, but unless you go through a South Korean cloning lab, your kids are not going to look like you. By definition. They're loaded up with 50% of somebody else's genome, the little traitors! Skin color is the least of it. What about teeth? Hair color? Foot size?

A focus on miscegenated children is strange and misguided.

It isn't a conscious decision, but if your children really don't look anything like you, then for some people it might be harded to see them as being their own children. Especially when you grow up in a very white dominated place like me, when your friends, family etc are all white, then you expect your own kids to be white as well.

I think maybe some of it just might be a case of what you're used to. For example, half-black kids to me seem more 'normal' than half-Chinese kids would, and that may well be because you see a lot of half-black people, but very few half-Chinese people.

[rory_20_uk]

Europeans are for ever tanning themselves to be darker. Asians / Indians / Africans often apply materials to make their skin whiter. Europeans want small noses, Asians bigger. We curl our hair, African straighten theirs...

Women aren't happy with they way they look - however they look. A shock, I know...

~:smoking:

[Strike For The South]

It's not as though the desire of racial characteristics is a one-way street, anyway. Go visit Europe and you'll realize just how black American culture really is.

Besides which, explain Michael Bolton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u2_GQlwxbI) and Joss Stone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEtVGxKfQ4A). Racial cross-pollination is going on all the time, and it ain't always a negative.

I don't understand Lemur. Could you expand?

[The Stranger]

true, but it bothers me not at all. i dont care if my children are half this half that... as long as they are human, healthy and from the woman i love. and i actually believe that "mixed" children (which is actually bs, because all children are mixed as lemur says) to a good thing. or atleast not a bad thing. not per se good.

[The Stranger]

Europeans are for ever tanning themselves to be darker. Asians / Indians / Africans often apply materials to make their skin whiter. Europeans want small noses, Asians bigger. We curl our hair, African straighten theirs...

Women aren't happy with they way they look - however they look. A shock, I know...

~:smoking:

ah but not in the good old days when europeon women had dignity and wanted to be even whiter! forever white yah!!! to match the seed their husbands squirted upon them which they were not allowed to enjoy...

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, as to be tanned = working in the fields and hence poor. Now to be pasty = unhealthy / ill. The other method would help as it fluoresces in UV light.

~:smoking:

[The Stranger]

oh oh so they can be glow in the dark and we can find them when they run away1!! good thinking.

[ajaxfetish]

true, but it bothers me not at all. i dont care if my children are half this half that...
And there's an option for you in the poll. Don't expect everyone to feel the same way, though.

Ajax

[Centurion1]

i am slightly Asian but i identify as white (you would agree if you saw me) but let me just say how many half asian kids i now. and to validate the point let me point out i live on a navy base. once those filipinos, koreans, japanese latch there claws into you they dont let go.

and i think Asian babies are absolutely adorable.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's not as though the desire of racial characteristics is a one-way street, anyway. Go visit Europe and you'll realize just how black American culture really is.

Besides which, explain Michael Bolton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u2_GQlwxbI) and Joss Stone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEtVGxKfQ4A). Racial cross-pollination is going on all the time, and it ain't always a negative.

Has Germany recovered from Hasselhof yet?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't understand Lemur. Could you expand?

They're white people singing like Black people, Strike.

[The Stranger]

And there's an option for you in the poll. Don't expect everyone to feel the same way, though.

Ajax

i dont expect that. imj just trying to find out why they feel like that, why they care and i do not. i seek understanding not conversion. i mean i can understand you want your kids to look like you, but like lemur said i think skincolour attributes some of the least to that. you can have your kid look exactly like you but only darker, or fairer. and i also believe there is alot of prejudice about interracial mixing and taboo also which has to be broken. sofar i think the only negative things i can think about interracial mixing is social more than biological.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well skin colour is probably the main feature of a person's appearance, there is a very striking difference between a pale white person and a really dark black person. And it's not like its the only difference, black people do have different facial features etc.

[Ser Clegane]

Has Germany recovered from Hasselhof yet?

These scars stay forever :shame:

[The Stranger]

there is no point argueing here...

[Fragony]

Well skin colour is probably the main feature of a person's appearance, there is a very striking difference between a pale white person and a really dark black person. And it's not like its the only difference, black people do have different facial features etc.

Black is not another shade of white ya. We are all the same species but there are differences and we all have preferences, I am not attracted to Asian types for example but black women oh yummie they are gorgeous. Caucasian brunettes for the win though, drive me nuts

[Beskar]

I think we should go with "pinkskins" when we describe ourselves.

(You get +1 balloon if you get the reference)

Just incase no one got the reference, it was Star Trek Enterprise, when they met the Andorians (Blue skinned people) and they called humans "pink skins". What made it even more amusing, when they met the "black" crew member, and he still called him a pinkskin, same with the Asian crewmember, etc. I think it goes to show that we aren't too different afterall.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

i dont expect that. imj just trying to find out why they feel like that, why they care and i do not. i seek understanding not conversion. i mean i can understand you want your kids to look like you, but like lemur said i think skincolour attributes some of the least to that. you can have your kid look exactly like you but only darker, or fairer. and i also believe there is alot of prejudice about interracial mixing and taboo also which has to be broken. sofar i think the only negative things i can think about interracial mixing is social more than biological.

There are certain visual illusions which are culture dependent--people from one culture (because of the way the buildings are constructed there) literally see it in a very different way than people from another culture do.

The point being, you're approaching attraction as if it's dependent on belief, but we might not have control over it to that extent.

[The Stranger]

no im not talking about attraction. i dont say that people can choose what or who they are attracted to. i dont think they can. im just trying to find out wether the reasons people give can hold. and im saying that those reasons shouldnt matter, all that should matter is are you attracted to this woman, are you in love with this woman and would you want children with her. why is not important.

[Rhyfelwyr]

there is no point argueing here...

What is there to argue? We're talking about things rooted in our subconscious here, you can't change them by the power of reason.

[Husar]

What is there to argue? We're talking about things rooted in our subconscious here, you can't change them by the power of reason.

Only Tom Cruise can, when he sees you, he knows, he can help!

[The Stranger]

i was referring to hasselhof :P

[Strike For The South]

They're white people singing like Black people, Strike.

Do black people sing a certian way now?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Do black people sing a certian way now?Of course.

Different anatomy means different skull bones, mouth shapes, and especially different vocal fold thickness, length, and elasticity. All etnic groups sound distinct as much as they look distinct.

[Strike For The South]

Of course.

Different anatomy means different skull bones, mouth shapes, and especially different vocal fold thickness, length, and elasticity. All etnic groups sound distinct as much as they look distinct.

So you're saying we can attribute these things to all different groups and have it be right 90% of the time?

I know you're making a point here but some people still beilve (as evidenced in this thread) that certian groups of people are more pre disposed to do something simply because of what skin color they were born into.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So you're saying we can attribute these things to all different groups and have it be right 90% of the time?

I know you're making a point here but some people still beilve (as evidenced in this thread) that certian groups of people are more pre disposed to do something simply because of what skin color they were born into.I am not sure people are disposed to much of anything because of their skin colour. People are very much disposed to a good deal of things based on their genetic make-up, yes.

For example: http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/39/3/573

What is funny, is that distinct ethnic sounds are most pronounced at an early age, then gradually dissappear (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153874). White and Black voices of eighty-year olds are much more alike than those of twenty-somethings. Male and female voices too lose much of their distinction with old age.

[Strike For The South]

I am not sure people are disposed to much of anything because of their skin colour. People are very much disposed to a good deal of things based on their genetic make-up, yes.

For example: http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/39/3/573

What is funny, is that distinct ethnic sounds are most pronounced at an early age, then gradually dissappear (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153874). White and Black voices of eighty-year olds are much more alike than those of twenty-somethings. Male and female voices too lose much of their distinction with old age.

You're muddiling the line between groups of people with shared gentics and "races"

[The Stranger]

I am not sure people are disposed to much of anything because of their skin colour. People are very much disposed to a good deal of things based on their genetic make-up, yes.

For example: http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/39/3/573

What is funny, is that distinct ethnic sounds are most pronounced at an early age, then gradually dissappear (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153874). White and Black voices of eighty-year olds are much more alike than those of twenty-somethings. Male and female voices too lose much of their distinction with old age.

your posts contradicts. and im not sure what u mean.

[Lemur]

I don't understand Lemur. Could you expand?
Sorry Strike, I was so out of it yesterday I didn't feel up to writing an essay on cross-cultural influence. Slightly better today, so I'l take a small stab:

Black culture has had a massive impact on American culture. I think that's pretty obvious and undebatable. Whether it's the improv ethos of jazz, the syncopated rhythm, the adoption of words and phrases, fashion, etcetera. You can debate whether all of this influence is a good or a bad thing, but what you can't say is that it hasn't happened.

So it's easy to look at black women straightening their hair and dying it lighter and say, "Look, they're imitating the whites!" But that's a seriously incomplete picture. Black culture and white culture influence each other all over the damn place.

If America hadn't had black culture, here's what the hip cats would be listening to on a Friday night:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY2nXUUvwg4

[HoreTore]

You're muddiling the line between groups of people with shared gentics and "races"

Well, there is just one human race, so.....

Look at a poodle and a german shepherd. Now look at a Nigerian and an englishman.

...Still believe there are more than one human race?

[Megas Methuselah]

Well, there is just one human race, so.....

Look at a poodle and a german shepherd. Now look at a Nigerian and an englishman.

...Still believe there are more than one human race?

