Racial Equality?

[Almighty Colin]

Are some groups of people naturally faster, brainier, or more violent than other groups of people?

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Colin@Aug 27 2003, 05:11 AM
Are some groups of people naturally faster, brainier, or more violent than other groups of people?
I don't think so....I haven's raised my voice once in the last year and I did it 3 times when I was about to throw Forest out of the car for whining about my driving... ;-))))

I say all those features are influenced by environment more than by genetics
;-)))

[=^..^=]

What do you mean by faster?
do you mean liek running?

Kenyans and other races born at high altitide are faster than other racers because they dont need as much oxygen

brainer = i believe that is environmental/cultural factors same with violence

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Aug 27 2003, 05:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Aug 27 2003, 05:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Aug 27 2003, 05:11 AM
Are some groups of people naturally faster, brainier, or more violent than other groups of people?
I don't think so....I haven's raised my voice once in the last year and I did it 3 times when I was about to throw Forest out of the car for whining about my driving... ;-))))

I say all those features are influenced by environment more than by genetics
;-)))[/b][/quote]
How about sprinting? What about the current absolute domination of black athletes in the 100 meter dash? Did caucasians stop running at a young age?

If there's any genetic component at all, meritocracy should magnify it by evening out the nurture factor. Is that what happened?

Why should it be considered the worst kind of social and scientific faux pas to write papers on such subjects and ask such questions? Seems to me that science reacted so negatively to eugenics - and it pretty much had to considering it's culmination in 1930s Germany - that now we can't even ask tough (and otherwise interesting) questions.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by =^..^=@Aug 27 2003, 05:36 AM
brainer = i believe that is environmental/cultural factors
No genetic factors? All brains are equal? Some people aren't just a little quicker with better retention?

Don't the extremes prove the opposite? What about savants? Some kids are slow from a very young age. What was it? Poor parenting at the age of one?

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why nature vs. nurture? Why not nature AND nurture?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by =^..^=@Aug 27 2003, 05:36 AM
What do you mean by faster?
do you mean liek running?

Kenyans and other races born at high altitide are faster than other racers because they dont need as much oxygen
Though Kenyans own a chunk of world records for various sprinting records a full 70% of sprinting records are owned by non-Kenyan black athletes.

The list of fastest 100 meter times includes black males from Trinidad, the US, Canada, and the UK.

How is it that with an increasingly egalitarian society a group of people defined by their skin color who make up only 12% of the world's population own 75% of the sprinting records?

No non-black athlete has owned the 100 meters world record in over 40 years. Not a single one of the 88% of the non-black athletes in the world can train themselves to be number one? The fastest caucasian in the world at 100 meters is only the 200th fastest.

Statistically and mind-blowingly significant if you ask me.

Sure I can see some evidence that social factors are at work but this is complete domination.

What's going on here?



Last edited by Colin at Aug 27 2003, 06:01 AM

[Winetalk.com]

Colin,
Swiss are good at making watches...each nation/race has some qualities which are better than others...

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Aug 27 2003, 06:03 AM
Colin,
Swiss are good at making watches...each nation/race has some qualities which are better than others...
What are the French good at? :groucho: :groucho:

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin@Aug 27 2003, 05:38 AM
Why should it be considered the worst kind of social and scientific faux pas to write papers on such subjects and ask such questions? Seems to me that science reacted so negatively to eugenics - and it pretty much had to considering it's culmination in 1930s Germany - that now we can't even ask tough (and otherwise interesting) questions.
Very interesting question. There are some who would respond by rote with Certified Answer #3 - political correctness (said, of course, with the requisite sneer).

My personal opinion is that the majority of allegedly scientific/intellectual papers posing such questions have been found to be based on underlying assumptionsquite acceptable to the folks who ruined the science of eugenics. Like "creation science" it seems to be a "science" of the past, only a little more modern that treating headaches with leeches.

