Race, Ethnicity Intelligence, and Genetics

[FedUpWithFaith]

The thread on Race and Racism here has prompted me to set up the following poll. Please read the following statement be fore you vote and then please vote from your heart - honestly. You need not disclose your answer or explanations to anyone unless you wish to.

Pretend that tomorrow, science or God or whatever floats your boat will PROVE that the following proposition is true or false:

There are genuine differences between at least some different races or ethnicities of generally localizable evolutionary origin in terms of at least one form or aspect of intelligence (e.g. analytical spatial reasoning) that cannot be completely explained by environment (including culture) or, in other terms, are dependent upon genetic population differences to some degree.

You have to pick the correct choice now though and your life and the lives of all your loved ones will depend on whether you get it right.

How do you vote?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

When you say science proves it, I am assuming that you are referring to a peer-reviewed, repeatable study. The kind of thing that you have repeatedly promised and failed to deliver in the other thread.

Do we really need two threads on such a provocative topic? Why do you care so much about it? Or would anything that poked at the sensibilities of the politically correct do just as well?

[FedUpWithFaith]

When you say science proves it, I am assuming that you are referring to a peer-reviewed, repeatable study. The kind of thing that you have repeatedly promised and failed to deliver in the other thread.

I'm saying it is proven by whatever criteria you would need. It is a given. I'm not aiming to prove any science here about race or genetics, only examine how we believe.

Do we really need two threads on such a provocative topic? Why do you care so much about it? Or would anything that poked at the sensibilities of the politically correct do just as well?

Please, XC, this is unbecoming on a freethought forum. I see no need to try to impune my motives. But even if my motives are terrible, what difference does it make? People poke at various sensibilities here all the time. Are any out of bounds? Oh, just the ones you subscribe to I guess....

[Xamonas Chegwé]

When you say science proves it, I am assuming that you are referring to a peer-reviewed, repeatable study. The kind of thing that you have repeatedly promised and failed to deliver in the other thread.

I'm saying it is proven by whatever criteria you would need. It is a given. I'm not aiming to prove any science here about race or genetics, only examine how we believe.

Do we really need two threads on such a provocative topic? Why do you care so much about it? Or would anything that poked at the sensibilities of the politically correct do just as well?

Please, XC, this is unbecoming on a freethought forum. I see no need to try to impune my motives. But even if my motives are terrible, what difference does it make? People poke at various sensibilities here all the time. Are any out of bounds? Oh, just the ones you subscribe to I guess....

I never said you were out of bounds, did I? I was just curious as to why you keep pushing the same button.

As to the OP, if it were proven by science - ie. there was an overwhelming amount of published studies, experiments, physiological evidence, validated theories etc. that led to no other reasonable conclusion - then of course I would accept it, to the same degree that I would accept any other scientifically demonstrated theory with a similar level of proof. But that would have been equally true had you said that the moon was made of purple yak's cheese in the OP, and with less controversy - hence my comments about why it needed asking in quite that way.

By all means carry on winding up those that find this subject taboo, if that floats your boat, just as long as you do it within forum rules.

[lordpasternack]

I argueda little about this back on RDF. My feeling is that it is entirely plausible that there are genes influencing the development of certain types of intelligence that vary significantly in their incidence across different populations/ethnicities. However, I don't have scientific evidence to hand to reach any conclusion on whether it is actually the case - whether there are significant differences. I'll sit on the fence for the time being.

[Don't Panic]

I seem to recall that a review of IQ and aptitude tests, sometime in the past few years, turned up a slight trend towards people of certain ethnic origins scoring higher in certain areas of the tests than others, to a greater extent than could be explained away as coincidence. I find it entirely plausible that a persons genetic heritage plays a part in their ability to perform certain tasks better than others. That this could be divided by ethnicity is practically a given since the intermingling of the human genetic soup is still in a relatively early stage.

Give it a thousnd years and it'll all be mostly the same though.

[floppit]

The thread on Race and Racism here has prompted me to set up the following poll. Please read the following statement be fore you vote and then please vote from your heart - honestly. You need not disclose your answer or explanations to anyone unless you wish to.

Pretend that tomorrow, science or God or whatever floats your boat will PROVE that the following proposition is true or false:

There are genuine differences between at least some different races or ethnicities of generally localizable evolutionary origin in terms of at least one form or aspect of intelligence (e.g. analytical spatial reasoning) that cannot be completely explained by environment (including culture) or, in other terms, are dependent upon genetic population differences to some degree.

You have to pick the correct choice now though and your life and the lives of all your loved ones will depend on whether you get it right.

How do you vote?

My bold

See, in the real world, the rational one, you get information THEN you make decisions. Of course a thought experiment can be a giggle.

just in case this isn't meant as a joke - I'd hate to point out the self selection bias of those willing to guess prior to compelling evidence, ever heard of a confounding variable?

[FedUpWithFaith]

When you say science proves it, I am assuming that you are referring to a peer-reviewed, repeatable study. The kind of thing that you have repeatedly promised and failed to deliver in the other thread.

I'm saying it is proven by whatever criteria you would need. It is a given. I'm not aiming to prove any science here about race or genetics, only examine how we believe.

