Intelligence, race and related issues.

[Politesse]

Ancestry has nothing to do with intelligence. Nothing.

And who won this year?

Or is it only evidence of racial superiority on the rare years that an Asian or a White happens to win, and irrelevant when a Black or Arab student takes the gold?

It's almost as though being a racist and being unable to think critically about things are somehow related...

 

[Politesse]

Remember, race does not exist.

Did you know that parents are very frequently unable to donate bone marrow to their children? Less than ten percent are a match. The problem isn't that the bone marrow somehow magically senses that it falls into a different sociopolitical category than the recipients', it's just less likely that parents with a disparate genetic history will be able to donate. The most likely parent donors would be parents who are also blood relations to each other - say, cousins. Again, not because of race. Two siblings will always be your best bet, regardless of what "race" they both belong to. If you were a Scottish shepherd and you married an Italian washing lady with no recent family connection to you, you'd have the exact same problem despite both being supposedly "white", exactly why that admittedly confusing NHS ad at least does not say "multi-racial". And why they are so keen to find a diverse spread of donors to populate their donor bank with. It's not enough to have someone of the "same race" donate, it has to be someone with very specifically similar genetics.

 

[Trausti]

Ancestry has nothing to do with intelligence. Nothing.

And who won this year?

Or is it only evidence of racial superiority on the rare years that an Asian or a White happens to win, and irrelevant when a Black or Arab student takes the gold?

It's almost as though being a racist and being unable to think critically about things are somehow related...

You were afraid to look it up yourself, I suppose.

 

[Politesse]

Ancestry has nothing to do with intelligence. Nothing.

And who won this year?

Or is it only evidence of racial superiority on the rare years that an Asian or a White happens to win, and irrelevant when a Black or Arab student takes the gold?

It's almost as though being a racist and being unable to think critically about things are somehow related...

You were afraid to look it up yourself, I suppose.

I'm perfectly aware. So why aren't any of the contestants in that clip Korean? According to your tortured logic? Did they just run out of Koreans, or what?

 

[Trausti]

Remember, race does not exist.

Did you know that parents are very frequently unable to donate bone marrow to their children? Less than ten percent are a match. The problem isn't that the bone marrow somehow magically senses that it falls into a different sociopolitical category than the recipients', it's just less likely that parents with a disparate genetic history will be able to donate. The most likely parent donors would be parents who are also blood relations to each other - say, cousins. Again, not because of race. Two siblings will always be your best bet, regardless of what "race" they both belong to. If you were a Scottish shepherd and you married an Italian washing lady with no recent family connection to you, you'd have the exact same problem despite both being supposedly "white", exactly why that admittedly confusing NHS ad at least does not say "multi-racial". And why they are so keen to find a diverse spread of donors to populate their donor bank with. It's not enough to have someone of the "same race" donate, it has to be someone with very specifically similar genetics.

Oh, dear.

The Effect of Race on Access and Outcome in Transplantation

The racial differences in ABO blood groups and MHC phenotypes make it more likely that a candidate for transplantation will receive a well-matched kidney from a member of the same race. A relative lack of minority organ donors decreases the number of well-matched kidneys available for minority recipients.

The number of minority patients who undergo transplantation could be improved by increasing the number of minority organ donors.

But why worry about that? Race doesn't exist!

 

[Politesse]

Oh, dear.

The Effect of Race on Access and Outcome in Transplantation

The racial differences in ABO blood groups and MHC phenotypes make it more likely that a candidate for transplantation will receive a well-matched kidney from a member of the same race. A relative lack of minority organ donors decreases the number of well-matched kidneys available for minority recipients.

The number of minority patients who undergo transplantation could be improved by increasing the number of minority organ donors.

But why worry about that? Race doesn't exist!

Once again citing an article that you either didn't or can't read, because it definitely is not saying what you seem to think it does.