[Petr]

Originally posted by Colin@Aug 27 2003, 02:11 AM
Are some groups of people naturally faster, brainier, or more violent than other groups of people?
definitely. it's a statistically proven fact that asian people have higher average iq than others, for example.... i have a book focused on differencies of various races somewhere at my home library, i can dig up some other stuff if interested

[LadyMischief]

I believe that certain people are born with certain inherant talents... Just like with racehorses and other animals, some traits will "breed" true. But this really doesn't have much to do with "race" per se, if you are basing that on skin color. As to what type of physical environment each human was brought up in, or rather, where their ancestors developed, it could make them more suited to specific activities or climates.

The definition of equal, though, can change based on what criteria you are basing equality on. In fact, no two people are truly equal in every way, because no two people are exactly the same, if you're comparing in general terms. If you are comparing a specific skill, the conclusion can be made, but like any test or experiement, it's also going to depend entirely on what types of situations/environments you do the testing in.

Ahh well, enough of my first thing in the morning babble.

[art]

Originally posted by Colin@Aug 27 2003, 07:05 AM
What are the French good at? :groucho: :groucho:
Speaking English with a funny accent.

[Menace]

Physically, I don't think there's much question to the answer as you've already provided ample evidence of.

Mentally and socially I don't think so.

There's a collective victim mentality which has no basis in reality in this day and age.

While thousands upon thousands are victims to 'the man' forcefully keeping certain people in run down projects with no hope for escape - others are living in multi-million dollar homes in the best neighborhoods in the country. Same race, different outcome. Is it ability or luck? Of course not. It's a matter of, "Hey, I don't want to live like this any more, what can I do to change it."

Ask Master P, P diddy or any other rich P-named guy if they're incapable victims.

Will Smith could buy and sell fine caucasian "gentlemen" (bah) like myself all day long.. Was he born different than his crack addicted counterparts? Nope.

Sure, there are some differences (as there are in people in general, not just racially) but in the grand scheme of things we're all a lot more alike and capable than most people would be comfortable admitting.

[VooMan]

How is it that with an increasingly egalitarian society a group of people defined by their skin color who make up only 12% of the world's population own 75% of the sprinting records?

Colin, I really don't want to sound like Jimmy the Greek here, but back in my high school days I read an interesting article in a running magazine. It said that black people are slightly different in their anatomy than whites. They have more fast twitch muscle fibers and they have a shorter achilles tendon, therefore giving them more *explosive* power and torque. Supposedly this is why they are faster, and why Michael Jordan can take off at the foul line for a dunk. I don't know if it's true, but this is what I read... I certainly don't want to offend anyone or sound stereotypical...

That certainly doesn't explain how the Kenyans completely dominate the marathon though. It actually contradicts it. But those marathoners are like machines, they just don't slow down at all...

On a side note of useless information:

Back in the early 80's there was a marathoner by the name of Alberto Salazar. This guy was amazing in his ability to run almost top speed for miles. His best 400 meter time was something like 56 seconds, and I could easily beat that in high school along with a lot of of other people. That son of a gun set the world record for the marathon and won the New York Marathon three years in a row. He would toss in a 4:17 mile here and there and was like a machine running at red line the whole race. He almost died a couple of times, collapsing after the finish line with a body temperature of 87ish. He was amazing...

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by VooMan@Aug 27 2003, 10:59 AM
It said that black people are slightly different in their anatomy than whites. They have more fast twitch muscle fibers and they have a shorter achilles tendon, therefore giving them more *explosive* power and torque. Supposedly this is why they are faster, and why Michael Jordan can take off at the foul line for a dunk. I don't know if it's true, but this is what I read... I certainly don't want to offend anyone or sound stereotypical...

That certainly doesn't explain how the Kenyans completely dominate the marathon though. It actually contradicts it. But those marathoners are like machines, they just don't slow down at all...


Maybe West Africans have a preponderance of slow twitch muscle fibers and East Africans have a preponderance of fast twitch muscle fibers.