My dog's a sheltie-terrier-bordercollie mix. Very cute thing, gets all sorts of compliments from strangers when out on walks...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well, there is just one human race, so.....

Look at a poodle and a german shepherd. Now look at a Nigerian and an englishman.

...Still believe there are more than one human race?In 20.000 years, wolves became chihuahuas and great danes. Humans diverged from one group 60.000 years ago.


The question is, why do you consider all people one single breed, and dogs diifferent breeds? Surely you acknowledge that different dog breeds have very different tempers, different intelligences, different character, different aggression levels?

By what mechanism are humans excempt from the evolutionary forces that govern the whole of nature?

[ajaxfetish]

sofar i think the only negative things i can think about interracial mixing is social more than biological.
Do social factors have no validity? I agree that negative biological effects are of little significance (though there are some genetic disorders with racial correlations to consider), but our society has a huge effect on us, not just our biology. Negative social effects are just as real as negative biological effects. Furthermore, as many others have said, this is mostly a subconscious phenomena, rather than a matter of choice. You seem under the impression that those who say they would marry within their race are attracted to other races, but choose to limit themselves to their own race nonetheless for the sake of social mores. I don't think this is accurate.

Ajax

[The Stranger]

Do social factors have no validity? I agree that negative biological effects are of little significance (though there are some genetic disorders with racial correlations to consider), but our society has a huge effect on us, not just our biology. Negative social effects are just as real as negative biological effects. Furthermore, as many others have said, this is mostly a subconscious phenomena, rather than a matter of choice. You seem under the impression that those who say they would marry within their race are attracted to other races, but choose to limit themselves to their own race nonetheless for the sake of social mores. I don't think this is accurate.

Ajax

no they do have validity. they are the only reason i can think of why people should actually consider wether or not they will have an interracial marriage.

and about your second point. that is not what I am saying at all, it is what they are saying. im just trying to check wether the reasons they give are valid. all im saying that in case you are attracted to a woman, lets say the woman of your dreams, you should not not marry her for being of different race. i dont say people do. im just saying if.

[The Stranger]

In 20.000 years, wolves became chihuahuas and great danes. Humans diverged from one group 60.000 years ago.


The question is, why do you consider all people one single breed, and dogs diifferent breeds? Surely you acknowledge that different dog breeds have very different tempers, different intelligences, different character, different aggression levels?

By what mechanism are humans excempt from the evolutionary forces that govern the whole of nature?

wolves cant mate with chihuahuas. i think thats the reason why.

and i think horetore was being sarcastic.

[drone]

wolves cant mate with chihuahuas. i think thats the reason why.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong on that point. Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are technically a subspecies of wolf (Canis lupus), but there is not that much difference. If you can keep the wolf from eating the chihuahua (or any other domesticated dog), a viable mating is possible. Hybrids are fairly common. Same with coyotes and domesticated dogs.

[Megas Methuselah]

In 20.000 years, wolves became chihuahuas and great danes. Humans diverged from one group 60.000 years ago.


The question is, why do you consider all people one single breed, and dogs diifferent breeds? Surely you acknowledge that different dog breeds have very different tempers, different intelligences, different character, different aggression levels?

By what mechanism are humans excempt from the evolutionary forces that govern the whole of nature?

yeh yeh yeh white power!

[Rhyfelwyr]

yeh yeh yeh white power!

Maybe he's an afrocentrist?

[PanzerJaeger]

In 20.000 years, wolves became chihuahuas and great danes. Humans diverged from one group 60.000 years ago.


The question is, why do you consider all people one single breed, and dogs diifferent breeds? Surely you acknowledge that different dog breeds have very different tempers, different intelligences, different character, different aggression levels?

By what mechanism are humans excempt from the evolutionary forces that govern the whole of nature?

Be careful, Louis! I've gotten in trouble for such dangerous thinking.

[Shaka_Khan]

When did Louis become a mod!?

[Louis VI the Fat]

When did Louis become a mod!?They made me moderator two weeks ago. I posted some drunk stuff in the Frontroom, and they offered me the choice of being instagibbed or 'volunteering' for mod services.

If it's a pun for 'mod', the English subculture commonly mistaken for precursors of the skinheads, I wish I could say: a long time ago. Mods, like Megas did above, are mistaken for white supremacists. Not so, not at all:


Sociologist Simon Frith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Frith) asserts that the mod subculture had its roots in the 1950s beatnik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatnik) coffee bar culture, which catered to art school students in the radical bohemian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian) scene in London.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_%28subculture%29#cite_note-10) Steve Sparks, who claims to be one of the original mods, agrees that before mod became commercialized, it was essentially an extension of the beatnik culture: "It comes from ‘modernist’, it was to do with modern jazz and to do with Sartre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre)" and existentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism).
Frith notes that although coffee bars were originally aimed at middle-class art school students, they began to facilitate an intermixing of youths from different backgrounds and classes.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_%28subculture%29#cite_note-11) At these venues, which Frith calls the "first sign of the youth movement", youths would meet collectors of R&B and blues records, who introduced them to new types of African-American music, which the teens were attracted to for its rawness and authenticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_%28philosophy%29). They also watched French and Italian art films (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_film) and read Italian magazines to look for style ideas.Sartre-reading, existentialist beatniks with Italianate style. Throw in an uncompromising acceptance of the consequences of Darwin and it's me alright.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

When did Louis become a mod!?

When the check cleared at Tosa's bank.

[drone]

When did Louis become a mod!?

I still think Tosa did it to put an end to the Louis/Strike confusion.

[Beskar]

The question is, why do you consider all people one single breed, and dogs diifferent breeds? Surely you acknowledge that different dog breeds have very different tempers, different intelligences, different character, different aggression levels?

Because we are not different species or breeds.

[Lemur]

Because we are not different species.
Yup, need to be careful when talking about breed, species or race. These are all flexible words with built-in imprecision.

[Fragony]

Why be careful same species different race. We instantly recognise a member of the same species, and we instantly see it when someone has a different genetic make-up. We can reproduce we are all homo-sapiens, but of different flavours.

[Viking]

Well, there is just one human race, so.....

Look at a poodle and a german shepherd. Now look at a Nigerian and an englishman.

...Still believe there are more than one human race?

I've heard that the differences between the different dog breeds are smaller than the differences between humans (at 06:32 in this very recent vid (http://www.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/627466/) for your Norwegian reference; though I am not able to verify this. Their chimp-human comparison appears to be outdated). Also dogs might have been bred purely for looks, which perhaps could make small genetic differences more obvious.

[PanzerJaeger]

Because we are not different species or breeds.

Species yes, but race and breed are comparable in some ways.

[Megas Methuselah]

Be careful, Louis! I've gotten in trouble for such dangerous thinking.

Yeah, no kiddin'. Either the law will lock you up, or my homies will knife you up. Learn some respect, or else go back to...

... *sigh* It's beautiful outside tonight. Clear skies. You can see the stars.

[Fragony]

What's so wrong with what he says, don't you as a native have some features that are unique for people of Indian ancestry. And never bring a knive to a gunfight, he got them.

[Megas Methuselah]

By comparing us to dogs, he implies our inherent differences go beyond mere physical characteristics.

He put himself a step closer to 'ole Hitla, and... nothin more needs to be said.

[Ironside]

In 20.000 years, wolves became chihuahuas and great danes. Humans diverged from one group 60.000 years ago.


The question is, why do you consider all people one single breed, and dogs diifferent breeds? Surely you acknowledge that different dog breeds have very different tempers, different intelligences, different character, different aggression levels?

By what mechanism are humans excempt from the evolutionary forces that govern the whole of nature?

The big difference is that the Delagoth didn't breed us.

Or for those who aren't getting the reference, we never had big doglike masters who bred us into different traits. Do anybody here know a population bred for their intelligence? Or strength? Or temper and aggresion levels? Admittably, there's is possible exception with the French, who obviously are bred for cultural arrogance... :book:

For why the subject is sensitive is because can and have been used to claim a permanent superiourity, either by class or by race and that while the genetical studies seems to indicate larger in-group variations than group to group variations.

[PanzerJaeger]

By comparing us to dogs, he implies our inherent differences go beyond mere physical characteristics.



They do.

[Fragony]

By comparing us to dogs, he implies our inherent differences go beyond mere physical characteristics.

He put himself a step closer to 'ole Hitla, and... nothin more needs to be said.

No he didn't, he used dogs as an example. Could also use horses

[Megas Methuselah]

Before you guys lock me up in a concentration camp or start waving swastika flags about, let me take out my anger on a punching bag, then study for the rest of the night as I should be doin.

[The Stranger]

I'm pretty sure you are wrong on that point. Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are technically a subspecies of wolf (Canis lupus), but there is not that much difference. If you can keep the wolf from eating the chihuahua (or any other domesticated dog), a viable mating is possible. Hybrids are fairly common. Same with coyotes and domesticated dogs.

i want to see proof first. i doubt a wolf can still mate with a chihuahua... and i think it would make A class entertainment :P

[Fragony]

Before you guys lock me up in a concentration camp or start waving swastika flags about, let me take out my anger on a punching bag, then study for the rest of the night as I should be doin.

Nah we are sending you to logic class, wouldn't Luigi compare himself to a dog if humanity is a single species with multiple races?

[Meneldil]

i want to see proof first. i doubt a wolf can still mate with a chihuahua... and i think it would make A class entertainment :P

Wolves can certainly mate with bigger kind of dogs like Huskies and German Sheperds. I've seen the results of such matings (looked quite awesome). Mating a Chihuahua might be harder, if only due to the size differences.