 

[ruby sparks]

So we've come all this way and never a mention of Burt and Trivers: Genes in Conflict:The Biology of Selfish Genetic Elements https://www.google.com/search?q=Gen...69i57j69i60.4268j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 For an overview read  Intragenomic conflict.

I read it right along with Diamond's work. Burt and Trivers emphasize that for most alleles there are several genes or gene groups competing in each of us for ascendency in expression. So internal, external, and modifiable (eg. Methylation) factors can influence every grab bag term like IQ, tribe, nature, nurture. My plan is to wait until we can model all of this before I begin speculating about socially defined terms genetic or behavioral consequences.

That means I'm not going to speculate beyond saying Shockley, one of the Bell labs Nobel prize winners for the transistor, was an idiot on his use of statistics in which was described in the much read and misused book Shockley On Eugenics and Race by Roger Pearson: https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/selection/1992-pearson-shockleyoneugenicsandrace.djvu.

A very interesting book and very relevant to the discussion. Thanks for posting.

I have only skimmed through, so I can't comment in an informed way. The impression I get (from what the particular people who contributed to that book say in it) is that his reputation suffered and his ideas were badly received partly because (a) they went strongly against the prevailing mood/paradigm of the time (but that in many ways it seems he was probably in fact right) and partly (b) because of the way his claims were misused by proponents of eugenics (including the writer of that book and those who funded much of the research) some of whom may have had dubious motives and maybe even racist agendas. And of course eugenics has been the subject of renewed and recent interest, so the mood/paradigm that existed in Shockley's time may have shifted somewhat, especially among scientists.

But can I just ask why you say he (Shockley) was an idiot in his use of statistics? He was much more of a mathematician than a biologist it seems. In fact he wasn't a biologist at all (other than it presumably being part of his general education and possibly a lesser component of his Bachelor of Science degree perhaps). Is that lack of relevant expertise, and a consequent misapplication of 'mathematical statistics to biology (or race)' as a result, the background to your criticism?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've never met a person arguing for the existence of "races" who didn't think that their race was superior to the "other races." Has anyone been in discussions where this was not the case?

 

[Politesse]

I've never met a person arguing for the existence of "races" who didn't think that their race was superior to the "other races." Has anyone been in discussions where this was not the case?

I've been in many discussions where the racist insists that they don't have a race preference. You can usually ferret them out by bringing up the topic of IQ or "Western Civilization", as here.

In a much sadder case, many of my students glumly accept truths they've been taught, such as people of their supposed race being unable to do math, science, or attain a real career. The things you teach kids when they're young matter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've never met a person arguing for the existence of "races" who didn't think that their race was superior to the "other races." Has anyone been in discussions where this was not the case?

Definitely has the feeling of "I'm not a racist, but..."

 

[Jarhyn]

I've never met a person arguing for the existence of "races" who didn't think that their race was superior to the "other races." Has anyone been in discussions where this was not the case?

I've been in many discussions where the racist insists that they don't have a race preference. You can usually ferret them out by bringing up the topic of IQ or "Western Civilization", as here.

In a much sadder case, many of my students glumly accept truths they've been taught, such as people of their supposed race being unable to do math, science, or attain a real career. The things you teach kids when they're young matter.

Or, remember the whole thread on Aryanism in India? There were lots of countries with ethnic majorities willing to sign onto "Aryans are best, we're happy being number 2 as long as we aren't 'at the bottom' like Black, Jewish, Romani, or Irish"

I can't help but thinking this is just another head of that beast.

Lots of people in highschool were happy enough with being bullied as long as they also got to bully someone else.

 

[ronburgundy]

Remember, it’s an inconsequential fluke that global IQ tracks with global wealth. It’s just the wealthy countries are hoarding all the magic dirt, leaving low IQ countries with tragic dirt. Liberal creationists really need you to believe that.

Newsflash: Wealth causally impacts every aspect of the environment, many of which in turn impact the intellectual and academic development reflected by IQ tests. IOW, your own facts are evidence against your position, and you're incapable of seeing it. If I were a racist like yourself, I would use your proven lack of intellect to infer your race.