"Kenyans are born with a high number of slow twitch fibers," states Bengt Saltin, director of the Copenhagen Muscle Research Center, one of the top experts in this field. "They have 70 to 75 percent of their muscle fibers being slow. Very many in sports physiology would like to believe that it is training, the environment, what you eat that plays the most important role. But based on the data, it is in your genes whether or not you are talented or whether you will become talented."

From: http://www.vdare.com/misc/entine_boston_marathon.htm

Haven't independently verified and no idea if the most extreme numbers both really occur on the same continent.

[VooMan]

That was an interesting article.

[Anthony]

Filipinos are born with short twitch tempers.

I don't know what happened to me, I am very level headed. :D

[OldJeff]

Originally posted by Colin@Aug 27 2003, 05:11 AM
Are some groups of people naturally faster, brainier, or more violent than other groups of people?
Yes.

In fact I am not convinced that homo sapien is scientifically correct to identify all races of people.

Before I am thrown to the Lynch squad - I DO NOT feel that any race is superior to any other.

From a purely scientific standpoint

Every other thing has many of the same Genus but different species, why are all humans Homo Sapiens ?

Simiens, Canines, Felines all different

A Gorilla is different than an Orangutang.
A Rottie is different than a poodle.
A Tiger is certainly different than a domestic short hair.

Am I wrong ? If so Why ?

[OldJeff]

Is there any way I can get the saying under my name changed to say something like

"Permanent Ass Clown" or "Perpetual Dumb Fuck"

I can honestly say the Hun has never made me do anything

other than redirect his traffic from my picture index's back in 97 =)

[Buff]

I got your long twitch fiber right here, bitches!

[dantheman]

buff's getting spunky :wnw:


oldjeff, I think after so many post you can change/set it. if I'm wrong I know someone will correct me :)


edit, maybe not, I didnt find anywhere to change mine:(



Last edited by dantheman at Aug 27 2003, 03:49 PM

[Jesse_DD]

I know that Black people like fried chicken and overweight white people are the best bowlers (they have the bowling gene).

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by OldJeff@Aug 27 2003, 03:27 PM
From a purely scientific standpoint

Every other thing has many of the same Genus but different species, why are all humans Homo Sapiens ?

Simiens, Canines, Felines all different

A Gorilla is different than an Orangutang.
A Rottie is different than a poodle.
A Tiger is certainly different than a domestic short hair.

Am I wrong ? If so Why ?
I think all domestic dogs are the same species since they can mate and produce offspring. Different dogs are called breeds.

Gorillas and Orangutangs are different species. Can't mate.

All people can interbreed (try it!) so they are the same species.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Jesse_DD@Aug 27 2003, 04:32 PM
I know that Black people like fried chicken and overweight white people are the best bowlers (they have the bowling gene).
Xenophobia gene. ;-)

[PornoDoggy]

Strangely enough, this is not the first time I've run across the topic lately. It seems that interest in eugenics is reviving amongst the new breed of white supremicists. The new folks aren't just beer-bellied bubbas screaming nigger every third word (at least not in public); my understanding is that one of the leaders in that movement gathering quite a following is Ivy-Leauge educated.

Such pseudoscience does tend to put a positive veneer on things that might desperately need polishing up, in much the same way that decrying "the discriminatory [sic] practice of restricting the right of an employer to hire who he wants" does sound a lot better than "Bubba shouldn't have to hire no (niggers/spicks/micks/wops/kikes/ragheads/krauts/redskins/faggots/bitches/tutsis/hutus) if'n he don't want to."

As Colin correctly pointed out, the entire nature of this debate has been framed by the abuses that the so-called science of eugenics was used to justify in the the 20th century. Most of the people I have heard attempting to use arguements based on it have been cut from the same cloth as the Nazis and their American step cousins, the Klan/White Supremicists. I suppose that's just the Maltese Cross that the proponents of the science must carry.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Aug 27 2003, 05:34 PM

[Almighty Colin]

PD,

What about people who are just interested for the sake of knowledge? What if asians have some genetic advantage that gives one an advantage - either in learning or interest - in mathematics? I could care less, really.

