Racial differences...

[Kadagar_AV]

Does racial differences exist?

I for one, can tell a huge difference between, say, a Bulldog and a Siberian Husky. Both when it comes to looks, of course, but also behavior. Reading newspapers and stuff, or magazines directed to dog/cat owners, the talk of race is everywhere.

But, if we talk about humans, talk about race is a no-no... "we are all one race, the human race!".

Is this really correct? I for one can see racial differences. Colour of skin, type of hair, shape of eyes... The list goes on. Is the fact that africans excel at long distance running only a cultural question? :idea2:

Is it then so far fetched to assume that the difference doesn't stop at the physical attributes, but that there also exist cognitive differences? These cognitive differences might then of course depend on physical differences in the brain...

Isn't it time to lift the taboo around this, and study it some? We have whole other techniques now than last it was tried. Hey, the science might even be beneficial in many ways in the struggle to unlock and understand the human genome.

[Fragony]

Do we really want to know, some things are better left alone imho. What can we use it for anyway.

[Kadagar_AV]

Do we really want to know, some things are better left alone imho. What can we use it for anyway.

Some uses...

1. open up another path of human genome research.
2. check what geographical conditions alters what over time, and how.
3. general findings. it is believed (but not proven) that a wide spread of DNA will enhance the human genome. IE, a "black" and a "white" would generally produce a "stronger" offspring than two of the same colour. This is however not proven as I know, as research in the topic is forbidden.

I have a friend who is biologist, he claims that biology research could gain a lot from this lien of research at large, but that unfortunately taboo/laws stop it.

*and no, I do not want to turn this into what race is better/worse/bigger/whatever*

[Fragony]

I doubt such research isn't done behind closed doors, blacks seem to better equiped against cancer and and so they are probably looking into that. Army is probably doing it as well. A 'better than' discussion can't be avoided when you do it in the open so we better don't, a little hypocracy isn't always a bad thing.

[Kadagar_AV]

I doubt such research isn't done behind closed doors, blacks seem to better equiped against cancer and and so they are probably looking into that. Army is probably doing it as well. A 'better than' discussion can't be avoided when you do it in the open so we better don't, a little hypocracy isn't always a bad thing.

This line of research is forbidden in a great many (primarily) western countries. Yours among them I might add.

I appreciate your point. However, this is laws we talk about... It is one thing that this field of studies might get out of hand on the internet (lets hope it doesnt in this topic), however, one might assume scientists would be able to dabble with this without falling into the "We are the better" trap...

Unless some race actually are better at certain things, then it might be worthwhile to learn how, and why, and how we could use that to further the human genome.

[Furunculus]

Is it then so far fetched to assume that the difference doesn't stop at the physical attributes, but that there also exist cognitive differences? These cognitive differences might then of course depend on physical differences in the brain...

Isn't it time to lift the taboo around this, and study it some? We have whole other techniques now than last it was tried. Hey, the science might even be beneficial in many ways in the struggle to unlock and understand the human genome.

no

yes

otherwise hitler will be a spector that doesn't just haunt us (which it should) but also one that actually retards human development (which it shouldn't)

[Centurion1]

If anyone says that blacks are meeting athletic because they just are I will find you and kill you.

That assumption is my biggest pet peeve, probably because I'm an athlete

[Kadagar_AV]

If anyone says that blacks are meeting athletic because they just are I will find you and kill you.

That assumption is my biggest pet peeve, probably because I'm an athlete


Thank you for your time. Clearly you put a lot of thought into that reply. Rest assured though, I am fairly confident that this thread will not lead to murder. So you are an athlete, I could never have guessed. You don't by any chance also happen to be coloured in a rather darker shade, or is that too much of an assumption?

Clearly you furthered the debate here, well done you!














EDIT: Banging head against keyboard in frustration was obviously not a very successful way of typing, so I had to fix some minor spelling mistakes.

[Hax]

Is the fact that africans excel at long distance running only a cultural question?

No.

Is it important? No.

Does this mean that non-blacks aren't as athletic as blacks? No, not necessarily, as Centurion1 quite eloquently explained.

[Kadagar_AV]

No.

Is it important? No.

Does this mean that non-blacks aren't as athletic as blacks? No, not necessarily, as Centurion1 quite eloquently explained.


So... research into the area as to how mankind can enhance their performance is not of interest?

It is not important to study the very foundation of our being?

Would you mind elaborating your point?

[Hax]

quite eloquently explained.
So... research into the area as to how mankind can enhance their performance is not of interest?

It is not important to study the very foundation of our being?

Would you mind elaborating your point?

No, that's not what I meant! I think that we should research the structure of humans and the differences in race and the influence of geographic location. But what you're doing here is calling back the age-old "nature vs nurture" debate. What I meant is that we should not pay heed to those findings too much, in case we go too far and fall back in social darwinism and eugenetics.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Maybe there are some differences, but at the end of the day there don't seem to be any major differences beyond physical appearances, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it.

[Kadagar_AV]

Maybe there are some differences, but at the end of the day there don't seem to be any major differences beyond physical appearances, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it.

So, you claim that there might be some differences, but that science at large shouldn't bother.

Clearly you have a brain for science.

[Lemur]

I have a friend who is biologist, he claims that biology research could gain a lot from this lien of research at large, but that unfortunately taboo/laws stop it.
Hmm, I wonder what field your friend is in, 'cause in the area of medicine/pharmaceuticals, racial differences are acknowledged, researched and worked with every day. The differences between ethnic groups are not large, but they are real, and medicine has to deal with them.

Going back to your bulldog/husky comparison, one of the places where that analogy falls flat: inbreeding (or "in-line" breeding, as the dog folks euphemistically put it). Many generations of small-population inbreeding were required to achieve the distinctive look of a bulldog or a dalmation or what-have-you. This is one of the reasons purebred dogs have so many more health problems than mutts. It's also the reason you see such distinct personality differences between breeds.

Now if forty-foot-tall aliens took us as pets, divided us up according to gross facial and bodily characteristics, and then did ten to fifteen generations of inbreeding for aesthetic effect, you'd see something similar. Short of that, however, the analogy breaks down.

[al Roumi]

So, you claim that there might be some differences, but that science at large shouldn't bother.

Clearly you have a brain for science.

LOL, you clearly have a brain for polite, reflective and constructive debate. That's the second arbitrary put down from you in this thread, i would begin a count down to flame war (we already had a couple of Godwins) immediately if the very topic of this thread weren't so evidently provocative... The mods be watching!

[Kadagar_AV]

Hmm, I wonder what field your friend is in, 'cause in the area of medicine/pharmaceuticals, racial differences are acknowledged, researched and worked with every day. The differences between ethnic groups are not large, but they are real, and medicine has to deal with them.

Going back to your bulldog/husky comparison, one of the places where that analogy falls flat: inbreeding (or "in-line" breeding, as the dog folks euphemistically put it). Many generations of small-population inbreeding were required to achieve the distinctive look of a bulldog or a dalmation or what-have-you. This is one of the reasons purebred dogs have so many more health problems than mutts. It's also the reason you see such distinct personality differences between breeds.

Now if forty-foot-tall aliens took us as pets, divided us up according to gross facial and bodily characteristics, and then did ten to fifteen generations of inbreeding for aesthetic effect, you'd see something similar. Short of that, however, the analogy breaks down.

No Lemur, racial differences is hindered by PC, and research on it is an uphill struggle. You are very much correct though, that the difference isnt all that big. But when it comes to, say, medicine, even small differences can have tremendous results, no?

As to why mutts are a stronger breed than "in-line" breeds, did you even read my second post? I seem to remember that I very specifically wrote that a black person having offspring with a white person will generally result in a stronger breed. How very racist of me.

We dont need any aliens to have races, you are aware that the genestock you are from at one point was down to about 15 individuals? Getting out of Africa wasn't ALL that easy you know (I assume you are a white westerner .





Alp_p>>> Oh, my put downs are rarely arbitrary. And yes I hope the mods are watching, if one of the better comes in he could explain your error. I do not mind a debate, it is just idiocy and PC propaganda I have a slight problem with.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So, you claim that there might be some differences, but that science at large shouldn't bother.

Clearly you have a brain for science.

Um... is this what I said? I'm just saying racial differences appear to be very minor, because when you take black people out the jungle they very quickly become part of white western society just like anyone else.


Alp_p>>> Oh, my put downs are rarely arbitrary. And yes I hope the mods are watching, if one of the better comes in he could explain your error. I do not mind a debate, it is just idiocy and PC propaganda I have a slight problem with.

Yeah, because Fragony and myself and the other people you are looking for an argument with are really your typical PC-loving leftists. :dizzy2:

[Beskar]

Not this thread again, we had one the other week and the week before. :wall:

[Kadagar_AV]

Not this thread again, we had one the other week and the week before. :wall:

Link me. We could be over and done with it then :)

[Beskar]

Link me. We could be over and done with it then :)

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?127691-Black-woman-single-cos-the-black-men-are-in-jail-would-you-marry-outside-your-race&daysprune=60
The topic evolves into this subject.


Also, the French are modern Neanderthals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

It is interesting that "blacks" (etc) are the purest homo sapiens. So much for genetic purity arguments by white racists.

[Kadagar_AV]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?127691-Black-woman-single-cos-the-black-men-are-in-jail-would-you-marry-outside-your-race&daysprune=60
The topic evolves into this subject.


Also, the French are modern Neanderthals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

It is interesting that "blacks" (etc) are the purest homo sapiens. So much for genetic purity.

I do not believe that topic quite covered this.

And no it is not interesting that "blacks" are the purest homo sapiens. It was however interesting way back in time when the research was published. Today it is just common knowledge, hence my reference to "getting out of africa wasnt that easy".

We had 2 groups moving out, that basically make up the rest of the world.

[Lemur]

No Lemur, racial differences is hindered by PC, and research on it is an uphill struggle.
I'd like to see a citation for that, please. And anyway, race is a rather sloppy intermediary stage between general medicine and personalized genomic medicine (http://www.slate.com/id/2198731).


A genetic allele that affects the body's response to codeine and antidepressants, for example, "is found in 9%, 17%, and 34% of the Ethiopian, Tanzanian, and Zimbabwean populations, respectively. Clearly, lumping together all of Africa obscures the differences between the populations."