[Furunculus]

he implies our inherent differences go beyond mere physical characteristics.

He put himself a step closer to 'ole Hitla, and... nothin more needs to be said.

and why is it wrong to say that?

being different does not imply being of greater worth.

[Banquo's Ghost]

"Hitla" has raised his unwelcome head in a thread that to date, has been an exemplar of how to discuss controversial subjects.

Let's continue the high standards and try not to tempt ourselves under any bridges.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Or for those who aren't getting the reference, we never had big doglike masters who bred us into different traits. Do anybody here know a population bred for their intelligence? Or strength? Or temper and aggresion levels?

For why the subject is sensitive is because can and have been used to claim a permanent superiourity, either by class or by race and that while the genetical studies seems to indicate larger in-group variations than group to group variations.Sure we had a big master who bred different traits into us: evolutionary impulse.

By what mechanism are humans excempt from evolutionary impulse?

Or, if we are not, by what mechanism do the exceedingly varied environments and other pressures to which humans are exposed fail to have an evolutionary effect?


Humans are the most geographically spread of all mammals. Humans live in more varied circumstances than any other animal.
Stephen Jay Goud declared the end of evolution: culture has taken over. Instead of humans in colder climates growing fur and bodyfat, they sowed clothes.
I disagree. I think that evolutionary impulses on humans are stronger than on other animals, not weaker. Human evolutionary changes drastically accelerated the past tens of thousands of years, instead of slowing down.

Humans, too, have been domesticated. The herd of cows differs as much from aurochs as the agricultural man differs from his foraging ancestor. In fact, apart from the usual floppy ears (we need pointy ears because we communicate aurally), we bear many traits of domestication. (But not all groups do equally, the San, for example, are notably unaffected by traits of domestication)



~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~


The excesses of Social Darwinsim do not discredit evolutionary thinking itself. The excesses of racial superiority ideologies do not discredit the application of evolutionary thought on humans.

Strike and Lemur pointed out the important considerations that race is a social construct, and that species, breed and race are imprecise concepts, respectively.


Short of that, let's have no illusions about what is being studied and discovered this past decade by, for example, the epidemologist or doctor (http://archopht.highwire.org/cgi/content/full/121/8/1194). I think the gap between scientific progress and social wishful thinking will prove ever more untenable in the coming decades.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Megas, your unease is understandable, giving the history of extreme racist aggression towards Native Americans.
Not all genetics is governed by racial superiority ideology, however.

As if on cue, today's NYT runs a fine article:

Indian Tribe Wins Fight to Limit Research of Its DNA

SUPAI, Ariz. — Seven years ago, the Havasupai Indians (http://www.havasupaitribe.com/), who live amid the turquoise waterfalls and red cliffs miles deep in the Grand Canyon, issued a “banishment order” to keep Arizona State University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/arizona_state_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org) employees from setting foot on their reservation — an ancient punishment for what they regarded as a genetic-era betrayal.
[/URL]
Jim Wilson/The New York Times


Members of the Havasupai Indian tribe live in the deepest part of the Grand Canyon. More Photos » (javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/04/22/us/22dna_CA0_337-395.html','22dna_CA0_337_395_html','width=720,height=550,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes'))



Members of the tiny, isolated tribe had given DNA samples to university researchers starting in 1990, in the hope that they might provide genetic clues to the tribe’s devastating rate of diabetes. But they learned that their blood samples had been used to study many other things, including mental illness and theories of the tribe’s geographical origins that contradict their traditional stories.

The geneticist responsible for the research has said that she had obtained permission for wider-ranging genetic studies.

Acknowledging a desire to “remedy the wrong that was done,” the university’s Board of Regents on Tuesday agreed to pay $700,000 to 41 of the tribe’s members, return the blood samples and provide other forms of assistance to the impoverished Havasupai — a settlement that legal experts said was significant because it implied that the rights of research subjects can be violated when they are not fully informed about how their DNA might be used.

The case raised the question of whether scientists had taken advantage of a vulnerable population, and it created an image problem for a university eager to cast itself as a center for American Indian studies.
But genetics experts and civil rights advocates say it may also fuel a growing debate over researchers’ responsibility to communicate the range of personal information that can be gleaned from DNA at a time when it is being collected on an ever-greater scale for research and routine medical care.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us/22dna.html?src=me&ref=homepage

[KukriKhan]

Stephen Jay Goud declared the end of evolution: culture has taken over. Instead of humans in colder climates growing fur and bodyfat, they sowed clothes.
I disagree. I think that evolutionary impulses on humans are stronger than on other animals, not weaker. Human evolutionary changes drastically accelerated the past tens of thousands of years, instead of slowing down...

I'm glad to see Gould being cited, and getting his due, finally. When I was first reading and thinking about anthropology, Ashley Montigue and Margaret Mead were all the rage; I "got" their points, I thought, but I also thought they didn't think broadly enough - didn't fit their views on the human animal into their geo-socio-politico contexts enough, or consider our penchant for broad mobility.

[Ironside]

Sure we had a big master who bred different traits into us: evolutionary impulse.

By what mechanism are humans excempt from evolutionary impulse?

Or, if we are not, by what mechanism do the exceedingly varied environments and other pressures to which humans are exposed fail to have an evolutionary effect?


Should've put it in the first post, but intelligence and social skills are usually desirable traits in all cultures, so they shouldn't have that much differenting values compared to other evolutionary differences. Add that more cultural factors like upbringing, food, or a even language (a more general note, it's an observation based on isolated deaf people) have profound influence the development of the mind. Thus in that matter it's hard to directly give genetical conclutions, since western people have gotten about 20 IQ points smarter since the first tests a hundred years ago. That's hardly genetical. When group genetics clearly matter is to give an alternate standard treatment for example.

Never claimed that humans haven't evolved at all. The implication on why Europeans can on average handle alchohol better than Native Americans and South East Asians is a personal favorite for example, even if I don't know it it's true.

[HoreTore]

In 20.000 years, wolves became chihuahuas and great danes. Humans diverged from one group 60.000 years ago.


The question is, why do you consider all people one single breed, and dogs diifferent breeds? Surely you acknowledge that different dog breeds have very different tempers, different intelligences, different character, different aggression levels?

By what mechanism are humans excempt from the evolutionary forces that govern the whole of nature?

Because humans aren't genetically different enough.

If the genetic difference had been bigger than what it is, then I would've accepted it. But when two nigerians can have greater genetic difference than a nigerian and a japanese, I don't.

[Lemur]

It's also worth pointing out that our species (homo sapien sapien) was down to as few as 2,000 people (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-humans-extinct.html) just 150,000 years ago. We were pretty close to going the way of the dodo and the Tasmanian tiger. A hundred and fifty centuries is not a lot of time for speciation, so it's no wonder that Inuit can cross-breed with pygmy, Nigerian with Briton. We haven't had much time to diverge, and now, with global travel, there's far too much gene-mixing going on for meaningful population divergence.

Nah, where evolution will get kicked in the tender parts is when the very rich are able to buy "improved" characteristics for their offspring. That's when things will get interesting.

[HoreTore]

It's also worth pointing out that our species (homo sapien sapien) was down to as few as 2,000 people (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-humans-extinct.html) just 150,000 years ago. We were pretty close to going the way of the dodo and the Tasmanian tiger. A hundred and fifty centuries is not a lot of time for speciation, so it's no wonder that Inuit can cross-breed with pygmy, Nigerian with Briton. We haven't had much time to diverge, and now, with global travel, there's far too much gene-mixing going on for meaningful population divergence.

Nah, where evolution will get kicked in the tender parts is when the very rich are able to buy "improved" characteristics for their offspring. That's when things will get interesting.

2000 seems to be a rather controversial figure, and it's the first time I've heard it so low. 30.000 is the most commonly cited number for that event.

[Viking]

It's also worth pointing out that our species (homo sapien sapien) was down to as few as 2,000 people (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-humans-extinct.html) just 150,000 years ago. We were pretty close to going the way of the dodo and the Tasmanian tiger. A hundred and fifty centuries is not a lot of time for speciation, so it's no wonder that Inuit can cross-breed with pygmy, Nigerian with Briton. We haven't had much time to diverge, and now, with global travel, there's far too much gene-mixing going on for meaningful population divergence.

Nah, where evolution will get kicked in the tender parts is when the very rich are able to buy "improved" characteristics for their offspring. That's when things will get interesting.

Whatever you say, evolution had enought time and material to provide the the visual differences that we see today; so who knows what else it might have brought.

[Strike For The South]

Panzer or Louis...I would like to know how you divide up humanity and what charcteristics you ascribe to each sub group.

I'm generally curios

[Tellos Athenaios]

Strike, that needs clarification: genuinely or generally; and presumably curious?

Anyway a fair biological sub-division is that of the (east) Asians & rest. Asians display a few biological differences to the others: different shape of the eye, and different texture of earwax for instance.

And in general: no you won't even *see* that unless you are the type of person (biologist!) to study someone else's earwax or dissect their eyes.

[Strike For The South]

Strike, that needs clarification: genuinely or generally; and presumably curious?

Anyway a fair biological sub-division is that of the (east) Asians & rest. Asians display a few biological differences to the others: different shape of the eye, and different texture of earwax for instance.

And generally speaking: no you won't even *see* that unless you are the type of person (biologist!) to study someone else's earwax or dissect their eyes.

Sorry for the spelling errors.