From a strictly scientific point of view, I am disappointed that the subject has been so thoroughly dismissed. A question such as whether there are heritable genetic factors that have lead to dominance of West African sprinters or East African distance runners is quite interesting. It's fascinating. Hardly anyone publishes papers on such subjects due to the pressure of the tribe. Such research could lead to some very interesting insights in the nature vs/and nurture debate. One risks academic blacklisting for such work.

One the other hand, the concept that "all men are created equal" and should thus be treated has been one of the most important ideas in history and has given us the entire tradition of the liberal democracy. Even if that idea was not adhered to for most of the time it has existed and is only partially adhered to today it has been wildly successful in propagating the liberal democratic formula.

People want to be equal, they want to be respected, they want to be equal to or greater than. Whether Americans, French, Soviets, Iraqis, Cubans, whites or blacks one can bet that human dignity is wished for.

What if there are genetic differences and some people are, on average, better equipped to learn math or science, or run really fast? We don't even want to know. It's forbidden fruit. We know the potential for abuse of such knowledge is high and that it might even challenge that all important notion of "created equal".

Maybe it's just a little while longer and we'll be able to pre-natally modify our children for maximum learning potential. You know, make sure the right genes are switched on and all is in order. Then we can ask the questions and it won't matter so much. Errr ..except all the wealthy parents will do it first. That always happens. ;-)

[PornoDoggy]

You raise some interesting and valid questions.

I haven't given much thought to the folks that are interested in the subject just for the sake of knowledge, mostly because I have encountered so few of them - and I'm not so sure that some peole offering that claim are sincere.

I guess I can understand why you would feel "disappointed that the subject has been so thoroughly dismissed" - well, I try, anyway - but you cannot possibly be surprised. 60 years ago in Europe people were moving across the continent in very efficient trains to a horrid fate based in part on studies conducted in the name of this poor, misuderstood field of study. I don't think a lot of hesitation to return to that field of investigation is a bad thing, personally - but then I freely admit that I do hold that whole "all men are created equal" stuff pretty dear.

[OldJeff]

Colin,

Being able to breed together does not make an animal the same species.

Lions and Tigers, and Horses and Donkeys, are two examples.

You and PD have both outlined very good reasons why there is not, nor will there be and real research done on the subject.

Whatever the findings, they would be bastardized by one extemist group or another (probably a lot more than one)

As far as "Created Equal" How about I just say "Born Equal" the other way assumes a creator that gives a shit about what happens on this intergalactic cesspool.

Unless of course that creator has a really depraved sense of humor.

This was a good thought provoking thread, are there any REAL difference's ?

It will take a much bigger brain then mine to figure that out.

Also lets keep in mind here that "different" is not a derogatory word, indeed we are ALL very different from one another

[XXXPhoto]

Originally posted by OldJeff@Aug 27 2003, 05:02 PM
Colin,

Being able to breed together does not make an animal the same species.

Lions and Tigers, and Horses and Donkeys, are two examples.

OldJeff,

As you are a gentleman blessed to be of southern persuasion, I'm surprised
that you included horses and donkeys in your example; when they breed
a setrile mule or a hinny is produced... Interracial unions of humans do not
do that as a general rule... ;^)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by OldJeff@Aug 27 2003, 08:02 PM
Colin,

Being able to breed together does not make an animal the same species.

Lions and Tigers, and Horses and Donkeys, are two examples.
Classification systems often run into difficulty somewhere. Consider the case of the tomato. It seems to be one thing botanically and another horticulturally. Over time the very definition of species has changed. I think the basic idea with animals has always been that species are those creatures that naturally mate and produce offspring.

XXXPhoto clarified the issue above.