The same gene varies among whites. [...] Looking at the aforementioned gene in both men, the authors point out that Watson, unlike Venter, has two copies of an allele that "is rare in the Caucasian population (3%) but prevalent in East Asian populations." They conclude: "One's ethnicity/race is, at best, a probabilistic guess at one's true genetic makeup."

In the stone age of genetics, we've often had to settle for racial medicine, such as BiDil (http://www.bidil.com/), the heart-disease drug marketed to blacks. But technology and economics are beginning to carry us beyond that phase. "The costs of whole-genome sequencing and whole-genome genotyping are rapidly decreasing," Venter and his colleagues observe. "Companies such as Navigenics, 23andMe, and deCODE will genotype 600,000 to 1,000,000 markers in an effort to offer personalized genomics; several hundred dollars covers the cost of the technology."

[Centurion1]

Oh excuse me kadagar for not having the properly pedabtc tone you so greatly desire. A polite response can be just as insulting as a rude one. I do not need to deal with your snide little put Downs regarding my athleticism. No I am white with a small bit of Chinese. What gives you the right to give me these snide little putdowns. You always like to talk about how obnoxious Americans are and I think a little lesson in hypocrisy is necessary.

Yes my post was a Tad juvenile but I dot need your snide little comments about my post.

Edit: on further reflection I realized your just a pompous *** this is your thread why don't you promote discussion by being polite rather than a snob. You obviously share no ideological values or with me as we all know but keep your mouth shut if you can't give me a bit of respect.

[Megas Methuselah]

I'm acing my classes and have a bright future lined up for myself. Big head, I've got. It must mean I am racially superior to you, right? You're only a ski instructor, right? :thinking:

Naw, my logic must be convoluted.

[Fragony]

I'm acing my classes and have a bright future lined up for myself. Big head, I've got. It must mean I am racially superior to you, right? You're only a ski instructor, right? :thinking:

Naw, my logic must be convoluted.

You are really illustrating the argument he tries to make, genuine scientific research being made impossible by political correctness. Why do you read superiority when what written says differences, it's all in your head.

[Reenk Roink]

You are really illustrating the argument he tries to make, genuine scientific research being made impossible by political correctness. Why do you read superiority when what written says differences, it's all in your head.

Good, we definitely need more of society influencing the direction of science now. Any scientist who wants to do studies on racial differences, particularly and especially with respect to intelligence - (obviously as pointed out before, genetic differences that may be helpful in diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions should be looked at more) better be scrutinized a whole lot, and the pressure from the peer community better have him interpret the results in the correct fashion of differences due to ENVIRONMENTAL factors rather than any kind of biological or genetic factors which would just be wrong.

[Fragony]

Good, we definitely need more of society influencing the direction of science now. Any scientist who wants to do studies on racial differences, particularly and especially with respect to intelligence - (obviously as pointed out before, genetic differences that may be helpful in diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions should be looked at more) better be scrutinized a whole lot, and the pressure from the peer community better have him interpret the results in the correct fashion of differences due to ENVIRONMENTAL factors rather than any kind of biological or genetic factors which would just be wrong.

Why take enviroment as a given? Not very scientific. Read my first post I am against such research, might be interesting, but no. Hate to open it up for a Godwin but it's too dangerous imho. We really don't want this debate, not yet we are still licking wounds.

[CountArach]

Please people, keep everything civil. This is a touchy subject and people are toeing the line already, so I ask that people please get right away from the line.

[Strike For The South]

The diffrences between "races" negligibile and the only reason people assume there are marked differences between them is becuase that myth is propagated by a zionost controlled hollywood media to further divide the Proletariat and keep the bugeriosie in power.

[Reenk Roink]

Why take enviroment as a given? Not very scientific. Read my first post I am against such research, might be interesting, but no. Hate to open it up for a Godwin but it's too dangerous imho. We really don't want this debate, not yet we are still licking wounds.

It is incredibly naive to think that science is not affected by the environment. Especially when you get away from Physics and Chemistry (although these too are profoundly affected by the context). In the case of incredibly vague and poorly defined attributes like "intelligence" which aren't even defined in an value neutral way let alone 'studied' in one, the environmental factors again play a huge role.

There isn't any kind of objective truth about racial differences or lack thereof for science to discover. We as a (majority - still a ton of racists :sad:) society have basically set up the fact that races are inherently equal and that environmental factors are the causes of differences. And the studies so far have overwhelmingly supported that paradigm. :yes:

Case in point, about 50ish years ago homosexuality was considered a mental illness here. With societies changing opinion on the matter, it is not anymore (though there are still those in the know that will tell you it is, but they are increasingly becoming relics of the past, and the societal pressure on them is huge).

[Louis VI the Fat]

If anyone says that blacks are meeting athletic because they just are I will find you and kill you.

That assumption is my biggest pet peeve, probably because I'm an athleteBlacks are meeting athletic because they just are.



Athletic achievement at the very highest level requires a lot of hard work, on top of an exactly right constellation of genetic factors. Maradona would never have become the world's greatest Basketball player. We will not see a woman as the world's weight lifting championship. (But, should we develop training and food enough to swim 200 kilometers, this might see a female champion, with the male competitors dropping death along the way).

Specialised athletics is a genetic freak show.

[Centurion1]

It is cultural more than anything for football and basketball

[A Nerd]

I once saw that if your ring finger was larger than your middle finger (or perhaps index vs. middle), this meant that genetically you were a better athlete than those without such a phycial trait. I don't know however, if this had anything to do with ethnicity. I am your average athlete...soooo....

[Louis VI the Fat]

I once saw that if your ring finger was larger than your middle finger (or perhaps index vs. middle), this meant that genetically you were a better athlete than those without such a phycial trait. I don't know however, if this had anything to do with ethnicity. I am your average athlete...soooo....Yes, people with longer ring fingers than index fingers are far better athletes.


Mostly, I presume, because the former are male and the latter female. (Yes, have a look at you boy/girlfriend's hands - the fingers are of different lenght. I had never even noticed it until I had read about it.)


It is cultural more than anything for football and basketball White men can't jump!

[Centurion1]

I have a higher vertical jump than anyone at my school and could dunk the end of freshman year

[Louis VI the Fat]

I have a higher vertical jump than anyone at my school and could dunk the end of freshman yearWay cool. Me, I've never even got close to being able to dunk.



The thing is, a small difference can make a huge difference at the very highest level. Take the two nearly identical bell curves below of 'dunking capacity', with 'litlle jump capacity' on the left, and 'Michael Jordan' on the right (the 'gifted area'). Neraly half of all reds are better than nearly half of all blues. But, because the top of the one curve is slightly more to the right than the other, in the top and bottom percentiles, and even more in the top 0,001%, the differences between the two groups are huge, even if the averages are very close indeed. This explains why specialised, 'single determining factor' athleticism at the top is so monocultural.

In the picture below, imagine that 'NBA level basketball' would require a gifted capacity of 130 or higher. It now becomes clear that even though red and blue don't differ all that much, at NBA level, blue is very dominant:

https://img88.imageshack.us/img88/945/dunk.jpg

[Centurion1]

Heresy! The gods will strike down your blasphemy

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Way cool. Me, I've never even got close to being able to dunk.



The thing is, a small difference can make a huge difference at the very highest level. Take the two nearly identical bell curves below of 'dunking capacity', with 'litlle jump capacity' on the left, and 'Michael Jordan' on the right (the 'gifted area'). Neraly half of all reds are better than nearly half of all blues. But, because the top of the one curve is slightly more to the right than the other, in the top and bottom percentiles, and even more in the top 0,001%, the differences between the two groups are huge, even if the averages are very close indeed. This explains why specialised, 'single determining factor' athleticism at the top is so monocultural.

In the picture below, imagine that 'NBA level basketball' would require a gifted capacity of 130 or higher. It now becomes clear that even though red and blue don't differ all that much, at NBA level, blue is very dominant:

https://img88.imageshack.us/img88/945/dunk.jpg

This is by far the best explanation I have seen of the phenomenon, both for sense and clarity.

To be honest, I don't understand why there is such an aversion to admitting that people from one place are predisposed to be better at something than people from another. It's quite clear that the human species has adapted to different environments and diverged in some fairly marked ways.

Key example: Black people are much less likely to get skin cancer, and probably other cancers as well, as a knock on.

[Centurion1]

because it invariably turns into social darwinism. Race A is smarter than Race B, etc.

dont ge tme wrong im a fan of letting all facts be known but that is inevitably always what happens

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

because it invariably turns into social darwinism. Race A is smarter than Race B, etc.

dont ge tme wrong im a fan of letting all facts be known but that is inevitably always what happens

You can't do evil, in this case supressing the truth, to prevent evil. If your moral code isn't capable of preventing social Darwinism then not performing scientific research won't stop you.

[Centurion1]

I don't disagree I'm just stating opponenets to this informations position

[Kadagar_AV]

You can't do evil, in this case supressing the truth, to prevent evil. If your moral code isn't capable of preventing social Darwinism then not performing scientific research won't stop you.

Kind of sums it up.

Very well said :)

[Reenk Roink]

To be honest, I don't understand why there is such an aversion to admitting that people from one place are predisposed to be better at something than people from another. It's quite clear that the human species has adapted to different environments and diverged in some fairly marked ways.

Well here's the kicker. It's the environmental factors that play a big part, and people sometimes fall into the trap of interpreting them as more 'inherent' differences.

Take Canada and hockey for example. Despite NHL hockey really being opened up for over 20 years in the US and Eastern Europe, the Canadians still dominate in terms of talent and depth. Team Canada's B team this Olympic year would probably be the 2nd best team. And they could roll out a C team that could easily compete with Team USA in talent. This despite the huge population difference (ditto on a smaller scale for nations like Finland vs Russia).

Another example, I remember reading about how 3rd and 4th generation Asian Americans don't do as well in their standardized tests as the first generation (indulge my sloppiness in not providing a citation, I read it a while back, you can google it). It kinda throws away any kind of genetic/biological reason for the disparity (as if the socioeconomic status of the Black and Latino minorities was not enough).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well here's the kicker. It's the environmental factors that play a big part, and people sometimes fall into the trap of interpreting them as more 'inherent' differences.

Take Canada and hockey for example. Despite NHL hockey really being opened up for over 20 years in the US and Eastern Europe, the Canadians still dominate in terms of talent and depth. Team Canada's B team this Olympic year would probably be the 2nd best team. And they could roll out a C team that could easily compete with Team USA in talent. This despite the huge population difference (ditto on a smaller scale for nations like Finland vs Russia).