[Beskar]

Strike, that needs clarification: genuinely or generally; and presumably curious?

Anyway a fair biological sub-division is that of the (east) Asians & rest. Asians display a few biological differences to the others: different shape of the eye, and different texture of earwax for instance.

And in general: no you won't even *see* that unless you are the type of person (biologist!) to study someone else's earwax or dissect their eyes.

Asian are generally lactose intolerant too, because of generations in lack of milk in their diet, apparently. "Blacks" are darker skinned because they come from places with a lot of sun. "Whites" lived in colder/darker regions, thus lighter coloured skin for Vitimin D production. Apparently "Blacks" living in these cold regions also suffer problems because of this and need Vitimin D supplements. Even then, we are basically the except same blueprint with overall very minor changes, caused by the environment.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The biggest differences between people are cultural and not genetic. But aesthetic differences are sensitive to very small changes in genetics. But standards of beauty are often culturally determined. Ergo...

[HoreTore]

Whatever you say, evolution had enought time and material to provide the the visual differences that we see today; so who knows what else it might have brought.

Changing skin colour is done in a couple of thousand years. And we know what else it has brought.

Seeing as we are so genetically similar, we can't talk about different human races. We can talk about different population groups(also called ethnicity), but not race.

That someone is of the same race doesn't mean that they have to be genetically identical. Take chimps, for example. The chimp is one race, but you'll find genetic differences if you compare one population group to another, much greater than the difference in humans. In fact, you can find more genetic variation within the same group of chimps than between a nigerian and an asian.

But for those of you who still cling to past beliefs of human races; could you please define them for us? If it's so obvious that they exist, there should be absolutely zero problem identifying and classifying them.


Asian are generally lactose intolerant too, because of generations in lack of milk in their diet, apparently.

So are the Sami in Finnmark and the Berbers in north africa. And my mom.

So.... Would that be the Asiansamiberberhoretoresmom race?

[Megas Methuselah]

Asian are generally lactose intolerant too, because of generations in lack of milk in their diet, apparently. "Blacks" are darker skinned because they come from places with a lot of sun. "Whites" lived in colder/darker regions, thus lighter coloured skin for Vitimin D production. Apparently "Blacks" living in these cold regions also suffer problems because of this and need Vitimin D supplements. Even then, we are basically the except same blueprint with overall very minor changes, caused by the environment.

What about me?

[Beskar]

So are the Sami in Finnmark and the Berbers in north africa. And my mom.

So.... Would that be the Asiansamiberberhoretoresmom race?

You are pretty much just proving the point I was making.


What about me?

Don't worry, you are human too.




Offtopic: I heard Evil_MAniac From Mars went over to America. He got classified as an illegal Alien.

[Fragony]

What about me?

Alcohol intolerant HA

[PanzerJaeger]

Panzer or Louis...I would like to know how you divide up humanity and what charcteristics you ascribe to each sub group.

I'm generally curios

I would love to expand on the differences between the races that go beyond physical characteristics. The information is not difficult to find. However, this is one of those times when the new and improved Panzer takes a step back, remembers that the definition of insanity is the repetition of similar behaviors with the expectation of a different outcome, and retires from the thread. :bow:

[Centurion1]

What about me?


Alcohol intolerant HA

HAHAHAHAHAHa :laugh:


Offtopic: I heard Evil_MAniac From Mars went over to America. He got classified as an illegal Alien.

*crickets*

:tongue:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would like to know how you divide up humanity and what charcteristics you ascribe to each sub group.Divide up:


Stones in a pond.

Throw a stone in a pond, and it will create outward spreading concentric circles. You can throw several, and some circles will overlap, spread their influence to neighbouring circles. This is how I view genetic diffusion. Groups, or clusters of genetic variations, are relevant depending on what one wishes to describe. Sickle cell disease, or lactose tolerance, or whatever else. This would be akin to defining something as itself ('All X are X'). So, one can also take a patch of the pond, and describe it as a sum of what circles overlap it.
Some (clusters of) genetic variations and some patches are more sensibly described as a group.



Characteristics?:

the new and improved Panzer takes a step backWhich means I shall have to boldly go where no PJ will dare to tread, just like the Panzerjägers were fleeing in defeat before Moscow whereas it was taken and burned by the Grande Armée. ~;)


(Nearly?) all characteristics that have a heritable element have an uneven global distribution. If it is heritable, it is subject to selective pressures. If these pressures differ, then there will be different outcomes. I wouldn't want to dissapoint, so I might as well drop Little Boy II, the bomb that entangles underwear more than any other: evolution would predict, and tests confirm, that intelligence is unevenly distributed across the globe.

By what force would all human populations, placed under such vastly different evolutionary pressures, all have developed in the exact same way? By what force does evolution stop at the human brain?

[Lemur]

evolution would predict, and tests confirm, that intelligence is unevenly distributed across the globe.
A difficulty I have with this line of reasoning: How are we defining intelligence? 'Cause when I consider all of the myriad ways a human being may be intelligent, I get a little dizzy. Musical intelligence? Numerical math? How about somebody who is terrible at basic math but excels at more abstract formulations, as with Einstein? What about literary smarts? Engineering smarts? Practical smarts? How do we classify a woman who excels at chemistry but sucks at most other forms of science? What about a guy who's whip-smart about history and an idiot about all hard sciences?

I have a brother-in-law who is a master plumber (that's an actual rank you can earn in the U.S.A.). You can't really talk to the guy, he reads nothing, he's borderline illiterate, but he's a genius with machinery. How do we quantify him? Is he stupid because he wouldn't perform well on an IQ test? Do we disregard his personal, lucrative area of genius?

Anyway. I find all "measurements" of intelligence a little dodgy, and the conclusions drawn thereof even dodgier.

[Beskar]

Stones in a pond.

Throw a stone in a pond, and it will create outward spreading concentric circles. You can throw several, and some circles will overlap, spread their influence to neighbouring circles. This is how I view genetic diffusion. Groups, or clusters of genetic variations, are relevant depending on what one wishes to describe. Sickle cell disease, or lactose tolerance, or whatever else. This would be akin to defining something as itself ('All X are X'). So, one can also take a patch of the pond, and describe it as a sum of what circles overlap it.
Some (clusters of) genetic variations and some patches are more sensibly described as a group.

Incorrect metaphor. We are more like a bucket of water that got seperated into lots of other little buckets as we spread out from Africa, and with the rise of globalisation, we will all come together again in the big bucket.

[PanzerJaeger]

Which means I shall have to boldly go where no PJ will dare to tread, just like the Panzerjägers were fleeing in defeat before Moscow whereas it was taken and burned by the Grande Armée. ~;)

Temporarily re-entering the thread just to say.... ouch! :happy2:

[KukriKhan]

A difficulty I have with this line of reasoning: How are we defining intelligence? 'Cause when I consider all of the myriad ways a human being may be intelligent, I get a little dizzy. Musical intelligence? Numerical math? How about somebody who is terrible at basic math but excels at more abstract formulations, as with Einstein? What about literary smarts? Engineering smarts? Practical smarts? How do we classify a woman who excels at chemistry but sucks at most other forms of science? What about a guy who's whip-smart about history and an idiot about all hard sciences?

I have a brother-in-law who is a master plumber (that's an actual rank you can earn in the U.S.A.). You can't really talk to the guy, he reads nothing, he's borderline illiterate, but he's a genius with machinery. How do we quantify him? Is he stupid because he wouldn't perform well on an IQ test? Do we disregard his personal, lucrative area of genius?

Anyway. I find all "measurements" of intelligence a little dodgy, and the conclusions drawn thereof even dodgier.

I mostly pitch my tent in this same camp. I'm no academic expert, but I've been to every continent but Antartica, and seen and met people in all kinds of situations, from life-and-death to drinking beers to debating philosophy to discussing growing seasons. Sometimes I was in charge, but mostly I observed (and usually enjoyed) other people.

There's lots of dumb smart people, and lots of smart dumb people. Measuring those degrees is possible I'm told, but it has always flummoxed me. The only truly stupid people I've met are those in a rioting crowd. Individually, they were probably perfectly OK guys, but when 'group think' kicks in....

[Viking]

Changing skin colour is done in a couple of thousand years.

Really? I'd like a source for that one.


Seeing as we are so genetically similar, we can't talk about different human races.

As long as there are differences in the genetical averages, I'm sure we can. Just how big do you want the differences to be?


That someone is of the same race doesn't mean that they have to be genetically identical. Take chimps, for example. The chimp is one race, but you'll find genetic differences if you compare one population group to another, much greater than the difference in humans. In fact, you can find more genetic variation within the same group of chimps than between a nigerian and an asian.

No, but if there are genetical differences on average, then that's exactly what we're looking for.


But for those of you who still cling to past beliefs of human races; could you please define them for us? If it's so obvious that they exist, there should be absolutely zero problem identifying and classifying them.

Who says their existance is obvious?

[The Stranger]

A difficulty I have with this line of reasoning: How are we defining intelligence? 'Cause when I consider all of the myriad ways a human being may be intelligent, I get a little dizzy. Musical intelligence? Numerical math? How about somebody who is terrible at basic math but excels at more abstract formulations, as with Einstein? What about literary smarts? Engineering smarts? Practical smarts? How do we classify a woman who excels at chemistry but sucks at most other forms of science? What about a guy who's whip-smart about history and an idiot about all hard sciences?