Last edited by Colin at Aug 28 2003, 04:46 AM

[JR]

yes

[Almighty Colin]

PD,

I'm just as afraid of a society that is afraid to ask itself questions or makes particular questions off limits. Should we find appalling the laws in some countries that prevent people from questioning details of the holocaust? Should one get arrested for writing a paper claiming that 5.5 million instead of 6 million jews were killed during World War II? Does academia function best by permitting all questions and letting the researchers themselves decide who are the charlatans or does it sometimes need a little help from our law-makers?

[PornoDoggy]

Hmmm.

I've found the appearance of this topic during the week of the 40th anniversary of the civil rights March on Washington very interesting.

I understand the arguements about academic freedom. They sound really, really good, and there is even some substance behind them. I am not sure that the situation is as grim within academia as you say; about the only other folks I recall making the same level of noise about it over the last five years are the creation "science" [sic] folks.

I do know this ... there are pressures on ANY academic who offers up an opinion/pursues a line of research that strays too far from conventional wisdom or contemporary theory within whatever community of science is involved. A book I read recently on the erruption of the Krakatoa volcano described the degree to which early proponents of the theory of continental drift were ostrasized. They were treated in the same way as genuine crackpots who pursued obvious dead ends or continued to defend debunked theories.

So there is nothing new here ... and when you add on to that the uses to which earlier attempts to pursue this line of thought were put, what you've got here is a perfectly understandable hesitation and skepticism of an area of research full of potential minefields - not all of which can be dismissed as merely blind observance of the rules of political correctness.

The real puzzler - I'm trying to figure out why suddenly you are posing questions to me about whether attempting to offer up certain opinions or publish certain theories should be illegal. I don't recall ever offering an opinion that anyone besides Torone/Torone AI could twist around that far. It seems quite a leap within the context of the conversation.

I'm an ACLU kind of guy who strongly believes that every Klansman should get a disabled Jewish Black lesbian lawyer whenever they need one. I was suprised over a recent controversy in Oz regarding the attempt to show a film by a British (?) filmmaker from the "Holocaust is a myth" school; an attempt that was unsuccessful because of a ruling by the film board. I'm glad we don't have that kind of governmental pressure in the U.S.

In part, I disagree with OldJeff - I think this is a line of research that is being and will be pursued. Where I agree with him 100% is "Whatever the findings, they would be bastardized by one extemist group or another (probably a lot more than one)". In an ideal world scientists wouldn't be forced to worry about that. I, for one, don't find the fact that they do a very disturbing fact.

Considering that there are people around today who have buried their head inside their internal combustion engine and question data from fields of science far more advanced in the body of accumulated knowledge, I don't find it particularly suprising, either.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Aug 28 2003, 09:56 AM

[Vick]

Originally posted by Colin@Aug 28 2003, 04:45 AM
academia functions best by permitting all questions and letting the researchers themselves decide who are the charlatans
yep - provided there is accurate date gathered and presented and the methods are subject to verification and disclosure

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

[gregtx]

hmm.. what would happen if they enforced affirmative action on professional football and basketball???

oh nevermind.. they call them coaches.. ;-)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Aug 28 2003, 09:54 AM
The real puzzler - I'm trying to figure out why suddenly you are posing questions to me about whether attempting to offer up certain opinions or publish certain theories should be illegal. I don't recall ever offering an opinion that anyone besides Torone/Torone AI could twist around that far. It seems quite a leap within the context of the conversation.


It was a response that started out aimed towards you because of a previous post. Not in response to anything you've said though. Would be interested to hear what anyone has to say on it for that matter.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Vick+Aug 28 2003, 10:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Aug 28 2003, 10:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Aug 28 2003, 04:45 AM
academia functions best by permitting all questions and letting the researchers themselves decide who are the charlatans
yep - provided there is accurate date gathered and presented and the methods are subject to verification and disclosure

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics[/b][/quote]
Would you legislate out poorly researched/presented history though?

For that matter, what do you think about the laws in some countries that make questioning the official version of the holocaust illegal? What I mean is details like whether 5.5 million or 6 million Jews died at Hitler's hands?



