Charlie Primero
Member
...but really race is literally only skin deep.
False.
Races vary in important characteristics such as I.Q., propensity for violence, time preference, and criminality.
...but really race is literally only skin deep.
Well if you take that argument to its extreme, you would invalidate all discussion of human variability. For example, if you know someone has sickle cell anaemia, there is a high probability that he has some black ancestors, or is himself black. There clearly are differences in the races, but equally clearly we are one species - we can interbreed without problems.Everyone is genetically different to some extent. Biologists are interested in genetic variation. Racial phenotypic features such as different skin and eye colour account for very little genetic variation. Put in simple terms, Mr blonde-haired blue-eyed Klaus from Germany may be more genetically similar to Mr dark-skinned, brown-eyed Alfua living in Tanzania then another blonde-haired blue-eyed European person. People find this hard to accept because skin colour etc. is such a salient feature but really race is literally only skin deep.
The problem with that, is that if you take people from any racial group, their IQ's will range over a wide range, from mentally subnormal to genius level. Therefore if you were selecting someone for a job or a university place, or anything else, you would get far more information by actually measuring their IQ than by looking at their race!False.
Races vary in important characteristics such as I.Q., propensity for violence, time preference, and criminality.
False.
Races vary in important characteristics such as I.Q., propensity for violence, time preference, and criminality.
Wow - this reminds me of the many discussions I had about 50 years ago at university when I decided to abandon Christianity. I don't mean this as a criticism of you, Jim, but to me those are weasel words.
In a strange way, Christian fundamentalists are more pure. They believe a set of things as being really true, while other people who call themselves "Christian", believe some muddle of ideas which is a vague compromise between modern science and Christianity. Such people tend to believe science far too much, because they want to hold on to some supposedly firm truths.
The real truth (at least as I see it) is that religions have built complicated myths and dogma around phenomena such as NDE's, while science has become extraordinarily authoritarian and inflexible in so many areas, and simply wants to brush phenomena such as NDE's to one side and make their own myths about 11-dimensional. reality, dark matter, etc.
David
...you would get far more information by actually measuring their IQ than by looking at their race!
At around 19:30, Tsarion seems to be saying that "oligarchy" etymologically "pertains to the Druids". As far as I'm aware, however, oligos derives from the ancient Greek word meaning few. Hence an oligarchy is rule by the few, an oligopeptide is a peptide chain with only a few peptides (as opposed to a polypeptide where there are many), and so on. So is he saying that oligos derives from a Druid word before the ancient Greeks?
Races vary in important characteristics such as I.Q., propensity for violence, time preference, and criminality.
...they strip out contributing factors like income, nutrition, education, culture, pollution, mental-illness, history. etc.
...tell me why Christians are less intelligent than the rest of us?
you could say that about a lotta stuff... doesn't explain/excuse it.
here's the vid in question:
I think that may have more to do with environment and upbringing rather than genetics. You disagree?False.
Races vary in important characteristics such as I.Q., propensity for violence, time preference, and criminality.
I know this sounds like a contradiction, but, in my opinion, these generalisations display a reductionist view worthy of Dennet or Dawkins. Why? Because they strip out contributing factors like income, nutrition, education, culture, pollution, mental-illness, history. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Unless I've misunderstood your point, of course.
In the spirit of your post, could you tell me why Christians are less intelligent than the rest of us?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10750898
Maybe that misses my point a bit. Fundamentalist Christians know what they believe very clearly, whereas mild Christians (I was brought up in the Church of England) really don't. This came to a sort of crisis for me when I went to university because I was cornered (in a friendly sort of way) by a group of Christians who felt the need to insist that God could only forgive sins because Jesus had sacrificed himself on the cross - and put that bluntly it makes absolutely no sense at all. After a number of such discussions, and other considerations regarding the clash between my science studies and Christianity, plus the obvious fact that Christianity is only one of many religions, I left.But David, while I take your point that Christian Fundamentalists are "more pure" in one context they are nothing of the sort in another. A fundamentalist goes to the foundation of a system of thought. Christianity is arguably rooted in the Egyptian tradition if you accept the claims of Kuhn and others. At the very least it goes into a deeper 'pagan' esoteric and mystical tradition.
Laying race down as a marker of intelligence is reductionist. Taking a biological interpretation of the evidence is reductionist.
Studies also show that a belief in God correlates to a lower IQ, this is invalid for the same reasons as biological race as an IQ marker. But, imo, religion and biological race as markers of intelligence stand or fall together, you can't separate the two results. If you accept race as a marker of intelligence, you have to accept belief in God as one too.
EDIT: I'm not qualified to judge, but I don't assume the research to be good, either.
I think that may have more to do with environment and upbringing rather than genetics. You disagree?
They have.I think those attributes of race haven't been substantiated by contemporary research.
because those traits are highly heritable
Please let's not continue with a "yes they have"/"no they haven't" type of debate!They have.