Another example, I remember reading about how 3rd and 4th generation Asian Americans don't do as well in their standardized tests as the first generation (indulge my sloppiness in not providing a citation, I read it a while back, you can google it). It kinda throws away any kind of genetic/biological reason for the disparity (as if the socioeconomic status of the Black and Latino minorities was not enough).

I've heard all this before, and Loius already covered the answer. Just because the environment plays a part doesn't mean race doesn't.

[Furunculus]

You can't do evil, in this case supressing the truth, to prevent evil. If your moral code isn't capable of preventing social Darwinism then not performing scientific research won't stop you.

I've heard all this before, and Loius already covered the answer. Just because the environment plays a part doesn't mean race doesn't.

^ two most important statements made in this debate so far, and probably the high-water mark of the debate. ^

[Reenk Roink]

I've heard all this before, and Loius already covered the answer. Just because the environment plays a part doesn't mean race doesn't.

And yet we have tons of evidence suggesting environment plays the role (it's not the Asianess of the people that is getting them to outdo everyone else on standardized tests but rather the correlation seems to be how long they have been in the country) and none for race (aside from some abstract graph and some hand waving... :juggle2:)

If the Asianess of people plays a factor, why did their scores match up with non-Asians after living a long time in the country? This suggests that environment plays the role, to the exemptions of race considerations. :yes:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If environment plays enough of a role that it covers up any racial differences, then those racial differences are insignificant.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And yet we have tons of evidence suggesting environment plays the role (it's not the Asianess of the people that is getting them to outdo everyone else on standardized tests but rather the correlation seems to be how long they have been in the country) and none for race (aside from some abstract graph and some hand waving... :juggle2:)

If the Asianess of people plays a factor, why did their scores match up with non-Asians after living a long time in the country? This suggests that environment plays the role, to the exemptions of race considerations. :yes:

One example, and one known to be influenced by parental expectations; it isn't widely suggestive even. On the other hand, sickle-cell is almost exclusively an African condition, for obvious reasons, to the extent that the condition in a European usually indicates African ancestry.

So Environment is not "the" factor.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

One example, and one known to be influenced by parental expectations; it isn't widely suggestive even. On the other hand, sickle-cell is almost exclusively an African condition, for obvious reasons, to the extent that the condition in a European usually indicates African ancestry.

So Environment is not "the" factor.

But PVC. One might as well say that people with African ancestry have darker skin. This is what we are talking about:


Is it then so far fetched to assume that the difference doesn't stop at the physical attributes, but that there also exist cognitive differences?

Right? It's about assuming cognitive differences. I think it is usual to assume no difference until one is shown.

[Centurion1]

Violent sports football boxing etc are dominated by the poor oftentimes and before blacks were so dominant at such sports it was the forte of port immigrant groups like the Irish in boxing.

These kids in the ghetto grow up thinking they have to be athletic and they have t go to the pros to get UT of the Hood. Plus they spend more time outdoors playing sports than rich kids all you need is a football or basketball.

Furthermore sports like swimming and hockey are so ridiculously white dominated because they are expensive
. Hockey requires ice tint and all that gear most poor kids can't afford it and swimming you need a good pool or a team of which there are very few in low income areas.

Racial differences become negligible in comparison to cultural and environmental factors.

Good book about this is outliers by Malcolm gladwell talks exactly about the hockey situation in Canada reenk spoke about

[Reenk Roink]

One example, and one known to be influenced by parental expectations; it isn't widely suggestive even. On the other hand, sickle-cell is almost exclusively an African condition, for obvious reasons, to the extent that the condition in a European usually indicates African ancestry.

So Environment is not "the" factor.

Yeah, in that case of course, and my very first post in the thread remarked that we should definitely continue to do studies on the genetic differences in humans for the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. These are genetic factors that we have evidence for. However, we don't in the case of things like "intelligence" which is what the OP was getting at I think.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yeah, in that case of course, and my very first post in the thread remarked that we should definitely continue to do studies on the genetic differences in humans for the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. These are genetic factors that we have evidence for. However, we don't in the case of things like "intelligence" which is what the OP was getting at I think.

Sorry, have no time to make a proper reply.

Just wanted to say that this interpretation of my thinking was wrong to say the least. One might also question the intellectual level of said poster. Don't turn this debate into something mindless please, as some have tried to already.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Of course cognitive abilities differ between populations.


We don't need to look at cumbersome inductive evidence. We need only deduction.

If a trait is heriditable, and it is different between individuals, then it is subject to evolutionary pressure. So all we need is to show that cognitive abilities differ between individual people, and that there are heriditable aspects. I would show, but neither of these two is in much dispute.

It's all you need. Everything else is creationist obfuscation: the idea that evolution somehow stops at the human brain, which is the realm of the soul.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So Reenk said...


Yeah, in that case of course, and my very first post in the thread remarked that we should definitely continue to do studies on the genetic differences in humans for the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. These are genetic factors that we have evidence for. However, we don't in the case of things like "intelligence" which is what the OP was getting at I think.

To which Kadagar replied...


Sorry, have no time to make a proper reply.

Just wanted to say that this interpretation of my thinking was wrong to say the least. One might also question the intellectual level of said poster. Don't turn this debate into something mindless please, as some have tried to already.

But given the OP said...


Is it then so far fetched to assume that the difference doesn't stop at the physical attributes, but that there also exist cognitive differences? These cognitive differences might then of course depend on physical differences in the brain...

I think Reenk's conclusions do not seem unreasonable.

You seem determined for some reason to turn this thread into a flame war Kadagar. First of all you tell Fragony and myself we are too PC (um... rofl), then you start goding centurion over his athletic capabilities, and now you're saying Reenk is saying that you said stuff when you say you didn't, even though it seems you really did...

[Louis VI the Fat]

This is by far the best explanation I have seen of the phenomenon, both for sense and clarity.Cool, innit?

There are lots of fun statistics to be had with bell curves. or example, it is possible that the peak of the red curve is to the right of the blue one, but that the blue has a larger spread. In this case, despite the reds being more talented, in the extremes, the blues are the majority.

I've always wondered whether this isn't the difference between men and women in many aspects. Women are so overwhelmingly 'normal'. Most of the imbeciles and geniuses I know are men. What's more, even more rare are female combinations of the two: the clever idiot, and the confused genius. Or, as that 70's book title read: There are no female Einsteins because there are no female Jack the rippers.

[A Nerd]

Some think that intelligence is the soul. The high and mighty, the omnipotent, know all that need be known in the world. The intellectual elect who will raise humanity to new heights, sharing what they have learned, such that the evolution of the text book bibles can form a utopia that God himself (if he existed) would be proud of.

[Kadagar_AV]

Of course cognitive abilities differ between populations.


We don't need to look at cumbersome inductive evidence. We need only deduction.

If a trait is heriditable, and it is different between individuals, then it is subject to evolutionary pressure. So all we need is to show that cognitive abilities differ between individual people, and that there are heriditable aspects. I would show, but neither of these two is in much dispute.

It's all you need. Everything else is creationist obfuscation: the idea that evolution somehow stops at the human brain, which is the realm of the soul.


I was about to PC-jump you with the claim that evolution is measured in hundred of thousands of years, so there has never been enough time for our minds to divert racially.

Then I thought of our bodies clearly having had time enough to divert, and the follow up question, then why not the brain?

Only studies I have found would be ill to bring up here (Goodwin and stuff). Anyone know more about this?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Some think that intelligence is the soul. The high and mighty, the omnipotent, know all that need be known in the world. The intellectual elect who will raise humanity to new heights, sharing what they have learned, such that the evolution of the text book bibles can form a utopia that God himself (if he existed) would be proud of.It's all fine with me but don't fly airplanes into buildings and especially DON'T KNOCK ON MY DOOR ON SUNDAY MORNING

[Louis VI the Fat]

I was about to PC-jump you with the claim that evolution is measured in hundred of thousands of years, so there has never been enough time for our minds to divert racially.

Then I thought of our bodies clearly having had time enough to divert, and the follow up question, then why not the brain?

Only studies I have found would be ill to bring up here (Goodwin and stuff). Anyone know more about this?I read Cochran and Harpending's 'The 10000 Year Explosion'.


Not the best book I've read. It did have one whopping eye-opener: evoultion hasn't slowed don. Evolution accelerated the past 10.000 years. Which had never occurred to me, but which makes a lot of sense. It's been an evolutionary roller-coaster ride., what with the spread to new climates, small wandering bands, agriculture, civilisation, cities.

Consider it an anti-dote to Jared Diamond, who descibes many of these developments, but reaches an opposite conclusion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But PVC. One might as well say that people with African ancestry have darker skin. This is what we are talking about:

And? As Lous says, heritable traits...


Cool, innit?

There are lots of fun statistics to be had with bell curves. or example, it is possible that the peak of the red curve is to the right of the blue one, but that the blue has a larger spread. In this case, despite the reds being more talented, in the extremes, the blues are the majority.

I know (pleas don't use "innit" again though, it threatens to give me a migrain).


I've always wondered whether this isn't the difference between men and women in many aspects. Women are so overwhelmingly 'normal'. Most of the imbeciles and geniuses I know are men. What's more, even more rare are female combinations of the two: the clever idiot, and the confused genius. Or, as that 70's book title read: There are no female Einsteins because there are no female Jack the rippers.

Interesting thought, dunno.


I read Cochran and Harpending's 'The 10000 Year Explosion'.


Not the best book I've read. It did have one whopping eye-opener: evoultion hasn't slowed don. Evolution accelerated the past 10.000 years. Which had never occurred to me, but which makes a lot of sense. It's been an evolutionary roller-coaster ride., what with the spread to new climates, small wandering bands, agriculture, civilisation, cities.

Consider it an anti-dote to Jared Diamond, who descibes many of these developments, but reaches an opposite conclusion.

Now THAT is interesting.

[A Nerd]

It's all fine with me but don't fly airplanes into buildings and especially DON'T KNOCK ON MY DOOR ON SUNDAY MORNING

No, I will only stew within myself with you being a connotation to my own excessive degree of self-loathing. So is my evolution, and so is my religion.