Last edited by Colin at Aug 29 2003, 04:12 AM

[PornoDoggy]

Just out of curiousity, what countries make questioning the official version of the Holocaust illegal?

Specifically, where can one find himself in legal difficulty quibbling over half-million?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Aug 29 2003, 06:01 AM
Just out of curiousity, what countries make questioning the official version of the Holocaust illegal?

Specifically, where can one find himself in legal difficulty quibbling over half-million?
Here are a few things I found searching for "thought crimes". Granted many or any of these people might have ulterior motives. Don't know. Haven't exactly followed these stories.

-------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...8%2Fnxeno18.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F02%2F18%2Fnxeno18. xml)

"Legislation now before Parliament will make "xenophobia and racism" one of 32 crimes for which the European arrest warrant can be issued without the existing safeguard of dual criminality. This requires that an extraditable offence must also be a crime in the UK.

Alongside the arrest warrant, EU ministers are negotiating a new directive to establish a common set of offences to criminalise xenophobia and racism."

---------

http://www.ihr.org/other/990424toben.html

"Disputing Holocaust extermination claims is illegal in Germany, Israel, France, and a few other countries"

-----------------
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/04/DTel030402.html

"In Germany a historian who claimed that Auschwitz prisoners enjoyed cinemas, a swimming pool and brothels was sentenced to 10 months in jail"

"Holocaust denial laws are in place in seven countries, including Germany, France and Austria."

----------------

This guy was prosecuted in a 9 year long case under Canadian law before being found not guily.

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/week.html

According to his site: "A ban by the German censors on my server was imposed. 1,500 web sites were inaccessible in Germany because of five small words, still followed by a question mark. Did Six Million Really Die?"

Not verified.

-----------

[PornoDoggy]

From http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/leaflets.html

Leaflets
A Look at The 'Powerful Jewish Lobby' New!
Liberating America from Israel New!
The 'Problem of the Gas Chambers'
Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

The http://www.fpp.co.uk/ website is run by David Irving, a British Holocaust revisionist. If I am not mistaken, he was the subject of the film recently banned at an Australian film festival that I referenced in an earlier post.

As I said, I'm an ACLU type, so laws against nearly any kind of relgion, speech or political views - even from the likes of these vermin - go against my grain. That being said, I have as much sympathy for the inability of these folks to get their story out without problems as I would for any protests by the likes of alQaida for difficulties that Arab countries may put on their freedom of expression.

Edited to add ...

This discussion originated as "Racial Equality", but has devolved down to a discussion of the rights of Nazis to reinvent history in order to deny their crimes against humanity. IMHO, scrape the veneer of most any attempt to establish the differences between racial groups, and you'll find like material.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Aug 29 2003, 11:15 AM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Aug 29 2003, 11:08 AM
As I said, I'm an ACLU type, so laws against nearly any kind of relgion, speech or political views - even from the likes of these vermin - go against my grain. That being said, I have as much sympathy for the inability of these folks to get their story out without problems as I would for any protests by the likes of alQaida for difficulties that Arab countries may put on their freedom of expression.
Pretty much how I feel too.

[aeon]

eugenics was dismissed because of it's absurdity. trying to reduce the absolute complexity & infinite # of variables of human behavior to individual "genes" & asserting that 3/4 of poles & russians are genetically feeble minded tended to not hold up under scrutiny. As well, using genetic indicators for socio-economic situations such as poverty/lack of eduction, (which resulted in sterilization laws/marriage laws, etc.,) eventually was seen for what it is - foolish...it was accepted by western culture because guess who had the best "genes" according to eugenics...? As well, it supported the "race" ideas prominent at the time...morphological characteristics are not "racial" indicators & not found in tandem among ethnic groups

Intelligence (which is impossible to define) is influenced by socio-ecomonic/cultural/physical enviornment & genetics - placing more emphasis on one over the other has no foundation. Even with identical twins the differentiation in "IQ" varies 15-20% from those reared together as those apart - and that's those reared apart in similar socio economic situations. That % increases in correlation to significant differences in culture/class etc.,

eugenics is moot - galton was a nutjob...it's not taboo anymore than santa clause...but even the hippies in the behavioral sciences don't study santa clause usually...cept for anthropologists & they'd study the sexual behavior of tanssexual nuns into beastiality if they could get a grant for it - to keep from actually getting a job.