I have a brother-in-law who is a master plumber (that's an actual rank you can earn in the U.S.A.). You can't really talk to the guy, he reads nothing, he's borderline illiterate, but he's a genius with machinery. How do we quantify him? Is he stupid because he wouldn't perform well on an IQ test? Do we disregard his personal, lucrative area of genius?

Anyway. I find all "measurements" of intelligence a little dodgy, and the conclusions drawn thereof even dodgier.

i agree with lemur. but besides that since we all have more or less the same brain, and what we ussually hold for intelligence is more educational than biological i believe, i doubt that enough time has passed for a real structural difference for being intelligent.

also i would like to see a IQ test that doesnt measure by western standards of what is important, and see the results of that.

[Beskar]

i agree with lemur. but besides that since we all have more or less the same brain, and what we ussually hold for intelligence is more educational than biological i believe, i doubt that enough time has passed for a real structural difference for being intelligent.

also i would like to see a IQ test that doesnt measure by western standards of what is important, and see the results of that.

We only roughly use 10% of our brain. Reminds me in the early days of brain scanners too, where they did a brain scan of a mathetics professor and he only basically had a brain 10% of normal size with the rest of it basically water and these results shocked the scientists.

[Lemur]

We only roughly use 10% of our brain.
That's been debunked (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp) for over a decade, so I'm surprised to hear anyone repeating it.

[Beskar]

That's been debunked (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp) for over a decade, so I'm surprised to hear anyone repeating it.

Not really, the article is more a case of debunking a specific usage of the statistic. Because I would love to see any PET or fMRI scan where they use 100% of the brain as they claim in that article. Feel free to even google "fMRI" to look at images, you will quickly see that it isn't the case at all.

Then again, 10% is very rough statistic anyway. What it is meant to imply doesn't equate with what some people want to imply. You can go above or below that statistic quite easy. It isn't as people literially only use 10% snuck in the corner as some people suggest it is.

Anyway, I know in future to refrain from using something so rough not to be associated with lack of comprehension.

[Husar]

Throw a stone in a pond, and it will create outward spreading concentric circles. You can throw several, and some circles will overlap, spread their influence to neighbouring circles. This is how I view genetic diffusion. Groups, or clusters of genetic variations, are relevant depending on what one wishes to describe. Sickle cell disease, or lactose tolerance, or whatever else. This would be akin to defining something as itself ('All X are X'). So, one can also take a patch of the pond, and describe it as a sum of what circles overlap it.
Some (clusters of) genetic variations and some patches are more sensibly described as a group.

Just discovered Venn-diagrams, didn't you?
I generally agree but most humans think in groups because thinking of 6 billion individuals is pretty much impossible for us.

[The Stranger]

what i failed to add also to Louis post, is that while it might be true statistically that IQ ratings are unequally distributed across the globe, it is also true that wealth and educational resources are unequally distributed across the globe. it is not so odd that the ratings differ. but what i would find more interesting is do the brainstructures differ? is the ability to become intelligent/smart/learn etc also unequally distributed across the globe. i doubt that this is so.

[Megas Methuselah]

evolution would predict, and tests confirm, that intelligence is unevenly distributed across the globe.

That's a pretty simplistic and ignorant conclusion (aside from vague); as TS stated in the above post:


it might be true statistically that IQ ratings are unequally distributed across the globe, it is also true that wealth and educational resources are unequally distributed across the globe. it is not so odd that the ratings differ.

Can't expect the average African to compare to the average European because of this (broad brush, I know). Stating that this is due to evolution and not inequalities in living standards is simply ridiculous.

[HoreTore]

Divide up:


Stones in a pond.

Throw a stone in a pond, and it will create outward spreading concentric circles. You can throw several, and some circles will overlap, spread their influence to neighbouring circles. This is how I view genetic diffusion. Groups, or clusters of genetic variations, are relevant depending on what one wishes to describe. Sickle cell disease, or lactose tolerance, or whatever else. This would be akin to defining something as itself ('All X are X'). So, one can also take a patch of the pond, and describe it as a sum of what circles overlap it.
Some (clusters of) genetic variations and some patches are more sensibly described as a group.



Characteristics?:
Which means I shall have to boldly go where no PJ will dare to tread, just like the Panzerjägers were fleeing in defeat before Moscow whereas it was taken and burned by the Grande Armée. ~;)


(Nearly?) all characteristics that have a heritable element have an uneven global distribution. If it is heritable, it is subject to selective pressures. If these pressures differ, then there will be different outcomes. I wouldn't want to dissapoint, so I might as well drop Little Boy II, the bomb that entangles underwear more than any other: evolution would predict, and tests confirm, that intelligence is unevenly distributed across the globe.

By what force would all human populations, placed under such vastly different evolutionary pressures, all have developed in the exact same way? By what force does evolution stop at the human brain?

Intelligence relies on the enviroment, it's not given at birth.

[Beskar]

Intelligence relies on the enviroment, it's not given at birth.

As it goes, your IQ is only the measure of your ability on an IQ test, not your intelligence.

[Lemur]

As it goes, your IQ is only the measure of your ability on an IQ test, not your intelligence.
I've always had a problem with the IQ test, and I'm allowed to diss it as much as I like, 'cause I scored very high on it, so I must be a supra-genius homo sapien superior. Here are some forms of intelligence that the test does not measure:

Mechanical intelligence
Musical intelligence
Memorization aptitude
Spatial/navigational intelligence
Humor/wit
Visual intelligence as pertains to fine arts (painting, draftsmanship)
Visual intelligence as pertains to commercial work (design, layout, art direction)
Rhythm
Hand-to-hand combat smarts (and if you don't think boxing requires intelligence, you need to spend some quality time in a ring)

I could go on, but that would require tenacity, which is another kind of intelligence that isn't measured.

[The Stranger]

That's a pretty simplistic and ignorant conclusion (aside from vague); as TS stated in the above post:



Can't expect the average African to compare to the average European because of this (broad brush, I know). Stating that this is due to evolution and not inequalities in living standards is simply ridiculous.

i agree with you.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There's lots of dumb smart people, and lots of smart dumb people. Measuring those degrees is possible I'm told, but it has always flummoxed me. The only truly stupid people I've met are those in a rioting crowd. Individually, they were probably perfectly OK guys, but when 'group think' kicks in....

Eh, I've never met any smart dumb people or any dumb smart people. Definitions are tricky I guess.

Many tasks require knowledge and practice to be able to do competently. Intelligence doesn't really deal with that, it's generally seen as a more general thing like "athleticism". You can be generally athletic, but terrible at a sport. Because to be good at a sport you have to know how to play it, and to have practiced playing it. The redefinition of intelligence that so that it can be divided into physical, verbal, mathematical, social, etc doesn't seem very intuitive to me. Although I don't know if they've ever proved the existence of some underlying general intelligence that would be comparable to athleticism (which has maybe never been shown anyway).

But it seems like in the same way that I could become a faster sprinter than all of you by training at it for years, I could become a master plumber by training at it for a few years, even if I'm not particularly athletic or not particularly intelligent.

I think the IQ test measures it well enough to be used as a predictor doesn't it? That seems fairly obvious. I don't get the backlash :shrug:

[PanzerJaeger]

what i failed to add also to Louis post, is that while it might be true statistically that IQ ratings are unequally distributed across the globe, it is also true that wealth and educational resources are unequally distributed across the globe. it is not so odd that the ratings differ. but what i would find more interesting is do the brainstructures differ? is the ability to become intelligent/smart/learn etc also unequally distributed across the globe. i doubt that this is so.


Can't expect the average African to compare to the average European because of this (broad brush, I know). Stating that this is due to evolution and not inequalities in living standards is simply ridiculous.

Just a small factual correction here. Scientists hate the fact that IQ differences exist, because it doesn't fit in with the "race doesn't matter" pillar modern society is based on. So they have tried to explain it away in every way possible, without success.

When people cite higher IQ ratings in certain races than in others, these scores already factor in geographic and economic differences, and even a "European bias". Tests done on different races in the same area under the same economic conditions confirm variations in IQ between the races with higher distinctions among higher socioeconomic groups, which reinforces the belief that IQ and intelligence developed at different rates while the races were separated.

[Lemur]

Many tasks require knowledge and practice to be able to do competently. Intelligence doesn't really deal with that, it's generally seen as a more general thing like "athleticism".
Ask any serious athlete, and he'll tell you that "athleticism" itself is a a creature of many constituent and varied parts. That's why professional attempts to change sports usually go horribly wrong.

Wit and humor are innate, although they must be sharpened and honed to make them marketable. But you ain't ever gonna make an unfunny person funny. Same thing with musicality. Same thing with mathematical aptitude.

I'd be curious about how you'd classify Cesar Milan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Millan). Ask anybody who works with animals and they'll tell you, the man is a freakish genius. Very little schooling, probably wouldn't do that well on a standardized IQ test, and yet he has an area of genius that shines like a magnesium flare. Where does he fit into any unified schema of intelligence?

That's the thing that makes me batty about generalized intelligence tests. Real geniuses tend to be highly specialized, often with a narrow area in which they advance mankind in some manner or another. I don't think Mozart, for example, would have done particularly well on these sorts of questions (http://www.intelligencetest.com/questions/logic.htm). Not saying he would have done poorly, just that his field of brilliance had nothing to do with logic, puzzles or syllogisms (Bach would be a different story). In point of fact, there is nothing in the standardized IQ test (http://www.intelligencetest.com/questions/index.htm) that would detect a Mozart. He would be just another schmoe.