 

[Bomb#20]

I've never met a person arguing for the existence of "races" who didn't think that their race was superior to the "other races." Has anyone been in discussions where this was not the case?

Yes. You need to get out more.

 

[Bomb#20]

I've never met a person arguing for the existence of "races" who didn't think that their race was superior to the "other races." Has anyone been in discussions where this was not the case?

Definitely has the feeling of "I'm not a racist, but..."

I don't recall ever encountering a person arguing against the existence of races who wasn't either attempting to settle a scientific question by political ideology or else explaining why his expertise on the genetic facts was nonthreatening to the latter-day McCarthyists' political ideology. The collective decision of that political ideology to employ race denialism as a loyalty oath was a strategic error that will ultimately bite it in the ass. Those the ideology has infected would be well-advised to contemplate St. Augustine's advice on this topic.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."​

If any of you folks tediously reciting the politically motivated canard that races do not exist has the balls to defend the proposition in a forum that has actual standards of evidence, feel free to start a thread in Natural Science.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've never met a person arguing for the existence of "races" who didn't think that their race was superior to the "other races." Has anyone been in discussions where this was not the case?

Definitely has the feeling of "I'm not a racist, but..."

I don't recall ever encountering a person arguing against the existence of races who wasn't either attempting to settle a scientific question by political ideology or else explaining why his expertise on the genetic facts was nonthreatening to the latter-day McCarthyists' political ideology. The collective decision of that political ideology to employ race denialism as a loyalty oath was a strategic error that will ultimately bite it in the ass. Those the ideology has infected would be well-advised to contemplate St. Augustine's advice on this topic.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."​

If any of you folks tediously reciting the politically motivated canard that races do not exist has the balls to defend the proposition in a forum that has actual standards of evidence, feel free to start a thread in Natural Science.

What does this have to do with a discussion about race?

 

[Bomb#20]

What does this have to do with a discussion about race?

Figure it out.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't recall ever encountering a person arguing against the existence of races who wasn't either attempting to settle a scientific question by political ideology or else explaining why his expertise on the genetic facts was nonthreatening to the latter-day McCarthyists' political ideology. The collective decision of that political ideology to employ race denialism as a loyalty oath was a strategic error that will ultimately bite it in the ass. Those the ideology has infected would be well-advised to contemplate St. Augustine's advice on this topic.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."​

If any of you folks tediously reciting the politically motivated canard that races do not exist has the balls to defend the proposition in a forum that has actual standards of evidence, feel free to start a thread in Natural Science.

What does this have to do with a discussion about race?

Everything, as far as I can tell. Why would you think otherwise?

But for example, you made the following claim about yourself.

I've never met a person arguing for the existence of "races" who didn't think that their race was superior to the "other races."

Assuming that your claim had something to do with a discussion about race, then it seems apparent that so does B20's claim

I don't recall ever encountering a person arguing against the existence of races who wasn't either attempting to settle a scientific question by political ideology or else explaining why his expertise on the genetic facts was nonthreatening to the latter-day McCarthyists' political ideology.

Accepting that your experience with people arguing for the existence of races is relevant to a discussion about race, it seems to me his experience with people arguing against the existence of races is relevant as well.

 

[ruby sparks]

I've never met a person arguing for the existence of "races" who didn't think that their race was superior to the "other races." Has anyone been in discussions where this was not the case?

Yes. You have. You are, in fact.

I will admit that I am not entirely sure what race is. But that is a slightly different issue, I believe. Possibly deserving of its own thread.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've never met a person arguing for the existence of "races" who didn't think that their race was superior to the "other races." Has anyone been in discussions where this was not the case?

Yes. You have. You are, in fact.

I will admit that I am not entirely sure what race is. But that is a slightly different issue, I believe. Possibly deserving of its own thread.

LOL.

Not sure what's being discussed. Must be over my head so I'll move on. No biggie.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Remember, race does not exist.

Genetic diversity, not race.