I'm so glad I chose philosophy of the behavioral sciences. :rokk:

best of luck -
aeon

[Almighty Colin]

aeon,

All old news. Have anything new? ;-)

[aeon]

Originally posted by Colin@Aug 30 2003, 03:58 PM
aeon,

All old news. Have anything new? ;-)
nahhh - the whole topic was kinda old news...just thought I'd apply the geriatric form of eugenics to it...and put it out of it's misery ;)

best of luck -
aeon

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by aeon@Aug 30 2003, 06:32 PM
Even with identical twins the differentiation in "IQ" varies 15-20% from those reared together as those apart - and that's those reared apart in similar socio economic situations. That % increases in correlation to significant differences in culture/class etc.,
What's important though is not the difference between the twins but the similarity. Sure, the correlation scores for the IQ scores of twins separated at birth is about .2 difference but what does that matter in the question of whether there are genetic factors in the first place?

Since twins reared apart correlate at better than .70 and unrelated children reared together (adopted) only correlate .3 or so that's saying there IS a large genetic component.

What many in the field are saying today is that IQ is about .5 heritable.
Once we accept there is a genetic component of IQ and accept that IQ measures anything we might all call "intelligence" (that might be dubious and certainly challengable) we can draw another conclusion. Equal opportunities and continued equalization of people's intellectual environment will magnify the advantage of the genetically endowed.

If we naively assume that intelligence is at present 50/50 environmental/genetic (how convenient!) and our goal is to continually create a more educationally egalitarian society, then we will maybe someday reach a point where everyone's intellectual environment can be said to be more or less equal. At such a point, the 50/50 score we used to have changes to something like 80/20 in favor of genetic. Why? Because we are measuring difference between individual people. If every child has the same opportunity the children with natural advantages - and even small advantages will become comparatively important - will excel.



Last edited by Colin at Sep 1 2003, 01:24 PM

[Gumby]

Originally posted by Colin+Aug 27 2003, 04:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Aug 27 2003, 04:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Aug 27 2003, 06:03 AM
Colin,
Swiss are good at making watches...each nation/race has some qualities which are better than others...
What are the French good at? :groucho: :groucho:[/b][/quote]
Wine (whining) and Cheeze.

[aeon]

the variation is .15-.2 between identitical twins reared in similar socio economic situations...enviornment, opportunity. That differentiation varies dramatically as the enviornment changes.

Once we accept there is a genetic component of IQ and accept that IQ measures anything we might all call "intelligence" (that might be dubious and certainly challengable) we can draw another conclusion. Equal opportunities and continued equalization of people's intellectual environment will magnify the advantage of the genetically endowed.

That's not a strong position - you're saying if we accept there are two primarily determining factors to phenomenon X, namely x1 & x2, and we assume that x1 has the ability to be modified & x2 does not. By the sole fact of modifying/enhancing x1, x2 must in someway be enhanced or placed in an advantageous position. There's no reason to assume that & it doesn't follow.

I have two socks - they make a pair...both of them together are the determining factors in the phenomenon of a "pair" - I can change one of them & do so, does that necessarily mean the other changes or is in someway advanced or hindered...no - it just means I've changed one factor of the phenomenon & potentially changed the phenomenon itself - nothing else. It doesn't imply in anyway that the unchanged factor will be in anyway influenced...

possibly equalizing educational enviornment will stifle any "genetic" superiority, or make it's influence irrelevant...or it might do nothing - or it could afford those far greater opportunities...or or or or...