Just a small factual correction here. Scientists hate the fact that IQ differences exist, because it doesn't fit in with the "race doesn't matter" pillar modern society is based on. So they have tried to explain it away in every way possible, without success.
All scientists everywhere hate this? And they told you? What were they thinking?

[Tellos Athenaios]

@PJ
Here's a thing though: are boys on average more intelligent than girls? Because boys tend to score relatively a bit higher than girls on IQ and like tests. On the other hand, boys also game the system more -- using knowledge about the question and answer model to find the correct answer.
Another: are people over 70 on average really mentally retarded? The IQ drop is quite large and known as the Flynn effect.

[Louis VI the Fat]

A difficulty I have with this line of reasoning: How are we defining intelligence? 'Cause when I consider all of the myriad ways a human being may be intelligent, I get a little dizzy. Musical intelligence? Numerical math? How about somebody who is terrible at basic math but excels at more abstract formulations, as with Einstein? What about literary smarts? Engineering smarts? Practical smarts? How do we classify a woman who excels at chemistry but sucks at most other forms of science? What about a guy who's whip-smart about history and an idiot about all hard sciences?All of these intelligences / character traits are unevenly distributed among human populations. If a characteristic is the product of heritable components, of genetic variation, it will most likely differ between populations.


Intelligence is a difficult subject. In a sense, I am not smarter than a snail. We are both equally adapt at what we do. My cognitive abilities useless to him, his to mine. But, nevertheless, we speak of me as more intelligent than a snail. This intelligence, as understood in this broad way, differs between human populations.

How would it be otherwise? It is commonly recognised that homo sapiens sapiens is more intelligent than his ape ancestors. By what mechanism did this evolution of cognitive abilities suddenly stop once humans diverged into seperate groups 60/70/150 thousand years ago? And if not, by what mechanism did all populations continue to develop in the exact same way? Rather, continue to develop mentally in the exact same way, even though all other physical traits continued to develop in diverging ways?

[PanzerJaeger]

All scientists everywhere hate this? And they told you? What were they thinking?

lol


Ask any serious athlete, and he'll tell you that "athleticism" itself is a a creature of many constituent and varied parts.

All athletes everywhere believe this? There is not one athlete, anywhere in the world, that doesn't? How do you know this?


Ask anybody who works with animals and they'll tell you, the man is a freakish genius.

Every single person that works with animals believes Cesar Milan is a genius? After your extensive research, you could find no one that works with animals that disagrees? Can you link to your findings?

Double rolleyes for you, sir. > ~:rolleyes:~:rolleyes:


Instead of jumping all over me for employing the common, yet oh-so-evil, rhetorical device of generalization, the same one that you used, not once, but twice, in the very same post, you could make an attempt at understanding the point I was making. It is no secret that after the first half of the 20th Century, the scientific community is uncomfortable with anything that could be construed as Social Darwinism, and the IQ test discrepancies between the races have been attacked from every possible angle with little success in explaining them away.



@PJ
Here's a thing though: are boys on average more intelligent than girls? Because boys tend to score relatively a bit higher than girls on IQ and like tests. On the other hand, boys also game the system more -- using knowledge about the question and answer model to find the correct answer.
Another: are people over 70 on average really mentally retarded? The IQ drop is quite large and known as the Flynn effect.

Well, the ability to figure out the question and answer model could be seen as intelligent in itself. However, I'm not trying to defend the IQ test, I was just pointing out that they were incorrect in assuming the IQ test did not factor in socioeconomic differences.

If you don't believe the IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence, or that there is any accurate measure of intelligence as some people seem to be saying, then by all means disregard it. I have yet to see a measure of intelligence that did not point to a racial disparity, but I don't spend much time looking for them either. :nice:

[Louis VI the Fat]

For the sake of fun, a genetic map (http://spittoon.23andme.com/2008/09/03/a-different-kind-of-gene-mapping-comparing-genetic-and-geographic-structure-in-europe-the-return/) of Europe.

You can have your ancestry determined almost down to a single valley.

Italians are a race of their own. Two races, in fact, north and south. Iberia is isolated. The Swiss are the peoples most closely related to the French. Within Switserland, your genetic passport will reveal which of its languages you are very likely to speak.
I am also going to remember this map, and repost it at an opportune time in some 'British politics / EU' thread. The Pyrenees and the Alps are barriers, the North Sea is non-existent. Britain is not an island.


https://img97.imageshack.us/img97/5362/novembreblogpostfig.jpg




Just discovered Venn-diagrams, didn't you? Venn-diagrams ftw! This is what I mean, yes,

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ask any serious athlete, and he'll tell you that "athleticism" itself is a a creature of many constituent and varied parts. That's why professional attempts to change sports usually go horribly wrong.

Yes I agree. But I don't think that's important here. If you take someone who's strong, fast, good reflexes, endurance, strong heart etc (all the possible facets of athleticism) there are many sports that they won't be good at. How good they are at it depends on them knowing how to play, and having all the implicit memories of how to throw a ball or swing a bat.

I think of intelligence as your capacity to do complicated mental tasks. You still have to learn the tasks, but I don't see why there would be a separate intelligence for each task.


I'd be curious about how you'd classify Cesar Milan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Millan). Ask anybody who works with animals and they'll tell you, the man is a freakish genius. Very little schooling, probably wouldn't do that well on a standardized IQ test, and yet he has an area of genius that shines like a magnesium flare. Where does he fit into any unified schema of intelligence?

He is very talented, and very skilled in a specific area. But I think you end up redefining intelligence if you say that he has dog training intelligence. Because then jugglers have juggling intelligence, and ice skaters have ice skating intelligence, etc. I think most wolf pack leaders can do what he does within their own pack right?


That's the thing that makes me batty about generalized intelligence tests. Real geniuses tend to be highly specialized, often with a narrow area in which they advance mankind in some manner or another. I don't think Mozart, for example, would have done particularly well on these sorts of questions (http://www.intelligencetest.com/questions/logic.htm). Not saying he would have done poorly, just that his field of brilliance had nothing to do with logic, puzzles or syllogisms (Bach would be a different story). In point of fact, there is nothing in the standardized IQ test (http://www.intelligencetest.com/questions/index.htm) that would detect a Mozart. He would be just another schmoe.


The IQ test probably can't measure einstein or 1000's of other very smart people. I wouldn't expect it to be good at outliers. Savants and prodigies seem to have a specific part of their brain operating at an abnormal level. So where normally increased capacity on one area is correlated with an increase in another, with them it isn't.


Intelligence is a difficult subject. In a sense, I am not smarter than a snail. We are both equally adapt at what we do. My cognitive abilities useless to him, his to mine. But, nevertheless, we speak of me as more intelligent than a snail. This intelligence, as understood in this broad way, differs between human populations.

Yeah, intelligent is different than smart. Smart implies being adapted to the environment. We contrast someone with street smarts with the absent minded professor.

[The Stranger]

All of these intelligences / character traits are unevenly distributed among human populations. If a characteristic is the product of heritable components, of genetic variation, it will most likely differ between populations.


Intelligence is a difficult subject. In a sense, I am not smarter than a snail. We are both equally adapt at what we do. My cognitive abilities useless to him, his to mine. But, nevertheless, we speak of me as more intelligent than a snail. This intelligence, as understood in this broad way, differs between human populations.

How would it be otherwise? It is commonly recognised that homo sapiens sapiens is more intelligent than his ape ancestors. By what mechanism did this evolution of cognitive abilities suddenly stop once humans diverged into seperate groups 60/70/150 thousand years ago? And if not, by what mechanism did all populations continue to develop in the exact same way? Rather, continue to develop mentally in the exact same way, even though all other physical traits continued to develop in diverging ways?

kk if that were to be true than the difference is not black/white/yellow. but much more diverse than that. basque could be much more or less intelligent than germans or samis or inuits. but this difference is never made.

[Viking]

That's the thing that makes me batty about generalized intelligence tests. Real geniuses tend to be highly specialized, often with a narrow area in which they advance mankind in some manner or another. I don't think Mozart, for example, would have done particularly well on these sorts of questions (http://www.intelligencetest.com/questions/logic.htm). Not saying he would have done poorly, just that his field of brilliance had nothing to do with logic, puzzles or syllogisms (Bach would be a different story). In point of fact, there is nothing in the standardized IQ test (http://www.intelligencetest.com/questions/index.htm) that would detect a Mozart. He would be just another schmoe.

Why does Mozart have to be intelligent; why can't he just be creative?




I think of intelligence as your capacity to do complicated mental tasks. You still have to learn the tasks, but I don't see why there would be a separate intelligence for each task.

For example, the MW dictionary says "a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)".

So if you are intelligent, I think that you essentially got flexible brain power; you have a greater ability to adapt to and comprehend new and unusual situations.

[Fragony]

IQ differences have pretty much been mapped out, we Dutchies and our German neighbours are on top with a shared average of 108. But IQ is an old fashioned concept, doesn't the daft football-player make perfect calculation before he curves a ball right into the goal. Psychologists destinguish 6 subgroups nowadays.

[Lemur]

The IQ test probably can't measure einstein or 1000's of other very smart people. I wouldn't expect it to be good at outliers. Savants and prodigies seem to have a specific part of their brain operating at an abnormal level.
Well, this is a source of difficulty for me. If the standardized IQ test cannot accurately measure outliers, savants and/or geniuses, what the hell good is it? I ask this as a serious question. If it can't catch an Einstein or a Picasso, why do we regard it as a useful tool? What is it measuring?


