Racial differences...

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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*

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Clearly you have a brain for science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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

---

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...e&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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...e&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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

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, 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."

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Blacks 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.

It is cultural more than anything for football and basketball

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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....

---

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion

It is cultural more than anything for football and basketball

---

White men can't jump!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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

---

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

Heresy! The gods will strike down your blasphemy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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. ^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

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.

So Reenk said...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV in the OP

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Nerd

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?

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

'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 dont think that......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I dont think that......

---

Can you jump? [insert clown smiley]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Nerd

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!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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?

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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:

that actually made me a little proud.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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?

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

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.

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.