Do we really need two threads on such a provocative topic? Why do you care so much about it? Or would anything that poked at the sensibilities of the politically correct do just as well?

Please, XC, this is unbecoming on a freethought forum. I see no need to try to impune my motives. But even if my motives are terrible, what difference does it make? People poke at various sensibilities here all the time. Are any out of bounds? Oh, just the ones you subscribe to I guess....

I never said you were out of bounds, did I? I was just curious as to why you keep pushing the same button.

Why do you think I am? And why do you care? What difference does it make to the truth or falsehood of my arguments?

Listen, if you think I'm a racist and want to justify it, lay it on the line and say so. I'm not going to be offended if you define what a racist is and then back up your argument (preferably in the other racism thread). We've been dancing around this topic for days - well before I added my two cents. Part of my objective in posting in the first place was to get to what racism really is and what is really immoral about it. The topic is important bacause several philosophers, such as Peter Singer, use our prejudices and false assumptions about racism to support second-order arguments like animal rights. And please, before anyone attacks me on this, I'm not arguing for or against animal rights here but simply the nature of false arguments.

You think I'm just doing this because I like taboo subjects and drama? So what if that's true? I don't criticize the people here for having an overabundance of threads dedicated to whether they're drinking coffee or tea or the like and about 30 threads dedicated just to being drunk. I don't bother going into those threads because they bore me to death. If you have a self-righteous streak and fear you can't help but lose your temper in this thread don't come here if you don't want to risk drama. For my part, I've been one of the most civil people here and have done nothing unjustified to inflame anybody other than to have the courage to say things I really believe.

Mankind has now suffered for eons with racism. Surely, two threads on the topic in this forum won't break Pappa's server. It's almost impossible to discuss this topic openly in any other forum or get people to honestly say what they think and that only hides and compounds the problem. We need to learn from that fact too rather than, as supposedly skeptical rationalists, hypocritically reflexing our self-righteousness.

I argue fairly and logically. Where I lack evidence or complete argument I say so upfront if I know it or concede it after the fact when pointed out to me. I don't project certainty where I have none, create strawmen, or obfuscate through misdirection, unacknowledged avoidance, or changing the subject. I appear to be the only one or one of the few capable of doing all these things here. I can do all these things because I feel secure in the integrity of my thinking and the honesty of my arguments even when I don't know all the facts and can prove nothing with certainty. One has to extricate themselves from the mindset Robert Anton Wilson calls, "that which the thinker thinks, the prover proves."

I also happen to enjoy the order and process of logical argument for its own sake, far more even than the titilation of taboo or drama. The seeming appearance that many of you see logical argument as a necessary chore or obstacle to overcome to get people to care what you think is your problem, not mine. If so, go back to the coffee and tea thread if you haven't the stomach for it.

By all means carry on winding up those that find this subject taboo, if that floats your boat, just as long as you do it within forum rules.

I'd been gone awhile. Have the forums rules expanded since last I checked to censor speech the mods might interpret as racist?

[Rum]

Pass.....

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

My guess - and it is just a guess - is that since dogs can be bred for specific psychological traits such as aggression, intelligence etc. then it would be possible to do exactly the same with humans.
To what extent this occurs naturally (if at all) I have no idea.

I'm not prepared to comment further since I've already been branded a bigot once today and this thread has "Danger" written all over it.

[lordpasternack]

Can we also make clear the distinction between racism and racialism? Racism is ideological. It's the belief that one race is 'superior' - usually one's own race - and is usually combined with hatred/intolerance of other races. Racialism is an epistemological stance that such things as races (however one defines them) do exist, and there are to some extent, significant differences in the incidence of certain phenotypic traits between them. They no doubt often overlap, but they deserve to be distinguished. Holding something to be a matter of fact (even if you're simply speculating) is not necessarily bigoted.

It is not bigoted to say that men are on average taller and physically stronger than women, and women are on average better at multitasking and empathising. I'm sure no-one would bat an eyelid if I was going to do a study to discover if some ethnic groups varied in some significant way in height, athleticism or penis length. But of course, there's just something very taboo about intelligence. Well, it's just a phenotypic attribute like any other, and unfortunately biology knows no political correctness...

[FedUpWithFaith]

Can we also make clear the distinction between racism and racialism? Racism is ideological. It's the belief that one race is 'superior' - usually one's own race - and is usually combined with hatred/intolerance of other races. Racialism is an epistemological stance that such things as races (however one defines them) do exist, and there are to some extent, significant differences in the incidence of certain phenotypic traits between them. They no doubt often overlap, but they deserve to be distinguished. Holding something to be a matter of fact (even if you're simply speculating) is not necessarily bigoted.

It is not bigoted to say that men are on average taller and physically stronger than women, and women are on average better at multitasking and empathising. I'm sure no-one would bat an eyelid if I was going to do a study to discover if some ethnic groups varied in some significant way in height, athleticism or penis length. But of course, there's just something very taboo about intelligence. Well, it's just a phenotypic attribute like any other, and unfortunately biology knows no political correctness...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[FedUpWithFaith]

Pass.....

why?