Why does Mozart have to be intelligent; why can't he just be creative?
Are we defining creativity out of intelligence? Gah, I hate to sound like a second-year philosophy student, but maybe examining our terms would be helpful. What do we mean when we say "intelligent"? Sasaki kinda went there already, but even his well-considered definition leaves me feeling like important bits were omitted:


I think of intelligence as your capacity to do complicated mental tasks. You still have to learn the tasks, but I don't see why there would be a separate intelligence for each task.
I just don't know about this. Why "complicated mental tasks"? Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest. To quote a Brit writer, "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." If anything, I have often observed moderately bright people getting lost in complicated sub-strata of a problem, while the scary-intelligent person cuts right to the essence with a simplicity that is wonderful to behold.


If you don't believe the IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence, or that there is any accurate measure of intelligence as some people seem to be saying, then by all means disregard it.
I do, I do, I do. There's nothing sadder than a Mensa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International) convention (and for the record, those losers asked me to join). As for an "accurate measure of intelligence," I'm not in the business of creating them, and if I were, I think I'd be depressed. What do we mean by "intelligence"? How many aspects of intelligence are we prepared to acknowledge? How do we propose to measure them in an even slightly meaningful way? I think these are non-trivial questions and problems.

The only accurate measure of intelligence, in my opinion, is accomplishment. Someone who aces an IQ test but cannot do anything of note is not functionally brilliant. Sorry. There's a combination of raw brains, tenacity, willpower, luck and skill required to get anything worthwhile done. That's my (idiosyncratic) measure of intelligence.

[Beskar]

Well, this is a source of difficulty for me. If the standardized IQ test cannot accurately measure outliers, savants and/or geniuses, what the hell good is it? I ask this as a serious question. If it can't catch an Einstein or a Picasso, why do we regard it as a useful tool? What is it measuring?

The relation of you compared to the average (100).

As people generally get smarter over generations, IQ test actually becomes more difficult as the average is higher. IQ test is meant to find underperformers in order to direct more educational attention to them so they can improve. It wasn't meant to be a intellectual e-peen size measuring contest. A proper IQ test takes a few hours with a trained educational psychologist in a pretty much, 1 to 1 environment. This isn't actually one test either, it is usually around 12 different sub-test areas measuring from short-term memory, long-term, spatial awareness, social comprehension, etc, etc. These are mainly used to examine and test people for as dyspraxia, dyslexia and other various disabilities.

Also, an IQ over 135 cannot be reliably tested.

[The Stranger]

i think he knows that...

[Lemur]

i think he knows that...
Actually, Beskar's post is helpful. If you look at the IQ test primarily as a tool for diagnosing people with learning problems, it makes a great deal more sense. As a tool for measuring an individual's (or a population's) real "intelligence"? Not so much. I guess that's why the use of IQ scores in discussions of population-specific intelligence levels always strikes me as weird.

[PanzerJaeger]

I do, I do, I do. There's nothing sadder than a Mensa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International) convention (and for the record, those losers asked me to join). As for an "accurate measure of intelligence," I'm not in the business of creating them, and if I were, I think I'd be depressed. What do we mean by "intelligence"? How many aspects of intelligence are we prepared to acknowledge? How do we propose to measure them in an even slightly meaningful way? I think these are non-trivial questions and problems.

The only accurate measure of intelligence, in my opinion, is accomplishment. Someone who aces an IQ test but cannot do anything of note is not functionally brilliant. Sorry. There's a combination of raw brains, tenacity, willpower, luck and skill required to get anything worthwhile done. That's my (idiosyncratic) measure of intelligence.

Although I personally admire the effrontery it takes to so easily dismiss every measure of intelligence and the work of those who devote themselves to the study of it while in the very next paragraph posit your own theory, I'm just not sure where that gets us.

If IQ tests measure nothing, why is there statistical variation among the races at all? Wouldn't it just be randomly distributed? Or are you saying black people have special intelligence the IQ test can't quantify, while Asian people just happen to have IQ measurable intelligence?

[Beskar]

If IQ tests measure nothing, why is there statistical variation among the races at all? Wouldn't it just be randomly distributed? Or are you saying black people have special intelligence the IQ test can't quantify, while Asian people just happen to have IQ measurable intelligence?

I like how you basically just say all black people are dumb as if it some known fact, when this is clearly not the case. The differences you are talking about are basically not existant, unless in clear cases where there is obvious reasoning behind it, which doesn't boil down to the colour of skin or "race" but infact, the environmental conditions or cultural differences which would show an obvious impact using the same blanket test in different locations.

[Lemur]

Or are you saying black people have special intelligence the IQ test can't quantify, while Asian people just happen to have IQ measurable intelligence?
Actually, since we began discussing intelligence, I haven't even touched on race. That's you bringing favors to the party, friend.

I have not dismissed "every measure of intelligence," which should be clear to anyone reading my posts, so positing my own theory is entirely in line with the questions and objections I have raised.

Instead of getting all frothy, why not take a stab at answering one of my questions? Like this one, say:


If the standardized IQ test cannot accurately measure outliers, savants and/or geniuses, what the hell good is it? I ask this as a serious question. If it can't catch an Einstein or a Picasso, why do we regard it as a useful tool? What is it measuring?

[Viking]

Are we defining creativity out of intelligence? Gah, I hate to sound like a second-year philosophy student, but maybe examining our terms would be helpful. What do we mean when we say "intelligent"? Sasaki kinda went there already, but even his well-considered definition leaves me feeling like important bits were omitted:

And I did it to; even brought a dictionary definiton. If you have a great creativity, but no intelligence to filter your ideas, then I think that you are nothing but a madman, since you will not be able to value one idea over another. Intelligence is something that is supposed to be generic; it's about spotting patterns. There does not have to be 1:1 correspondance between IQ tests and intelligence, but I don't think that IQ tests without merit.

[Furunculus]

Stating that this is due to evolution and not inequalities in living standards is simply ridiculous.

why is it ridiculous?

this is not to say that any evolutionary difference is significant, or even 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?

[Watchman]

Isn't much of what files under the various definitions of "intelligence" also the kind of stuff that you mainly develop and keep through constant mental stimulation, though ? Much the same way how linguistical skills decay without practice ?

If so, it should then be obvious that higher standards of living generally correlate to that much better access and exposure to such stimulation (and while we're at it, contribute to a better level of nutrition so your gray stuff has the energy and building materials it needs) and, hence, the developement of a more fluid and alert intellect and well-equipped "mental toolboxes" to take on problems with... right ?

And conversely if your life has been spent starving in a third-world slum where daily survival is a struggle that occupies the vast majority of your time, attention and energy, well, obviously that highbrow stuff is kind of low on the priority list...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, this is a source of difficulty for me. If the standardized IQ test cannot accurately measure outliers, savants and/or geniuses, what the hell good is it? I ask this as a serious question. If it can't catch an Einstein or a Picasso, why do we regard it as a useful tool? What is it measuring?

Well, what use is your bedroom scale if it can't measure someone who's 500 pounds? I think historically it (and other intelligence tests) have been used in education.

Lately it's been perceived as a "how much do you bench" boasting kind of thing which could be the source of the backlash I guess.



Are we defining creativity out of intelligence? Gah, I hate to sound like a second-year philosophy student, but maybe examining our terms would be helpful. What do we mean when we say "intelligent"? Sasaki kinda went there already, but even his well-considered definition leaves me feeling like important bits were omitted:

I've heard that a lot of the source of creativity comes from the senses interfering with each other chemically. Artists are 8 times as likely to by synaesthetic as the normal population or something like that. Which helps with description and metaphor.

Lateral thinking is another kind of creativity. There's a logic puzzle I've seen before that intelligent people almost always fail horribly at, and less intelligent people figure out right away. The intelligent people see all kinds of complicated answers and patterns and try to make them work, and miss the simplistic solution. In other puzzles intelligent people are just as likely to make the mistake (due to a cognitive bias of some kind) but once they see that they've made a mistake, they figure it out much faster.



I just don't know about this. Why "complicated mental tasks"? Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest. To quote a Brit writer, "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." If anything, I have often observed moderately bright people getting lost in complicated sub-strata of a problem, while the scary-intelligent person cuts right to the essence with a simplicity that is wonderful to behold.


Cutting right to the essence of a problem sounds more like a function of memory through practice than intelligence. Like when they do brain scans of chess masters playing chess and they are going by memory, while chess amateurs brains are spending tons of energy trying to figure things out. Seems like being able to see the answer simply is a function of learning how to solve problems and being familiar with the subject.


The only accurate measure of intelligence, in my opinion, is accomplishment. Someone who aces an IQ test but cannot do anything of note is not functionally brilliant. Sorry. There's a combination of raw brains, tenacity, willpower, luck and skill required to get anything worthwhile done. That's my (idiosyncratic) measure of intelligence.

Accomplishment has a very high correlation with IQ iirc. But I don't see why intelligence would be measured by achievement, as you said it requires luck and skill and willpower to achieve it. Surely if someone fails to achieve be mere chance that doesn't mean they are now less intelligent? That's kind of like saying you define height as "being good at basketball". When being good at basketball requires height, athleticism, hard work, luck, tenacity and skill.

[The Stranger]

Actually, Beskar's post is helpful. If you look at the IQ test primarily as a tool for diagnosing people with learning problems, it makes a great deal more sense. As a tool for measuring an individual's (or a population's) real "intelligence"? Not so much. I guess that's why the use of IQ scores in discussions of population-specific intelligence levels always strikes me as weird.

hmm what most IQ tests (those standard quick ones, not the real deal) measure is actually knowledge as opposed to ignorance. while their supposed to test ones ability at apprehending a situation and quickly understand and analyse the situation. and to whatever this situation may be turn it into ones benefit or bring it to a good end.