[Louis VI the Fat]

pleas don't use "innit" again though, it threatens to give me a migrain.Eeeyaa! Wot yu on abowt geeza? Yu downt wan noffink a do with me den?





I will only stew within myself with you being a connotation to my own excessive degree of self-loathing. So is my evolution, and so is my religion. Wots dat mean m8? Is u bein sarky wiv me?

[A Nerd]

Wots dat mean m8? Is u bein sarky wiv me?

You make less sense than I do. Perhaps I just can't explain...

[Centurion1]

Don't bother rhy he doesn't respond to defenses he just ignores you

[Strike For The South]

'The 10000 Year Explosion' works from a flawed premise.

We all look at race through a western persective and through a western media. No wonder this thread has come to the conclusion all blacks are athletes

[Centurion1]

I dont think that......

[Kadagar_AV]

'The 10000 Year Explosion' works from a flawed premise.

We all look at race through a western persective and through a western media. No wonder this thread has come to the conclusion all blacks are athletes

I am not quite sure that your conclusion of the thread is something everyone will sign up on.


I dont think that......

Can you jump? [insert clown smiley]

[Louis VI the Fat]

'The 10000 Year Explosion' works from a flawed premise.

We all look at race through a western persective and through a western media. No wonder this thread has come to the conclusion all blacks are athletesGah! See, this is what you get if you spend time at college!

That Texas schoolbook woman is right - Texas education is liberal indoctrination.


You make less sense than I do. Perhaps I just can't explain.I'm usually a good reader. Your previous two posts went well over my head though. I've re-read them several times now, but can't figure them out.

Hey - at least you and I don't start a flamewar over our not understanding the other!!

[Reenk Roink]

Of course cognitive abilities differ between populations.

Well duh, but is there any kind of statistically significant difference between various ethnicities that is not then explained away by environment at the expense of race my Asian-American example. Forget the more problematic notions of race which would be even harder to prove. No good evidence I've seen. :juggle2:


If a trait is heriditable, and it is different between individuals, then it is subject to evolutionary pressure. So all we need is to show that cognitive abilities differ between individual people, and that there are heriditable aspects. I would show, but neither of these two is in much dispute.

What kind of deduction is this (formalize please)? You are going from individuals and then to...?

If you are just attempting to state the obvious fact that there is variation in the human population when it comes to cognitive ability and that this may be partly due to genetics (which I don't think anyone questions), then OK. :shrug:

However, I don't see how this at all lends any credence to any kind of statistically significant cognitive differences between different ethnicities/races that can is primarily explained by biological/genetic factors, which is my interest in the thread.


It's all you need. Everything else is creationist obfuscation: the idea that evolution somehow stops at the human brain, which is the realm of the soul.

First, believing that evolution stops at the level of the brain is not necessary for the dualist position (which is what I think you're getting at with the soul comment - forgive me if I'm wrong). Thank god there is still much implicit dualism in neuroscience in their unwillingness to study or speak about any kind of neural mechanism of consciousness ('covert dualism' as called by Arshavsky in his polemical ‘‘Scientific roots’’ of dualism in neuroscience because many scientists generally will not want to explicitly endorse such "pernicious" metaphysical ideas like mind-body dualism which are anathema to their naive worldview guided by the intellectually poor doctrine of falsifiability, damn you Popper!).

[Megas Methuselah]

Then I thought of our bodies clearly having had time enough to divert, and the follow up question, then why not the brain?

Got me thinking, too. Sweden has such a problem with immigrants, you accept gutter trash (that don't even speak Swedishey) of all sorts into your country with open arms and act surprised when your women are found face down in the alleys.

That's not what we do here, sweet Jesus. Must be the brain differences, eh?

[Centurion1]

I can jump contrary to popular science. Im not going to go into details about my vertical leap again.

[A Nerd]

Your previous two posts went well over my head though. I've re-read them several times now, but can't figure them out.

Ignore them. They were irrelevant to the thread. Back to topic please!! I will keep my moody sobbings to myself.

[Beskar]

I can jump contrary to popular science. Im not going to go into details about my vertical leap again.

Sports and Military knowledge (tactics, etc) are two things I can count your opinion on. :sad:

[Centurion1]

that actually made me a little proud.

and i count on you for all things britishy and communism :wink:

[Strike For The South]

Gah! See, this is what you get if you spend time at college!

That Texas schoolbook woman is right - Texas education is liberal indoctrination.
!!

Haha, My public school education was filled with communism and social wlefare

But srsly, the book looks at us as if we are simply another animal when in reality we change the paradigm so much that to compare our evolution to even a monkeys is disingenious

[Centurion1]

meaning that our evolution cannot be looked at as an animals because of intellect and how we alter our lives so drastically.?

[Strike For The South]

meaning that our evolution cannot be looked at as an animals because of intellect and how we alter our lives so drastically.?

Yes,

For example, I have seen allot of black genitals in my life and they really aren't as big as people say they are (kind of dissapointing)

Point being that we are so indoctranated from a young age that certain people act a certain way or have x advantage because of this or that, that it becomes a self fufiling propechy.

Now I agree that certain groups of blacks have more fast twitch muscle fibers while Nordics (Mostly attribtuied to the R1a1) gene have more slow twitch muscle fibers. But its a falsehood to say that all blacks are good sprinters and all white boys are destined to move heavy weight at low reps

See what I mean cowboy?

[Centurion1]

i said basically the same thing about cultural assumptions.

fits my theory of why the top white basketball players come from canada, midwest, and europe (low black populations) no one is telling them they suck/ like how i do at my school games until i teabag their heads as i dunk on them

[Paltmull]

Without having read the entire thread, and without knowing too much about this; I've got one question: From a darwinistic evolutionary perspective, what reasons would there be for certain so-called "races" to become more intelligent than others?

I think none, really. I mean, it's obvious that different environments require different physical attributes - such as dark skin in warmer climates, and pale in colder - but it's not like surviving in for example a European climate requires higher intelligence than surviving in an African climate.

[Moros]

I don't even think there are different races, I'd rather say there are just regional variants within the same species.

@Paltmull: I guess species become more intelligent when their way of life and enviroment needs them to solve more and more difficult problems especially I think when it tries to overcome them in group. Possibly when there's a rarity in food and one has to be more creative in getting it. Not that sure though, size as an evolutionary trait for example is easier to tackle.

[The Stranger]

Cool, innit?

There are lots of fun statistics to be had with bell curves. or example, it is possible that the peak of the red curve is to the right of the blue one, but that the blue has a larger spread. In this case, despite the reds being more talented, in the extremes, the blues are the majority.

I've always wondered whether this isn't the difference between men and women in many aspects. Women are so overwhelmingly 'normal'. Most of the imbeciles and geniuses I know are men. What's more, even more rare are female combinations of the two: the clever idiot, and the confused genius. Or, as that 70's book title read: There are no female Einsteins because there are no female Jack the rippers.

i think about that the same way haha

[A Nerd]

Races are borne of civilization. A sense of belonging and purpose. And when such sentiment become ambition and desire to grow (nationalism, patirotism, etc), trouble arises between two proximitous neighbors. Wishes to assimilate the other present themselves, but neither group thinkis the others ideas are suitable [they are inferior] to their own ideals and certain annimosities arise. This breeds self-fufillment and the idea that the other race is less intelligent etc., or inferior (in a number of different ways). Appearence and the like come after this arrogance. The only thing that hinders world domination, is the fact that human capabilities (physicalities) are common to all human beings, thus, there can be no racial untopia, for every man is unique in appearance (and thinking). I hope this makes sense, I wrote it on the spur of the moment.

[Viking]

Without having read the entire thread, and without knowing too much about this; I've got one question: From a darwinistic evolutionary perspective, what reasons would there be for certain so-called "races" to become more intelligent than others?

I think none, really. I mean, it's obvious that different environments require different physical attributes - such as dark skin in warmer climates, and pale in colder - but it's not like surviving in for example a European climate requires higher intelligence than surviving in an African climate.

Natural selection does not operate with reasons, so that is a moot point. Random mutations and probabilities are what that matters. If some individual is carrying a mutated gene that gives him greater intelligence, then that is a potential advantage. So if he breed, the offspring of his that also carry the genes will have a greater chance of survival, provided that they are otherwise fit. As generations passes, this gene has a potential to become more widespread throughout the population since its carriers are more clever than the individuals that lack the gene. By pure chance, or because of genetical differences between the populations already present, this process could have different paces or take different routes in the two populations. I think the random element makes the evolution unpredictable.

[Moros]

Natural selection does not operate with reasons, so that is a moot point. Random mutations and probabilities are what that matters. If some individual is carrying a mutated gene that gives him greater intelligence, then that is a potential advantage. So if he breed, the offspring of his that also carry the genes will have a greater chance of survival, provided that they are otherwise fit. As generations passes, this gene has a potential to become more widespread throughout the population since its carriers are more clever than the individuals that lack the gene. By pure chance, or because of genetical differences between the populations already present, this process could have different paces or take different routes in the two populations. I think the random element makes the evolution unpredictable.
No not completely. The enviroment is the deciding factor of what mutations are more profitable. For example most larger animals evolve to smaller animals when living in a small closed area for example an Island or in dense forrested areas. (Take the Homo floresiensis, or compare a giraffe with an okapi.)
While evolution happens random it usually alwas is a way to adapt to the enviroment. Hence the enviroment does indirectly help determing what possible charasteristics evolve and in what way. Now with intelligence it is just not that easy to determine and expect.

[Viking]

No not completely. The enviroment is the deciding factor of what mutations are more profitable. For example most larger animals evolve to smaller animals when living in a small closed area for example an Island or in dense forrested areas. (Take the Homo floresiensis, or compare a giraffe with an okapi.)
While evolution happens random it usually alwas is a way to adapt to the enviroment. Hence the enviroment does indirectly help determing what possible charasteristics evolve and in what way. Now with intelligence it is just not that easy to determine and expect.

What mutations you get is random, that's what I am getting at. Even if the the enviroment in itself does not require better cognitive capabilities, that doesn't mean that such traits aren't more favourable and will not give rise to better chances of survival.

[Moros]

What mutations you get is random, that's what I am getting at. Even if the the enviroment in itself does not require better cognitive capabilities, that doesn't mean that such traits are more favourable and will give rise to better chances of survival.

But if they don't give better chances of survival they usually don't spread over the population and eventually dissapears from it's genepool. Unless the population is really small.