This is the reason behavioral sciences are called the "soft sciences" - dealing with human behavior/cognition involves so many unknown variables it's ability to approach deterministic probability is weak at best. The only way to offset that is to discard the concept of phenomenology & say everything is determined - we just haven't figured out how human behavior/cognition is yet...pavlov & skinner were interesting people but I personally like the idea of free-will - then again...the idea of robbing a bank and not being responsible for it does have some appeal :stout:

best of luck -
aeon

[Almighty Colin]

I'm not saying that changing one changes the other. I'm not saying that increasing nurture increases or decreases nature. I'm assuming the opposite really; the assumption is that changing one's environment does not change one's nature. What I am saying is that
by assuming:

1. There is something called intelligence and that we can or will someday be able to measure it relative to each other.
2. There is only a nature and nurure component to intelligence
3. The variables are independent

(Dubiousness of assumptions noted)

We can conclude that if we could make everyone's environment equal all that would be left for us to measure is the nature component.

In a contrived example:
Initially: environment 50, nurture 50
Finally: environment 0, nurture 100

That's not to say that the effects of the environment become 0. It's saying that the relative effects of the environment become negligible in a perfectly egalitarian intellectual world. We would measure intelligence only in relationship to each other.

Sure, lots of assumptions. For example, there is an assumption that the pre-natal environment doesn't matter (it probably does). There is probably a random factor, maybe the particular way and pattern in which neurons grow.

It is obviously a result though. People wish to create equal opportunity education. One early idea we've hit upon is to remove the effects of income. In the US, we don't wish for only high income family children to attend our best colleges and we have achieved that. We don't wish for children of particular races to be excluded from public schooling and that was achieved. Now, the big attempt is on to make sure that low income schooling is equivalent to high income schooling. We are trying that. Long way to go there.

What will it all look like in the end? As best as possible we equalize all nurturing effects on education. What is left? Children with a genetic advantage will stand out even more.

I know the Cult of Tabula Rasa is strong. Are you saying you believe there is NO genetic component to intelligence?



Last edited by Colin at Sep 2 2003, 04:51 AM

[aeon]

I'm not saying that changing one changes the other. I'm not saying that increasing nurture increases or decreases nature. I'm assuming the opposite really; the assumption is that changing one's environment does not change one's nature. What I am saying is that
by assuming:

1. There is something called intelligence and that we can or will someday be able to measure it relative to each other.
2. There is only a nature and nurure component to intelligence
3. The variables are independent (note this - then look below)

then:

In a contrived example:
Initially: environment 50, nurture 50
Finally: environment 0, nurture 100

= change

What I believe or don't isn't really relevant...just pointing out the problem of attempting to employ empiricism based on an abstract :okthumb:

best of luck -
aeon

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by aeon@Sep 2 2003, 07:17 PM
I'm not saying that changing one changes the other. I'm not saying that increasing nurture increases or decreases nature. I'm assuming the opposite really; the assumption is that changing one's environment does not change one's nature. What I am saying is that
by assuming:

1. There is something called intelligence and that we can or will someday be able to measure it relative to each other.
2. There is only a nature and nurure component to intelligence
3. The variables are independent (note this - then look below)

then:

In a contrived example:
Initially: environment 50, nurture 50
Finally: environment 0, nurture 100

= change

What I believe or don't isn't really relevant...just pointing out the problem of attempting to employ empiricism based on an abstract :okthumb:

best of luck -
aeon
It's not a contradiction. It may look like it because of how IQ tests are scored.

In my example, one doesn't change the other. It only appears to change because IQ scores are normalized so that 100 is the median score. To say that an environmental component of IQ goes from 50% to 0% doesn't mean that environment stops being a factor. It means that the difference between people in such an ideal example would be 0 and so it washes out. Since IQ tests aim to measure results only in comparison to other people, that component becomes 0.

What is left (genetic) is the only component that will be measured after that. We could still say it is "50" so it doesn't look like it changed but when scores are normalized it will become 100.