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

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

I'm generally curios

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

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

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

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

---

Sorry for the spelling errors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

What about me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

What about me?

---

Don't worry, you are human too.




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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

What about me?

---

Alcohol intolerant HA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

I'm generally curios

---

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

Quote:

---

What about me?

---

Quote:

---

Alcohol intolerant HA

---

HAHAHAHAHAHa :laugh:

Quote:

---

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

---

*crickets*

:tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFTS

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

---

Divide up:


Stones in a pond.

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



Characteristics?:

Quote:

---

the new and improved Panzer takes a step back

---

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


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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Stones in a pond.

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Who says their existance is obvious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

We only roughly use 10% of our brain.

---

That's been debunked for over a decade, so I'm surprised to hear anyone repeating it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That's been debunked for over a decade, so I'm surprised to hear anyone repeating it.

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TS

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Divide up:


Stones in a pond.

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



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


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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

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



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

---

i agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

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

---

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

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