Edit: unless it improves chances of mating. For example a comparison between gorilla balls (really small as there's only one male ape who get's down with the ladies) and chimps (who all try to get it down and hence have been competing for generations for having the best balls).

[Viking]

I forgot a couple of "nots" in my post, it should now be relying what I meant. A good trait is a good trait regardless of whether it was "truly needed" or not. It can make that little difference that decides whether the outcome is life or death, or when the job is to secure a good mating partner.

[Moros]

Indeed that makes for more sense. But those are evolutions that generally take longer. But that isn't an awnser to his quetion, it's rather a 'do note however'. But it still falls under lifestyle however. Like nowadays for humans, I don't think having higher intelligence ups your chances of survival/increases your offspring anymore.

[Centurion1]

No it doesn't but evolution is all mucked up. Being bigger and stronger doesn't really help either. You could make the argument in world wars that the bigger stronger faster people died off more. Because physically weaker people stayed behind a desk and the physical specimens were the actual fighters. Therefore the very strong survived along with the weak.

Though it is debatable that populations were affected enough by war even on that scale.

[Viking]

Indeed that makes for more sense. But those are evolutions that generally take longer. But that isn't an awnser to his quetion, it's rather a 'do note however'. But it still falls under lifestyle however. Like nowadays for humans, I don't think having higher intelligence ups your chances of survival/increases your offspring anymore.

The question was From a darwinistic evolutionary perspective, what reasons would there be for certain so-called "races" to become more intelligent than others? The answer is that we have a random element, and thus it is perfectly possible. The differences between different groups of humans developed long ago, at a time when life was much different. The civilisations are not that old.

I think that intelligence matters in contemporary evolution as well, it might decrease the chances of individuals doing outright stupid things which could lead to death at young age. It's not random which youth that dies in traffic accidents due to taking unnecessary risks, and this could have to do with genetics.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Intelligence does not simply run on a low - high scale. More on a useful - unuseful scale.

Different populations, under different evolutionary pressures, will evolve in different ways. Each one is fit to his environment. Cognitive traits serve a multitude of purposes. One is not necessarily more intelligent than the other. Never mind superior, no more than a polar bear is superior to a kangeroo.


One could argue that diversity creates cultural and intellectual richness.

[Viking]

Intelligence does not simply run on a low - high scale. More on a useful - unuseful scale.

Different populations, under different evolutionary pressures, will evolve in different ways. Each one is fit to his environment. Cognitive traits serve a multitude of purposes. One is not necessarily more intelligent than the other. Never mind superior, no more than a polar bear is superior to a kangeroo.


One could argue that diversity creates cultural and intellectual richness.

What I mean with intelligence is the ability to think abstract, to reason etc. It is possible to be superior in this regard. Kangaroos can be superior to polar bears and vice versa depending on which criterions you judge them by.

Please specify what you mean by "cognitive traits", it's not clear what this is supposed to mean.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Please specify what you mean by "cognitive traits", it's not clear what this is supposed to mean.Everything between your ears.

[Viking]

No, something specific. An ability that you can name.

Abstract thinking and complex reasoning rewards regardless of which environment you are adapted to. It's simply about understanding your surroundings.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Abstract thinking and complex reasoning rewards regardless of which environment you are adapted to. It's simply about understanding your surroundings.That works for you. It does not work for the mollusc, which is fantastically adapted to its demanding environment.


The Neanderthaler had bigger brains than us. Perhaps, he was smarter too. And physically more robust to boot. What he lacked, some theorise, was simply verbal cognitive capacity. So he might have lost out to people who were less intelligent than him, but still more fit.

[Lemur]

Intelligence does not simply run on a low - high scale. More on a useful - unuseful scale.
This. Precisely.

Also, "race" is an imprecise, sloppy and loaded excuse of a term, when we really should be considering genomes. Someone from South Africa will have very different genetics than someone from Kenya. What use is "race" in this context? Likewise, a Japanese man is going to have very different genes from a Thai man. So what use is "race", again?

All this race talk sounds suspiciously like a discussion of the humors, dowsing and phrenology. "Race" as such is meaningless; genetics are everything. Will we find statistical deviance between groups of genomes? Most likely. Where will this matter? Medicine.

[Viking]

That works for you. It does not work for the mollusc, which is fantastically adapted to its demanding environment.


The Neanderthaler had bigger brains than us. Perhaps, he was smarter too. And physically more robust to boot. What he lacked, some theorise, was simply verbal cognitive capacity. So he might have lost out to people who were less intelligent than him, but still more fit.

If I am careful with fire and boiling water, it is instinct and not intelligence. If I get attracted to the opposite sex rather three-legged horses, it is instinct and not intelligence. If I am good [enough] at keeping my balance, it is instinct and not intelligence. If a mollusc is intelligent, it could figure out a new way to get fed when its main source of food has gone dry.

I am well aware of the fact that intelligence alone does not make winners; it's only an advantage. One animal that strikes me as pretty intelligent, is the orca. (A) certain population(s) of the orca has developed a technique that orca populations elsewhere do not practise: they hurl themselves at beaches to catch seals. There is also an example of one single orca mother who has found her own unique way of hunting seals; the particulcar method which she uses has yet not been observed elsewhere. Such activities takes more than just creativity, you must also be aware of the dangers; and thus intelligence is needed.

If your specie runs fast enough already, there are other things that will settle whose genes that will be dominant tomorrow.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am well aware of the fact that intelligence alone does not make winners; it's only an advantage. Everything comes at a price. That's why we are not as fast as a cheetah and as strong as a horse, nor is a mollusc as creative as us. They are not worthwhile.

Abstract thinking and complex reasoning benefit you, in your environment. To others, it may be a detrimental waste. It can be a waste in general, or it can even get in the way of a more useful mode of thinking, perhaps more verbal, communicative oriented. The ability to understand how to get to that fruit that's hanging just out of reach is as important as the ability to understand and settle in-group conflict. Both intelligences vary between populations and within populations, and even the spread of variation within the population differs.

Capacity for empathy in some environments means people cooperate better, increasing their survival chance. In other environments, it may be detrimental. Agression rates may vary. Abstract thinking varies.

[HoreTore]

I have never understood why people bother discussing "racial intelligence".

The fact is, that unless we perfect the art of human cloning, we can never separate what is hereditary and what is environmental. Considering that our score on the IQ tests by army recruits have gone up over the last 100 years, how can one even make the claim that intelligence is mostly hereditary in the first place?

[Viking]

Everything comes at a price. That's why we are not as fast as a cheetah and as strong as a horse, nor is a mollusc as creative as us. They are not worthwhile.

Abstract thinking and complex reasoning benefit you, in your environment. To others, it may be a detrimental waste. It can be a waste in general, or it can even get in the way of a more useful mode of thinking, perhaps more verbal, communicative oriented. The ability to understand how to get to that fruit that's hanging just out of reach is as important as the ability to understand and settle in-group conflict. Both intelligences vary between populations and within populations, and even the spread of variation within the population differs.

Capacity for empathy in some environments means people cooperate better, increasing their survival chance. In other environments, it may be detrimental. Agression rates may vary. Abstract thinking varies.

But just how expensive is gaining that little extra bit of intelligence anyway? It doesn't have to cost much.

Humans are not that weak; I don't know how strong an animal of with our build-up could be in theory, but it's not long ago that we were hunters. Still some humans can hunt down their prey using sheer strength:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

And this is a specie that has "focused" on brain power.

[Louis VI the Fat]

But just how expensive is gaining that little extra bit of intelligence anyway? It doesn't have to cost much. But to what end? It is a waste, a detriment. I don't need to track a kudu. It is almost like asking why I don't have the hearing of a cat, or the smell of a dog.

Intelligence is not a linear process of progression, from dumb to smart as evolution progresses. It is in many ways more akin to size. Size must suit the animal, there is no such thing as a scale that runs from small / inferior to large / superior. A mouse would starve it were the size of an elephant. An elephant would be defenseless it were the size of a mouse.

Likewise, cognitive abilities must suit the entire design, suit the purpose for which it is needed. In this sense, more evolutionary / philosophically than psychologicaly, intelligence has no absolute scale.


To a dog, I am a wizard. I can tell by some supersense, without so much as a sniff, where to find canned dog food next month. To me, a dog is a wonder. What to me is an empty forest, is to the dog a world rich in information - between those trees a male karibou, hurt and in distress, passed three days ago. An olfactory system, nose and nerves, a million times more complex than mine.
(The symbiosis between man and wolf is one of the great wonders of the modern age - such a bummer it must've been for the other animals!)



Speaking of your Khoisan video: would they be more genetically disposed to wander around outside, to be in the company of a small band of men, more disposed to seek reward on a short timescale, than me? I must say I can't help but wonder. The implications are devastating. If true, then far from maintaining respect and equality, taboos surrounding differences create inequality if the basic premise of genetic equality is false. For one, it can force the minority to act as the majority, resulting in the minority being forced to abstain from what it excells in, and forced to do what it is lacking in.
If I were to be transported to a society where most everybody is better in tracking, but worse in verbal expression, I'd hate to be told I'm equal only for me to have twenty hours of tracking courses in school and two hours of language courses - because odds are, a society that breeds trackers, is organised around tracking. I would be had in this scenario! I'd be considered a dumbass when I'm really not. I would get frustrated, skip school, hang outside, be agressive.


I predict a coming collision between the accumulating body of scientific data regarding human evolution and differentiation, and the PC shibboleth that all men and all populations are exactly equivalent. This last assumption has become so deeply ingrained in science and society that it is a complete career destroyer to publicly question the idea.
The result of this, however, is that philosophy, politics and ethics are not at all equipped to deal with inequality. And hence seek to keep the genie in the bottle for as long as possible. Whereas I would take Napoleon's approach: one must accept the inevitable, and work it towards one's advantage.

[Viking]

But to what end? It is a waste, a detriment. I don't need to track a kudu. It is almost like asking why I don't have the hearing of a cat, or the smell of a dog.

It's not a waste, because it has a greate possibility of being beneficial. That's not to say that other traits could be much more beneficial, such that the intelligence remains unchanged for the most part while species evolve.


Intelligence is not a linear process of progression, from dumb to smart as evolution progresses. It is in many ways more akin to size. Size must suit the animal, there is no such thing as a scale that runs from small / inferior to large / superior. A mouse would starve it were the size of an elephant. An elephant would be defenseless it were the size of a mouse.