[charlou]

I'd been gone awhile. Have the forums rules expanded since last I checked to censor speech the mods might interpret as racist?

If it's legal and not considered spam, and if it's discussed with consideration of our forum guidelines in mind, it's very unlikely to be censored.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

When you say science proves it, I am assuming that you are referring to a peer-reviewed, repeatable study. The kind of thing that you have repeatedly promised and failed to deliver in the other thread.

I'm saying it is proven by whatever criteria you would need. It is a given. I'm not aiming to prove any science here about race or genetics, only examine how we believe.

Do we really need two threads on such a provocative topic? Why do you care so much about it? Or would anything that poked at the sensibilities of the politically correct do just as well?

Please, XC, this is unbecoming on a freethought forum. I see no need to try to impune my motives. But even if my motives are terrible, what difference does it make? People poke at various sensibilities here all the time. Are any out of bounds? Oh, just the ones you subscribe to I guess....

I never said you were out of bounds, did I? I was just curious as to why you keep pushing the same button.

Why do you think I am? And why do you care? What difference does it make to the truth or falsehood of my arguments?

Listen, if you think I'm a racist and want to justify it, lay it on the line and say so. I'm not going to be offended if you define what a racist is and then back up your argument (preferably in the other racism thread). We've been dancing around this topic for days - well before I added my two cents. Part of my objective in posting in the first place was to get to what racism really is and what is really immoral about it. The topic is important bacause several philosophers, such as Peter Singer, use our prejudices and false assumptions about racism to support second-order arguments like animal rights. And please, before anyone attacks me on this, I'm not arguing for or against animal rights here but simply the nature of false arguments.

You think I'm just doing this because I like taboo subjects and drama? So what if that's true? I don't criticize the people here for having an overabundance of threads dedicated to whether they're drinking coffee or tea or the like and about 30 threads dedicated just to being drunk. I don't bother going into those threads because they bore me to death. If you have a self-righteous streak and fear you can't help but lose your temper in this thread don't come here if you don't want to risk drama. For my part, I've been one of the most civil people here and have done nothing unjustified to inflame anybody other than to have the courage to say things I really believe.

Mankind has now suffered for eons with racism. Surely, two threads on the topic in this forum won't break Pappa's server. It's almost impossible to discuss this topic openly in any other forum or get people to honestly say what they think and that only hides and compounds the problem. We need to learn from that fact too rather than, as supposedly skeptical rationalists, hypocritically reflexing our self-righteousness.

I argue fairly and logically. Where I lack evidence or complete argument I say so upfront if I know it or concede it after the fact when pointed out to me. I don't project certainty where I have none, create strawmen, or obfuscate through misdirection, unacknowledged avoidance, or changing the subject. I appear to be the only one or one of the few capable of doing all these things here. I can do all these things because I feel secure in the integrity of my thinking and the honesty of my arguments even when I don't know all the facts and can prove nothing with certainty. One has to extricate themselves from the mindset Robert Anton Wilson calls, "that which the thinker thinks, the prover proves."

I also happen to enjoy the order and process of logical argument for its own sake, far more even than the titilation of taboo or drama. The seeming appearance that many of you see logical argument as a necessary chore or obstacle to overcome to get people to care what you think is your problem, not mine. If so, go back to the coffee and tea thread if you haven't the stomach for it.

By all means carry on winding up those that find this subject taboo, if that floats your boat, just as long as you do it within forum rules.

I'd been gone awhile. Have the forums rules expanded since last I checked to censor speech the mods might interpret as racist?

I think you have taken me entirely the wrong way here. You have actually gone a long way towards answering my question - although by way of accusing me of ulterior motives.

I wondered why you started the last thread, as it was bound to stir up a little heated discussion and possibly some animosity. That it didn't is a credit to those involved in it. Unfortunately, I had other things to do and couldn't give it anywhere near the time it deserved in order to respond further - even though I wanted to.

I felt you were being a little manipulative and deliberately provocative in the other thread (although not to the extent that any censure, or even any consideration of censure, was required) and I probably forgot that my admin status makes my comments come across as being official rebukes when in fact they are merely idle queries.

You have confessed (for want of a better word) that you are seeking to assess attitudes to racism / racialism / discussion of race in this forum, rather than (or at least as much as) seek any answers to the actual questions posed in your posts - pretty much what I always suspected was your motive - and I do wish you had been a little more open about that.

I am happy that we have been able to have this discussion here without drama. I am not in favour of any taboos - never have been - as long as civility between individuals during discussion is maintained.

I do have one point to make about 'African-Americans' however. How many AAs are of purely black, African origin? If we assume (for the sake of this argument alone) that AAs actually are lower in some measurable quality of intelligence, can we be sure that this is due to their black, African genes, or could it be due to the fact that those genes have been diluted by white, redneck, slaveowner genes? Noticeably black heritage can lead to a person being classed as African-American, even if their genotype may be 90% white European. I am not making any claims in either direction, merely pointing out an aspect of studying racial traits that you may have overlooked and certainly haven't mentioned - the fact that physical characteristics rather than genetic characteristics are generally used to determine the 'race' to which a person belongs.