Racism vs IQ

[cronus]

UKIP !!! UKIP !!! UKIP !!!

IQ is less important than a good brand. Most intelligent inquiry leads to the rather futile conclusion that we don't know very much.

[Mr.Samsa]

Willfully blind, definitely. It doesn't contradict any formal definition of rationality though, unless the person has adopted the goal of gathering as much evidence on a topic before reaching a conclusion (i.e. if they're a skeptic).

I think you are using a very narrow definition of rationality. It may be technically correct, but it does not correspond to normal usage of the word.

I'm not sure "narrow" is the correct descriptor; I think it's more that it's more rigorously defined, and so less vague and less open to subjective interpretation. I was only really discussing the claim that there was no correlation between IQ and rationality, which would be a scientific claim that would require scientific definitions, and I have no problem with people using the word in different ways. I would argue that personally I think defining someone as "irrational" for holding an incorrect position dilutes the word to near meaninglessness though.

[Tyrannical]

I think some people get confused when a correlation is anything more complicated than a straight linear one to one relationship.

[Pappa]

I am much more prepared to accept that certain cultures are inferior to others in many respects...

This is politically incorrect, but doesn't fall foul of scientific facts...

How would/do you define "inferior" in relation to a culture? Inferior in what exactly?

[Pappa]

Everybody had black-skinned ancestors.

Due to a lack of sunhine in the far north, some mutants developed with lighter skin that allowed them to process vitamin D more eficiently.

This was probably no more than 12 000 years ago, insignificant in human evolutionary terms.

Racists are too stupid to understand this.

Thank you for putting it more succinctly than I've ever seen before.

[cronus]

Everybody had black-skinned ancestors.

Due to a lack of sunhine in the far north, some mutants developed with lighter skin that allowed them to process vitamin D more eficiently.

This was probably no more than 12 000 years ago, insignificant in human evolutionary terms.

Racists are too stupid to understand this.

Thank you for putting it more succinctly than I've ever seen before.

Doesn't explain why Africa which should have a natural advantage, being the birthplace of the human race and replete with resources, still to this day resists modernity. The reality is that black people are more genetically diverse which means a natural biological strife which impedes social culture. Now look at places like China or even India in contrast?

[Tyrannical]

Since we are in the science forum, we should try and stick to scientific terms. Black is a color, Africa is a continent, and Negroid is a race. Or if you prefer, Congoid and Capoid.

[Blind groper]

Africa is not resisting modernity. In fact, some African nations are growing economically at a rate much higher than European nations.

Africa was among the leaders in days gone by. Just think of ancient Egypt, which was as much black as brown skinned, and think of the early African iron makers, and their iron tools and weapons, well before Europe. Think of Carthage, which rivaled Rome in early glory and power.

In recent times, Africa has suffered under colonial exploitation, and then under exploitive national leaders. This is changing, and Africa is set to grow into a set of fully modern nations.

[cronus]

Africa is not resisting modernity. In fact, some African nations are growing economically at a rate much higher than European nations.

Africa was among the leaders in days gone by. Just think of ancient Egypt, which was as much black as brown skinned, and think of the early African iron makers, and their iron tools and weapons, well before Europe. Think of Carthage, which rivaled Rome in early glory and power.

In recent times, Africa has suffered under colonial exploitation, and then under exploitive national leaders. This is changing, and Africa is set to grow into a set of fully modern nations.

I can see the potential....the potential seems to happen where there is a influence from the outside. The Chinese are making big moves for the resources there. They are the new colonials.

[Blind groper]

To Tyrannical

Negroid is not a race. It is a loose catch-all phrase for people whose ancestors came from Africa. There is more genetic variation within Africa than outside it. So to divide peoples into negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid etc. is totally inaccurate and does not reflect genetic reality. A 'racial' set of divisions would have more 'races' inside Africa than outside it, and that makes the word 'negroid' into a bullshit term.

[Blind groper]

I can see the potential....the potential seems to happen where there is a influence from the outside. The Chinese are making big moves for the resources there. They are the new colonials.

Actually, the African nations that are now growing are the ones that have got rid of corrupt government, and are now operating with less corruption. It is not the Chinese. They are just the latest bunch of exploiters. It is the Africans themselves, when unshackled by corrupt leadership.

[cronus]

I can see the potential....the potential seems to happen where there is a influence from the outside. The Chinese are making big moves for the resources there. They are the new colonials.

Actually, the African nations that are now growing are the ones that have got rid of corrupt government, and are now operating with less corruption. It is not the Chinese. They are just the latest bunch of exploiters. It is the Africans themselves, when unshackled by corrupt leadership.

Puppet regimes. The Chinese will be in the background. They don't need to be seen like Westerners.

[Tyrannical]

To Tyrannical

Negroid is not a race.

Yes it is.

It is a loose catch-all phrase for people whose ancestors came from Africa.

No it isn't. North Africans aren't Negroids. South Africans aren't either, they are Capoids, or Khosian as some like to call them.

There is more genetic variation within Africa than outside it

.
That's not even true, though it depends on how you ask the question. Are you talking about entire gene pools or average genetic distance in a population? Negroids lack the Neanderthal and Denisovan gene pool remember.

So to divide peoples into negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid etc. is totally inaccurate and does not reflect genetic reality.

Yes it does.

A 'racial' set of divisions would have more 'races' inside Africa than outside it, and that makes the word 'negroid' into a bullshit term.

You can divide sub-Saharan Africans into Congoid, Capoid, and probably pygmies. The earliest known Negroid fossil is only about 12,000 years old, so the Negroid race is probably an amalgamation of several what used to be separate sub-Saharan African races.

[Tyrannical]

I am much more prepared to accept that certain cultures are inferior to others in many respects...

This is politically incorrect, but doesn't fall foul of scientific facts...

How would/do you define "inferior" in relation to a culture? Inferior in what exactly?

More primitive or less advanced.

[Blind groper]

More primitive or less advanced tells us nothing,

I have considered this question before and designed my own answer.

If you want to divide cultures according to how "civilised" they are, I see two ways.

1. How advanced is their technology.
2. How advanced is their relationship with alien peoples.

The latter means that those cultures who are most accepting and most caring about people who are not of their own family or tribal group, are most advanced.