That's how you like to define intelligence, but with other definitions it can more easily be viewed as a linear scale.


To a dog, I am a wizard. I can tell by some supersense, without so much as a sniff, where to find canned dog food next month. To me, a dog is a wonder. What to me is an empty forest, is to the dog a world rich in information - between those trees a male karibou, hurt and in distress, passed three days ago. An olfactory system, nose and nerves, a million times more complex than mine.
(The symbiosis between man and wolf is one of the great wonders of the modern age - such a bummer it must've been for the other animals!)

Are you going to call dogs intelligent? Molluscs too?



Speaking of your Khoisan video: would they be more genetically disposed to wander around outside, to be in the company of a small band of men, more disposed to seek reward on a short timescale, than me? I must say I can't help but wonder. The implications are devastating. If true, then far from maintaining respect and equality, taboos surrounding differences create inequality if the basic premise of genetic equality is false. For one, it can force the minority to act as the majority, resulting in the minority being forced to abstain from what it excells in, and forced to do what it is lacking in.
If I were to be transported to a society where most everybody is better in tracking, but worse in verbal expression, I'd hate to be told I'm equal only for me to have twenty hours of tracking courses in school and two hours of language courses - because odds are, a society that breeds trackers, is organised around tracking. I would be had in this scenario! I'd be considered a dumbass when I'm really not. I would get frustrated, skip school, hang outside, be agressive.

Is it necessarily the ones at the highest end of the IQ scale who fare the best in human society? You would perhaps have been labeled a dumbass, but successful =/= intelligent. I think that intelligence can help in learning the skill of tracking (it's kind of an abstract concept), but if they had instincts or prior knowledge and/or experience that you don't have, then you'll probably be lacking.

[Paltmull]

The question was From a darwinistic evolutionary perspective, what reasons would there be for certain so-called "races" to become more intelligent than others? The answer is that we have a random element, and thus it is perfectly possible. The differences between different groups of humans developed long ago, at a time when life was much different. The civilisations are not that old.

I think that intelligence matters in contemporary evolution as well, it might decrease the chances of individuals doing outright stupid things which could lead to death at young age. It's not random which youth that dies in traffic accidents due to taking unnecessary risks, and this could have to do with genetics.

Whoops, I'd forgotten that i had posted here. Started quite a discussion...

Anyway, I had about the same argument as that of Moros in mind. Even though there is a random element; doesn't evolution still tend to be very 'deterministic'? The advantage that higher intelligence (however we define that) gives will need to be very significant in order for it to become an evolutionary factor. If not, it will simply stay on an individual level. And, as I said earlier, since different enviroments probably didn't require different "levels" of intelligence, all "races" are most likely similar in this area.

[A Nerd]

I beleive the body evolves, the mind learns. The idea of race is body types and appearances changing over the years and the minds ability to interpret it. Seemingly, in a sense of superiority over another more times than not.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I believe that we are part of the same clinal species, which has had a tendency toward further speciation until the upswing in global trade 6000 years ago. I believe that we are now becoming more ethnically similar day by day.

To deny that there are differences between racial groups is absurd. The recent studies that sugest that northern europeans, southern asians, eastern asian and pacific islanders are comprised of DNA from separate species of human beings highlights what we all know to be true, in spite of well meaning political correctness. We are very different, but what makes us different is nowhere near as imense or important as what makes us all the same.

[Lemur]

It's high time this thread addressed the real threat: Humanimals:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u_HaetTyyw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tws4jfJQPT8

[miotas]

To deny that there are differences between racial groups is absurd. The recent studies that sugest that northern europeans, southern asians, eastern asian and pacific islanders are comprised of DNA from separate species of human beings highlights what we all know to be true, in spite of well meaning political correctness. We are very different, but what makes us different is nowhere near as imense or important as what makes us all the same.

Different subspecies perhaps, like a dog is a subspecies of wolf. If we were different species however, then interbreeding would either produce no offspring, or infertile offspring.

[Beskar]

Evil Furries and their beastiality ways.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Let's be obscure:



It's high time this thread addressed the real threat: HumanimalsNo species sees its own as just another species, but as a standard, as normal, as individuals. To a dog, all cats and all humans are just that - cats and humans. He will recognise different individuals, but they are all the same to him. A dog is something more, a person, a person with which he is in competition with, with which he has intimite relationships with, persons governed by the same passions as he himself. The only species of the same ontological plane as him, above, at least separate from, all other animals. so much so, that one can wonder if a dog recognises himself as an animal.

Humans are so accustomed to seeing humans as individuals - to focus on slightly different hairlines, eyes, facial expressions, the recognition of all which is hardwired - that it is easy to not see that we are just an animal like all the others. An ape, just another ape. These pictures should hopefully confuse the reader:


https://img408.imageshack.us/img408/7891/127ayt.jpg


https://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5087/homme2.jpg


https://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6974/homme.jpg


https://img686.imageshack.us/img686/416/chimp.jpg



How many of the above are human?

One of them is not human: It is that poor mutated hairless chimp in the last picture.

A mutation that several hundred thousand years ago became dominant in humans.

[Viking]

Whoops, I'd forgotten that i had posted here. Started quite a discussion...

Anyway, I had about the same argument as that of Moros in mind. Even though there is a random element; doesn't evolution still tend to be very 'deterministic'? The advantage that higher intelligence (however we define that) gives will need to be very significant in order for it to become an evolutionary factor. If not, it will simply stay on an individual level. And, as I said earlier, since different enviroments probably didn't require different "levels" of intelligence, all "races" are most likely similar in this area.

I don't know. Different enviroments are different, and so you get possibilities - they don't have to be big.





https://img686.imageshack.us/img686/416/chimp.jpg

It is that poor mutated hairless chimp in the last picture.

A mutation that several hundred thousand years ago became dominant in humans.

I don't know about that, the average human is hairier.

[Beskar]

I don't know about that, the average human is hairier.

That chimp makes me look as hairy as a sheep.

[Louis VI the Fat]

That chimp makes me look as hairy as a sheep.I think we must appear terribly bizarre and ugly to other apes. Bunch of freaks, we are.


https://img64.imageshack.us/img64/4486/ouah.jpg



https://img697.imageshack.us/img697/3226/humanzee.jpg







I don't know about that, the average human is hairier. You mean, mostly hairless body, but with facial hair? Sure:



https://img541.imageshack.us/img541/6894/beardchimp.jpg




(Don't feel inferior. Chimp females have certain 'preferences' that have had a profound effect on male chimp anatomy)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Let's be obscure:


No species sees its own as just another species, but as a standard, as normal, as individuals. To a dog, all cats and all humans are just that - cats and humans. He will recognise different individuals, but they are all the same to him. A dog is something more, a person, a person with which he is in competition with, with which he has intimite relationships with, persons governed by the same passions as he himself. The only species of the same ontological plane as him, above, at least separate from, all other animals. so much so, that one can wonder if a dog recognises himself as an animal.

Humans are so accustomed to seeing humans as individuals - to focus on slightly different hairlines, eyes, facial expressions, the recognition of all which is hardwired - that it is easy to not see that we are just an animal like all the others. An ape, just another ape. These pictures should hopefully confuse the reader:


https://img408.imageshack.us/img408/7891/127ayt.jpg


https://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5087/homme2.jpg


https://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6974/homme.jpg


https://img686.imageshack.us/img686/416/chimp.jpg



How many of the above are human?

One of them is not human: It is that poor mutated hairless chimp in the last picture.

A mutation that several hundred thousand years ago became dominant in humans.

Oh come on, number one isn't human, two I can believe, and three clearly is human.

[Moros]

I think number one is supposed to be a reconstruction of an australopithecus (afarensis?) which would be one of our evolutionary ancestors. But if that's the case were talking about a complete different species. Which even if there would be one a live and some man/woman was so disgusting to want to make a child with it, it wouldn't even be possible. Either way I fail to see how similar species have anything to do with racial differences. (talking just about the pics, not the dog analogy)

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think number one is supposed to be a reconstruction of an australopithecus (afarensis?) which would be one of our evolutionary ancestors. But if that's the case were talking about a complete different species. Which even if there would be one a live and some man/woman was so disgusting to want to make a child with it, it wouldn't even be possible. Either way I fail to see how similar species have anything to do with racial differences. (talking just about the pics, not the dog analogy)It is a Paranthropus boisei. Humanoid more than human, perhaps.

It has got to do with racial differences because it makes the point just to what extent humans are animals, and thus evolving under evolutionary impulses like the rest of the natural world..
I think there are two reasons for the prevailing idea that all humans are equal in mind: firstly, out of trauma from the racism of the past two centuries or so. Human dignity has been philosophically and socially understood to mean human equality.
Secondly, because of secular creationism. That is, the idea that the human mind is excempt from evolutionary impulse. Even otherwise atheist Darwinists are still in the grip of the idea of human exception. Of the idea that the mind functions as a soul: the area of man that trancends evolution, that belongs to a different plane, excempt from such beastly affairs as evolutionary impulse. Often understood as the idea that the human mind has been somehow excempt from evolutionary forces ever since humanity split up some 60/150 thousand years ago. It is sheer creationism. The full implications of Darwin's dangerous idea are still not fully sunk in, the uglyness of man as ape is still not fully accepted.



even if there would be one a live and some man/woman was so disgusting to want to make a child with it,That's speciecism. Why the aversion to mating with boisei? What is disgusting about it? Fear of miscenegation? Fear yhat your pure, beautiful little species might become contaminated with alien blood?




All of which begs the question, what is a human? Only modern man? What of the other humans that we genocided, such as Neanderthals, Flores people, and that new Siberian man, who all lived until very recently ago?

What would happen if they were alive today? We probably can produce fertile offspring with at least the Neanderthals, they at least ought to be classified as humans. What if they were around today? Are they part of the 'all human populations are equal' paradigm? Should we genocide them all, save for a handful to be kept in zoos? (As we are doing with other apes)
What of human-Neanderthal hybrids? (Some argue that quite a few people are partly descended from Neanderthals!)