[Beskar]

but why is it ridiculous to make that statement, is it becuase it frightens you?

No, the people who make those statements frighten me, because the things they try to do ultimately because of it, like recreate the "Master Race" or attempt to express superiority over others due to a negligible difference and lack of understanding.

[Furunculus]

No, the people who make those statements frighten me, because the things they try to do ultimately because of it, like recreate the "Master Race" or attempt to express superiority over others due to a negligible difference and lack of understanding.

so it is fear, we cannot accept or discuss even the possibility of intelligence being a characteristic with heritable properties because to do so will immediately summon the second coming of the holocaust?

looks like we'll be burning the new galileo's just like we burnst the original.

[Lemur]

Well, what use is your bedroom scale if it can't measure someone who's 500 pounds?
Point of order: I know exactly what my bedroom scale is measuring (mass*gravity). Can't say that with confidence about an IQ test; indeed, that's a big part of why I'm raising so many questions and objections.


Artists are 8 times as likely to by synaesthetic as the normal population or something like that. Which helps with description and metaphor.
There must be some truth to that; a person who I know who get a full-ride scholarship to the Art Institute of Chicago told me that almost half of her class was dyslexic. Clearly there's some relationship between re-wired perceptions and visual creativity.


Cutting right to the essence of a problem sounds more like a function of memory through practice than intelligence.
While the examples you give a good and valid, they aren't what I was driving at. To draw a broad (bordering on meaningless) generalization: Some folks are a bit thick, and they don't see anything complicated as such; brighter people are able to see just how complex a problem can be; and the scary smart people are able to see how simple the root of that complexity is. With some thinkers there is a definite quality of incisiveness which I admire.


I don't see why intelligence would be measured by achievement, as you said it requires luck and skill and willpower to achieve it. Surely if someone fails to achieve be mere chance that doesn't mean they are now less intelligent?
You're quite right, of course. In my clumsy way, I was seeking a real-world correlation with (not causation of) intelligence, something with a bit more meat on its bones than these tests.

[Beskar]

so it is fear, we cannot accept or discuss even the possibility of intelligence being a characteristic with heritable properties because to do so will immediately summon the second coming of the holocaust?

looks like we'll be burning the new galileo's just like we burnst the original.

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.

[Viking]

Trying to find something in the dirt that really isn't there.

That's the key, you don't really know that.

[Beskar]

That's the key, you don't really know that.

Actually, I do. There isn't anything significant there.

However, I won't go more into it, simply because it means I have to 1) Trawl through journal articles for references, 2) I shouldn't be on the Org as I have a deadline tomorrow as it is.

[Viking]

Actually, I do. There isn't anything significant there.

However, I won't go more into it, simply because it means I have to 1) Trawl through journal articles for references, 2) I shouldn't be on the Org as I have a deadline tomorrow as it is.

Weak. 'Tis not a simple topic.

[The Stranger]

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

and if different "races" have indeed developed inequally in such a way that it can account for 40 points, what would be the reason for lets say hand-eye coordination or spatial coordination to develop so radically different?

and how can the difference between america and for instance germany be explained, many descendents of the germans live in america, many descendants of countries who score much higher on the test. is this because america is ethnically mixed and all this mixing results in an average of 98. or is it because they have so rapidly evolved (in the wrong direction)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Flynn_effect

and when IQ can rise so fast in only 80 years, how can it possibly be evolutional?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Point of order: I know exactly what my bedroom scale is measuring (mass*gravity). Can't say that with confidence about an IQ test; indeed, that's a big part of why I'm raising so many questions and objections.

Yeah, the scale measures mass*gravity*error rate for that scale. And IQ test measures questions right/time it takes or something. The quantitative aspects are pretty cut and dry. But you step on the scale ultimately to measure your health don't you? It's hard to say with confidence what "good health" is too.

But I'm not sure that's important to what sprung this line of thought. Many tests and scales don't measure outliers properly. But that's ok because they work for 99% of the population.



There must be some truth to that; a person who I know who get a full-ride scholarship to the Art Institute of Chicago told me that almost half of her class was dyslexic. Clearly there's some relationship between re-wired perceptions and visual creativity.

Yup, which is partly why I don't see the need to posit a "creative intelligence" as Gardner does. One of his quotes is:

"I balk at the unwarranted assumption that certain human abilities can be arbitrarily singled out as intelligence while others cannot"

Which is I guess the source of his argument for multiple intelligences.


While the examples you give a good and valid, they aren't what I was driving at. To draw a broad (bordering on meaningless) generalization: Some folks are a bit thick, and they don't see anything complicated as such; brighter people are able to see just how complex a problem can be; and the scary smart people are able to see how simple the root of that complexity is. With some thinkers there is a definite quality of incisiveness which I admire.

I think this is a learning thing though. Like if I watched a chess game, I would see a move as simple. If I learned more about it, I might see a ton of complexity and how it was a countermove to a countermove. If I became a chess master, I might see at simple again, because now I see that all the moves and countermoves are part of an overall strategy, and the move was an obvious defensive move.

And I would be smarter if I'd learned that much. But intelligence is generally thought of as separate from that. What I think is tricky though, is that we say intelligence is separate, but clearly certain skills are required in order to be intelligent at all. Language skills for example. And I believe IQ scores have risen over time with education.

I guess I think of intelligence as: given two people with equal motivation, knowledge and resources (i.e. everything else being equal) who solves a problem faster, learns something faster, can understand something that the other person can't grasp? Like the equivalent of a 2 Ghz processor compared to a 1.9 Ghz processor, given the same task from the same program.

[Viking]

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

and if different "races" have indeed developed inequally in such a way that it can account for 40 points, what would be the reason for lets say hand-eye coordination or spatial coordination to develop so radically different?

and how can the difference between america and for instance germany be explained, many descendents of the germans live in america, many descendants of countries who score much higher on the test. is this because america is ethnically mixed and all this mixing results in an average of 98. or is it because they have so rapidly evolved (in the wrong direction)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Flynn_effect

and when IQ can rise so fast in only 80 years, how can it possibly be evolutional?

If IQ is a good measure of intelligence, then that would mean that genes alone are not enough to explain differences in intelligence, but that is a hardly a surprise.

[Beskar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Flynn_effect

and when IQ can rise so fast in only 80 years, how can it possibly be evolutional?

It isn't, which is one of the points I have made.


If IQ is a good measure of intelligence, then that would mean that genes alone are not enough to explain differences in intelligence, but that is a hardly a surprise.

Genes play little part, if at all, anything significant. Only when you look into genetic disorders then you actually see problems and genes playing any part, but any "differences between races" is hardly there at all.

[Viking]

Genes play little part, if at all, anything significant. Only when you look into genetic disorders then you actually see problems and genes playing any part, but any "differences between races" is hardly there at all.

There has not been done any serious amount of research on this topic, there is no room for making such claims.

[The Stranger]

but claims in the contrary can be made?

in the same fashion how can the difference between iq levels of black americans in usa (around 85 i thought) and africans in west africa be explained (around 60)? can a difference of 25 points be developed in only a few 100 years? and if there is any doubt as to wether the mixing with caucasians might have caused this then i 'd like to see the numbers of the afro-americans which have not or barely been mixed and compare those to that of west-africans. and if such numbers have are not available, i think such study ought to be done before anything conclusive might be said.

[The Stranger]

I guess I think of intelligence as: given two people with equal motivation, knowledge and resources (i.e. everything else being equal) who solves a problem faster, learns something faster, can understand something that the other person can't grasp? Like the equivalent of a 2 Ghz processor compared to a 1.9 Ghz processor, given the same task from the same program.

since this is barely ever the case, how can we still make an accurate estimate of someones intelligence. and how would we calculate the impact of these differences and changes on someones behaviour and intelligence if we would try to artificially recreate the circumstances to make them identical for said 2 persons?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

since this is barely ever the case, how can we still make an accurate estimate of someones intelligence. and how would we calculate the impact of these differences and changes on someones behaviour and intelligence if we would try to artificially recreate the circumstances to make them identical for said 2 persons?

Probably you do it over a large number of people and assume a normal distribution, and then run some statistics on it. Instead of trying to artificially create the circumstances.

[Viking]

but claims in the contrary can be made?

in the same fashion how can the difference between iq levels of black americans in usa (around 85 i thought) and africans in west africa be explained (around 60)? can a difference of 25 points be developed in only a few 100 years? and if there is any doubt as to wether the mixing with caucasians might have caused this then i 'd like to see the numbers of the afro-americans which have not or barely been mixed and compare those to that of west-africans. and if such numbers have are not available, i think such study ought to be done before anything conclusive might be said.

No, not necessarily; and that's why you'll see that I never made such claims either; I have merely opened for the possibility. I don't think assessing intelligence differences due to genetics is a simple task, otherwise we know how the genes work. The impact from the enviroment also makes the tasks harder, as you point out.

[Watchman]

Given that we can't even unambigiously define intelligence...

looks like we'll be burning the new galileo's just like we burnst the original.FAIL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy).

[The Stranger]

Probably you do it over a large number of people and assume a normal distribution, and then run some statistics on it. Instead of trying to artificially create the circumstances.

like the way they did in cases of Kyrgyzstan? which seems like artificially recreating circumstances to me.

[Furunculus]

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

why?