[Lemur]

I think we must appear terribly bizarre and ugly to other apes. Bunch of freaks, we are.
Nonsense. We are the midpoint between God and animals, lower than the seraphim but higher than the badger. It's all about the Great Chain of Being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being).

https://i.imgur.com/D7UCP.jpg

[Tellos Athenaios]

No species sees its own as just another species, but as a standard, as normal, as individuals. To a dog, all cats and all humans are just that - cats and humans. He will recognise different individuals, but they are all the same to him. A dog is something more, a person, a person with which he is in competition with, with which he has intimite relationships with, persons governed by the same passions as he himself. The only species of the same ontological plane as him, above, at least separate from, all other animals. so much so, that one can wonder if a dog recognises himself as an animal.

There are numerous issues with your example: the relationship between dog and human is explicitly that of the family: the only social mechanism wolfs understand (a pack is little more than an extended family which bands together to hunt large prey, the social bonding lasts only for as long as the source of prey does). It might in fact come to regard other pets in your household as part of the same family. Within this family (or pack) there is a certain competition for the spot of top dog, and ill-disciplined dogs do display signs of competition towards their incompetent owners.

The fact that dogs bark towards humans (rather than growl) at first suggest that dogs treat us as dogs, not as humans and they'll proceed to sniff where they figure your genitals are. By contrast cats definitely understand the divide between humans and cats because they employ a different type of communication (the meow) towards us than they do towards other cats, and they will not approach until they have verified you are not a threat to them.

The real problem is however that dogs do not have any memory or intelligence anywhere near powerful enough to engage in such reflection. Dogs are every bit as devoid of intellectual thought as ants are , and considerably less clever than cats or pidgeons (both species have to perform far more complex mental exercises to survive).
Perhaps even more so as a colony of ants is capable of far more complex and intelligent behaviour than dogs are: as a colony ants are able to farm and herd and they perform accounting of the number of ants trespassing on their territory.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All of which begs the question, what is a human? Only modern man? What of the other humans that we genocided, such as Neanderthals, Flores people, and that new Siberian man, who all lived until very recently ago?

What would happen if they were alive today? We probably can produce fertile offspring with at least the Neanderthals, they at least ought to be classified as humans. What if they were around today? Are they part of the 'all human populations are equal' paradigm? Should we genocide them all, save for a handful to be kept in zoos? (As we are doing with other apes)
What of human-Neanderthal hybrids? (Some argue that quite a few people are partly descended from Neanderthals!)

You are making an unfounded assumption, that Neandathal-Us hybrids are themselves fertile, and that we are therefore part of the same species. Your argument is provocative, but not very logical.

Killing other Apes is not the same as killing humans, and trying to draw equivolence does your case no good. Much better to say that killing other animals is generally bad, as is destroying their habitat, or destruction of any kind.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You are making an unfounded assumption, that Neandathal-Us hybrids are themselves fertile, and that we are therefore part of the same species. Your argument is provocative, but not very logical.Research is developing at an astonishing pace. This month's New Scientist described new research that indicates that we are indeed hybrids.

I myself am very proud of my Neanderthal origin:




Any human whose ancestral group developed outside Africa has a little Neanderthal in them – between 1 and 4 per cent of their genome, Pääbo's team estimates. In other words, humans and Neanderthals had sex and had hybrid offspring. A small amount of that genetic mingling survives in "non-Africans" today: Neanderthals didn't live in Africa, which is why sub-Saharan African populations have no trace of Neanderthal DNA.
It's impossible to know how often humans invited Neanderthals back to their cave (and vice versa), but the genome data offers some intriguing details.
"It must have been at least 45,000 years ago," says David Reich (http://genepath.med.harvard.edu/%7Ereich/), a geneticist at Harvard Medical School who was involved in the project. That's because all non-Africans – be they from France, China or Papua New Guinea – share the same amount of Neanderthal DNA, suggesting that interbreeding occurred before those populations split. The timing makes the Middle East the likeliest place where humans leaving Africa and resident Neanderthals did the deed.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18869-neanderthal-genome-reveals-interbreeding-with-humans.html?page=1





The Neanderthal does pose fine questions. They are clearly different from modern humans, but are still most definately human.

Their skulls are so different from us, that they in all likelyhood had very different cognitive abilities. Yet they produced fertile offspring with humans, they are the same species as us. The question is whether they are not better described as a different human race.


Neanderthals had bigger brains. Perhaps they were more intelligent than us. Usually, it is hypothesised that they lacked in verbal capacity. Which makes for the intruiging possibility that superior peoples were driven to instinction by us, by our more ant-like, or network intelligence.
If one can not easily verbally exchange ideas, then the individual needs a lot of creativity, spontaneous problem solving ability. This, the Neanderthal may have excelled in.

Of course, the real winner would be a population that adopted aspects of the Neanderthal's superior brain. Incorporated, say, a few percent of their genes into their own design. Interestingly, the great artistic revolution of modern man ocurred around the same time that the interbreeding with the Neanderthal occured. Could your innate desire to express yourself non-verbally, to convey ideas non-verbally, be your inner Neanderthal? Is not the caveman brute, but Picasso the true face of the Neanderthal?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Nonsense. We are the midpoint between God and animals, lower than the seraphim but higher than the badger. It's all about the Great Chain of Being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being).

I have this hierarchy in my mind. A pidgeon over a cockroach. A cat over a bird. An ape over a cat.

I do stop there. There is more glory in being a rising ape than a fallen angel.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Neanderthals had bigger brains. Perhaps they were more intelligent than us. Usually, it is hypothesised that they lacked in verbal capacity. Which makes for the intruiging possibility that superior peoples were driven to instinction by us, by our more ant-like, or network intelligence.
If one can not easily verbally exchange ideas, then the individual needs a lot of creativity, spontaneous problem solving ability. This, the Neanderthal may have excelled in.

Neanderthals appear to have created superior tools with less labour and less material required to create them which also produced better results when wielded. (It's easier & faster to cut some hides with Neanderthal toolkits than it is with those made by “our ancestors”.)


Of course, the real winner would be a population that adopted aspects of the Neanderthal's superior brain. Incorporated, say, a few percent of their genes into their own design. Interestingly, the great artistic revolution of modern man ocurred around the same time that the interbreeding with the Neanderthal occured. Could your innate desire to express yourself non-verbally, to convey ideas non-verbally, be your inner Neanderthal? Is not the caveman brute, but Picasso the true face of the Neanderthal?

No, as far as we know it is the exact opposite. The Neanderthals appear to have had no interest in the fine arts whatsoever, judged by the fact that in the German cave systems where Neanderthals and “our ancestors” lived in close proximity you can pretty much identify which cave belonged to which group by the simple expedient of checking for the existence of artwork/musical instruments. If such artifacts are present then it is not a Neanderthal cave. Similarly rock paintings are not a Neanderthal past time either. (Despite the fact that the populations of Neanderthals during the occupation of those German caves would've been higher than that of “our ancestors” who were pretty much new to the area.)

Further these objects show marked similarity so it would seem that what is really going on is that “our ancestors” maintained much larger social networks (family ties, perhaps) and engaged in art and music as means to express ideas and/or reinforce such ties which presented a much more rapid spread of new ideas, news and technology among “our ancestors” than Neanderthals; so that the Neanderthals were effectively obsoleted (and as time wore on it meant inbreeding with attending health problems was probably a powerful factor too) rather than driven into extinction per se.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have this hierarchy in my mind. A pidgeon over a cockroach. A cat over a bird. An ape over a cat.

I do stop there. There is more glory in being a rising ape than a fallen angel.

On the other hand, only Angels know when they are fallen. Self-awareness is an extraordinary gift.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On the other hand, only Angels know when they are fallen. Self-awareness is an extraordinary gift.
Amen I say to you, Amen.

[drone]

Further these objects show marked similarity so it would seem that what is really going on is that “our ancestors” maintained much larger social networks (family ties, perhaps) and engaged in art and music as means to express ideas and/or reinforce such ties which presented a much more rapid spread of new ideas, news and technology among “our ancestors” than Neanderthals; so that the Neanderthals were effectively obsoleted (and as time wore on it meant inbreeding with attending health problems was probably a powerful factor too) rather than driven into extinction per se.

https://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2384/neanderthalbusiness.jpg

[Louis VI the Fat]

On the other hand, only Angels know when they are fallen. Self-awareness is an extraordinary gift.I see this as trying to climb back onto the tree, back to the nest, to relieve oneself of responsibility.

Is there, in all of the world's thousand's of religious tales, a story more glorious than that of the monkey that dared to leave the shelter of the trees. That saw the wide open plains, and ventured out there. That erected itself, that he could gaze upon the horizon and see the stars?
The microscope is my temple, discovering the very matter we are made of. The telescope, gazing at the very origin of the universe, is my cathedral, soaring upwards to the heavens.

What glory to the man who dares to let go of his mother's hand, dares to let go of master and god, who stands tall, walks proud and upright!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That saw the wide open plains, and ventured out there. That erected itself, that he could gaze upon the horizon and see the stars?

Why does man look up at an empty sky? What other creature does that?

[Louis VI the Fat]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Philipus, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.*


The heavens are not empty, once devoid of almighty beings, these illusory projections of oneself, these mirrors and mirages.

The heavens, once freed, are vast, rich, overwhelming. Enobling.


*Contrary to dominant - but in my opinion, unforgivably mistaken - tradition, here with the emphasis on 'your'.

[A Nerd]

If I may interject, I had to, smelled philosophy...

Imagination is God, if you beleive in it than it is true. Infinate wisdom and possibility is a reality if you reach out to the extended hand of thought.

Continue now, I hope I didn't derail the thread! :)

[Louis VI the Fat]

If I may interject, I had to, smelled philosophy...

Imagination is God, if you beleive in it than it is true. Infinate wisdom and possibility is a reality if you reach out to the extended hand of thought.

Continue now, I hope I didn't derail the thread! :)Would you be awfully disappointed if I'd say that one who conflates imagination with reality suffers from a symptom of Schizophrenia that attempts to make sense within a severe thought disorder?

There are pills for that.



More to the point, different races suffer from schizophrenia at different rates. :balloon2:

[A Nerd]

Would you be awfully disappointed if I'd say that one who conflates imagination with reality suffers from a symptom of Schizophrenia that attempts to make sense within a severe thought disorder?

Every tangible reality begins with a delusional imagination. If one was to say that good fortune and opportunitiy could be achieved just by thinking (imagining) about how to attain it, then I would be proud to have schizophrenia and would refuse the medication some inanimate object told me to take. How did said object develop such a medication however? I guess such delusions of grandgieur are innate.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I was perhaps a tad too cruel.

Reality is in many ways perception of reality. This I agree with. However, if I perceive myself to be a hummingbird and fly off the Eiffel tower in pursuit of nectar, reality has means to prove me otherwise. :balloon2:


More's the better, then, for the existence of the Backroom, where I can perceive myself to be a Richard Leakey, Milton Friedman, Derrida and Habermas alike, undounted by reality's rather more limited means here to prove me otherwise, limited as they are to mere blatant facts to the contrary, which I can stubbornly persist in perceiving not to exist. Bless the human imagination. Maybe there is a benevolent God after all.



I guess such delusions of grandgieur are innate. I think I shall have little trouble in convincing the regular Backroom visitor that 'innate delusions of grandeur' are more prevalent among certain European races than others. :beam:

[A Nerd]

However, if I perceive myself to be a hummingbird and fly off the Eiffel tower in pursuit of nectar, reality has means to prove me otherwise

You're being to rigid. Reality is real to he who thinks it. If you think you are a hummingbird, you are a hummingbird. The hummingbird will fly forever and as gracefully as he thinks he can. THis leads us to the outside viewer who is witness to his own reality (and is also witnessing the hummingbird, or lack there of). You are not a hummingbird and will fall to the ground and meet your death. True I suppose, but the hummingbird still flys. How can one be aware of death if his reality has no cognition there of? Perhaps in an afterlife he still flys...perhaps in a lack of an afterlife he is unaware that he still flys, there seems to be little difference. Before I lose myself (need more input) let's go here: How long is a reality? A lifetime? A second? How long is how long? The hummingbird flew for 34 years (the age of the observer) as he fell off the tower. To conceive thought in another person's brain and try to make it similar to your thought pattern is impossible. A rigid reality affects your five physical senses, a flux reality affect the infinate number of the remaining non physical senses. The overly simplified convolution that is mental science will tell you in text that these exist only in delusion. Delusion provides insight into a certain sense of creativity with out effort, and effortlessness to which some want to study and vainly categorize. He who quoted 'I think therefore I am' must have been bipolar (or schizo, etc) according to some. Hopefully I made sense, I forgot to take my meds today. Oh, when you breathe, take time to think, the air that keeps you alive might not be there. ;)

[Hosakawa Tito]

"Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind. One said, "The flag moves." The other said, "The wind moves." They argued back and forth but could not agree.The Sixth Ancestor said, "Gentlemen! It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves." The two monks were struck with awe."- The Mumonkan Case 29, translation by Robert Aitken:bow:

[Beskar]

Reality is what multiple people can observe independently.

However, I sometimes wonder that in the "eyes of other people" as it were, you find out that your version of 'red' is actually 'green' to them, or weird and interesting differences between the minds observing the same thing.

[A Nerd]

you find out that your version of 'red' is actually 'green' to them

I've actually thought about this, it could be true. Also, should one beleive that the sense of touch and the sense of sight are in agreement, considering the understanding of the environment? Does the hand feel form and consistancy as the eye persieves it? Or if the hand had eyes or the eyes had hands would the appearance be starkly different? Not to mention what one person sees as beautiful or touches with pleasure might not be the same to another that sees or touches the same thing.


"Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind. One said, "The flag moves." The other said, "The wind moves." They argued back and forth but could not agree.The Sixth Ancestor said, "Gentlemen! It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves." The two monks were struck with awe."-

Is every man in a vegetative state merely being entertained by a mind that can percieve light in darkness? Sort of like that movie about WWI...I think it was called 'Johnny get your gun' but I can't remember. Great flick none the less.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Is every man in a vegetative state merely being entertained by a mind that can percieve light in darkness? Sort of like that movie about WWI...I think it was called 'Johnny get your gun' but I can't remember. Great flick none the less.

"Johnny Got His Gun." Depressing, but brilliant flick.

[Ironside]

I've actually thought about this, it could be true. Also, should one beleive that the sense of touch and the sense of sight are in agreement, considering the understanding of the environment? Does the hand feel form and consistancy as the eye persieves it? Or if the hand had eyes or the eyes had hands would the appearance be starkly different? Not to mention what one person sees as beautiful or touches with pleasure might not be the same to another that sees or touches the same thing.


Colours have a meassurable effect on the mind that's fairly general (red, yellow "warm colours. Makes you active", Green, Blue "cold colours. Makes you calm". Green clothes to reduce the efffect of blood stains etc) so colours do seem to be a more general perception.

The difference between touch and eye sight is quite drastical though. One of the biggest is that unlike touch, anything you see looks different from a different angle. Sincce your brain has worked with this during your entire growth, you won't usually notice it. But it is somewhat of a problem for those who regain sight after being without it for a few decades.

[A Nerd]

The difference between touch and eye sight is quite drastical though. One of the biggest is that unlike touch, anything you see looks different from a different angle. Sincce your brain has worked with this during your entire growth, you won't usually notice it. But it is somewhat of a problem for those who regain sight after being without it for a few decades.

It would seem like the sense that is most dominant and most heavily relied upon isn't necessarialy be the most accurate. Perhaps that's why blind people can sometimes 'amazingly' get around with such little effort. I was watching a documentary once where these bind fellows could get around, even ride bicycles and the like, by making clicking sounds remenicient to what bats do and had no effort moving about in real world environments! It was quite interesting.


"Johnny Got His Gun." Depressing, but brilliant flick

Thank you for the correction. One of my favorite movies!

[Ironside]

It would seem like the sense that is most dominant and most heavily relied upon isn't necessarialy be the most accurate. Perhaps that's why blind people can sometimes 'amazingly' get around with such little effort. I was watching a documentary once where these bind fellows could get around, even ride bicycles and the like, by making clicking sounds remenicient to what bats do and had no effort moving about in real world environments! It was quite interesting.


Those pictures you don't understand what they are showing, until you have a sudden realation and can now see it? That's the starting position for the whole world for eye sight. So it will go something like oh that "blur is a face" at the start. Can be worth mentioning that those returning eye sight surgeries are often causing (sometimes suecidal) depression for the patients. That blurry eye sight is still too dominant to go back and it can still cost you the confidence you had with your other senses, without giving you confidence with your eye sight.

[A Nerd]

Those pictures you don't understand what they are showing, until you have a sudden realation and can now see it? That's the starting position for the whole world for eye sight. So it will go something like oh that "blur is a face" at the start. Can be worth mentioning that those returning eye sight surgeries are often causing (sometimes suecidal) depression for the patients. That blurry eye sight is still too dominant to go back and it can still cost you the confidence you had with your other senses, without giving you confidence with your eye sight.

I can understand how much of a shock it must be. Considering whatever the world 'looked like' when the blind person couldn't see, then all of a sudden when sight is gained, everything could perhaps look very different for what they previously had perceived. It must be frightening and confusing, no wonder they get depressed and consider suicide. Like stepping in to a completly different world or time and not knowing how to handle such a drastic change. Also consider the potential fear of losing the intimacy they had with other senses, a certain protective and comforting relationship, that could be potentially be lost forever when dependency of sight is subconsiously learned. Like losing a parent or a passionate lover.

[Kadagar_AV]

Does racial differences exist?

I for one, can tell a huge difference between, say, a Bulldog and a Siberian Husky. Both when it comes to looks, of course, but also behavior. Reading newspapers and stuff, or magazines directed to dog/cat owners, the talk of race is everywhere.

But, if we talk about humans, talk about race is a no-no... "we are all one race, the human race!".

Is this really correct? I for one can see racial differences. Colour of skin, type of hair, shape of eyes... The list goes on. Is the fact that africans excel at long distance running only a cultural question?

Is it then so far fetched to assume that the difference doesn't stop at the physical attributes, but that there also exist cognitive differences? These cognitive differences might then of course depend on physical differences in the brain...

Isn't it time to lift the taboo around this, and study it some? We have whole other techniques now than last it was tried. Hey, the science might even be beneficial in many ways in the struggle to unlock and understand the human genome.



















Oooops, sorry for being off topic!

[A Nerd]

Sorry. I thought the thread was dead and could be put to sleep with some philosophy. :) I'll attempt to refrain in the future.

[Reenk Roink]

Does racial differences exist?

Short answer, yeah, most likely, but most likely not in the way you are speculating.


I for one, can tell a huge difference between, say, a Bulldog and a Siberian Husky. Both when it comes to looks, of course, but also behavior. Reading newspapers and stuff, or magazines directed to dog/cat owners, the talk of race is everywhere.

Yeah I can tell the difference between a white person, a black person, and an Asian person too.


But, if we talk about humans, talk about race is a no-no... "we are all one race, the human race!".

Yeah we say that because it is a nice thing to say accurate about our own status as human beings which is a pretty important foundation of a lot of our social and cultural frameworks. We also recognize different races and ethnicities of course, not a melting pot but a tossed salad. :2thumbsup:


Is this really correct? I for one can see racial differences. Colour of skin, type of hair, shape of eyes... The list goes on. Is the fact that africans excel at long distance running only a cultural question?

Pretty much, just like Canadians and hockey. Do you have evidence to the contrary of biological differences between African long distance runners and other long distance runners?


Is it then so far fetched to assume that the difference doesn't stop at the physical attributes, but that there also exist cognitive differences? These cognitive differences might then of course depend on physical differences in the brain...

Why should we assume that such cognitive differences between races are due to biology inherently when we haven't seen any evidence for that and rather we see that the differences in academic and intellectual achievement (which in itself isn't a great way to infer cognitive differences by the way) seem to disappear when certain environmental factors are different, most importantly economic factors but also some social issues?

This has been said repeatedly in this thread before but give us one reason why we should assume what you want us to? You're just rehashing your position, we already know what you feel Kadagar. :yes: But you gotta convince us. :yes:


Isn't it time to lift the taboo around this, and study it some? We have whole other techniques now than last it was tried. Hey, the science might even be beneficial in many ways in the struggle to unlock and understand the human genome.

How exactly would we understand the human genome by looking at race any better than we are doing now? What are you exactly purporting? That we try and test whether there are intellectual differences between races and then go ahead and conclude that this is biologically underpinned despite the vast amounts of evidence to the contrary that it IS environmentally influenced rather than biologically (the Asian American immigrant thing - race is held constant, environment is the variable). Somehow that will help us better understand the human genome? :dizzy2: