I have never once heard anyone make any such claim. Certainly nobody in this thread has made such a claim; therefore, it *is* irrelevant.
You asserted that "the genetics aren't really all that different" between africans and Europeans as support for your claim that "there actually aren't any biological differences" related to psychological processes and thus "the brain's identical" between the groups.
It is highly similar to the claims many make about male and female being not very different genetically and therefore unlikely to have any biologically based psychological differences. It is relevant because it points out the total meaningless of statments like "aren't really all that different" since a tiny % of differences can still mean differences of millions of positions in the genome which are more than enough to produce meaningful brain differences.
Sure, men and women differ more than men and men, but the same meaningless statement of "not really all that different" could apply to and often gets used to refer to genders, and the smaller differences within gender are still more than enough to allow for brain differences.
Ah, so you admit that neural connections highly determine our personalities and thoughts (and therefore actions),
"Highly?" Stop ascribing descriptive terms to my views that serve no purpose other than to prop up your own arguments.
You just said that the "neural connections are not atomically identical from one person's brain to the next; if they were we'd all have identical personalities and thoughts". IOW differences in connections create differences in personalities and thoughts. How is that not indicative of one "highly" influencing the other? This is one of the only things you get right about neuroscience, so why dishonestly deny that you acknowledge it?
yet in the next breath argue that differences in neural connonections are too "minute" to create psychological differences between people. What's that again?
Learn some reading comprehension, please; I said nothing of the sort.
It is exactly what you said. You dismissed differences in neural connections as "those kind of minute differences" and not fundamental to variances in human cognition. Your whole argument rests upon this assumption.
Then you should easily be able to find many peer reviewed neuroscience articles concluding that African and European brains differ on no dimension that any brains could differ on that is relevant to any psychological processes. You cannot, because it isn't anything anyone literate in neuroscience would ever utter.
Excuse me? Are you SERIOUSLY asking me to find you peer reviewed articles that show not only that there's *no* difference, but that there *couldn't* be?
Yes, because you are the one making the extremist definitive claims. You are claiming that it is "a scientific fact" that European and African brains are "identical" and that there "aren't any biological differences [sufficient to] lead to different behavior and psychology".
Do you not understand how science fucking *works*?
If you want to claim a scientific "fact" as you repeatedly have, then you need evidence to support it. That is how science works. And yet, you've failed to even attempt to provide a single study show that the brains are "identical" as you claim, let alone the thousands of studies using thousands of brains and methods that don't even exist yet in order to provide evidence that no differences exist, again you have repeatedly claimed. Note you have not claimed a mere lack of observed differences but that it is a fact that no differences exist, observed or otherwise.
If you want to make the claim that there are differences in brain structure between different ethnicities
A claim I never made nor implied and which is not assumed in anything I have said.
No, my statement is based upon being actually aware of the state of neuroscience
Nobody who'se actually aware of the state of neuroscience would be trying to paint a picture of our knowledge as being so insufficient as to make it a toss-up in regards to this question.
Yes, they would, because such differences are 100% consistent with everything that we do already know and the countless billions of differences that could exist given the known dimension on which people could vary make those difference quite plausible, and make your assertions of “identical” brains as “scientific fact” completely irrational and unscientific.
and of the fact that most of what their is to know about the human brain, the trillions of ways in which brains can differ, and the numerous ways that any difference can impact psychological processes is still unknown. I am aware that nothing in the science of neuropsychology precludes the possibility of measurable neuro-based psychological differences between Africans and Europeans. I am aware that only gross ignorance of these areas of science could allow for statements like yours to be made.
And once again, you're demonstrating both an ignorance of science, and dishonesty. First of all, neither I nor anyone else claimed the possibility does not exist.
You have claimed that it is a “scientific fact” that “there actually aren’t any biological differences” and that the brains are “identical”. If something merely hasn’t been observed yet because no one has looked very thoroughly, then there is no “scientific fact” other than the fact that no one has looked. It is true that it is nearly impossible to prove a negative, which is why no literate scientist assert the absence of something as a “scientific fact”, because such assertions are inherently irrational and unscientific , except maybe if the thing in question is extremely specific and the search for it extremely exhaustive. Note that it not even a “fact” that there are no differences according to current science. Current science allows for the very real plausibility of such differences and nothing in science suggest they don’t exist. The lack of already observed differences is utterly meaningless and mute on the issue since something can’t be observed if no one has looked (and no one has looked for 99% of the potential differences that could exist). You simply have been caught in irrational nonsense you cannot support and made extremist ideological assertions that you are now trying to backpeddle out of and pretend that all you meant was “No differences have been observed”. Had you said or in any way implied that this discussion would have ended long ago with my simple response of “Correct, but that is meaningless since no one has looked. “
and science is not in the business of making far-reaching assertions like yours without the evidence lining up.
Science is in the business of using general facts that are known to speculate about what is plausible and probable (it happens every second in ever field and the best scientists do it all the time). We reserve claims that something plausible is a “scientific fact” until we have more direct evidence of it. Likewise, no scientist ever claims something does not exist before anyone has bothered to look, which is exactly what you have done.
Just because science might one day discover that reality is just an illusion and there really is a god that create the universe 15 seconds ago with our memories in place, doesn't mean it is a scientific statement *today*.
My assertions are all consistent with what is scientifically known. Nothing we know currently needs to be revised in order for there to be brain differences between these groups. Such differences would be perfectly consistent with and in fact provide added support to all relevant scientific theories. That is my point, that such differences are highly plausible because they would make perfect sense given the general facts we already know and the billions of pathways and brain variables by which any differences could emerge. I have not made assertions about differences that actually exist. It is you who have made definitive and extremist assertions that no differences exist and that the brains are “identical”. These are completely irrational and unscientific assertions. IF no differences have been observed to date that would be completely meaningless for you to point out because it would have zero relevance to anything I have said. I made a theoretical argument about the plausibility of yet unknown differences existing based upon general relevant facts that are known. You made no effort to challenge the assumptions of that argument and instead simply asserted that my conclusion has already been proven wrong because it is “scientific fact” that no differences exist and that the brains are “identical”.
Wrong. Nothing I have said requires that the between group differences be greater than what can be observed between members of the same group.
Actually, it does. You have consistently been talking about biological differences between ethnic groups that account for different psychology and behavior. This becomes completely *meaningless*, however, if those differences are the exact same sort of variation we see between members of the same ethnicity. You can't argue that the apples of one farm are fundamentally different from those of another farm
There is that word you keep meaninglessly tossing about. Nowhere have I said or that anyone’s or any group’s brain is “fundamentally different” from another. That is your strawman invention to make it seem like I am assuming one group has frontal lobes and the other doesn’t. I have only ever implied a strongly probability of their being a “difference”. In fact, I have repeatedly rejected the notion of one group being able to do X and the other being unable, or one group lacking a brain basic structure that the other one has. I have only ever referred to potential differences in matters of degree and in tendencies that vary across individuals but can also vary in the central tendencies (the averages) for each group around which individuals in each group vary.
Your height example doesn't really address this either; since it relies on the assumption that a general difference exists without any evidence for it. Yes, women tend to be shorter than men, and the fact that you can find a woman taller than the average difference doesn't change this. This is not, however, analogous to the subject we're talking about, since there's no evidence of such a general difference in brain structure.
It is perfectly analogous to the issue being illustrated, which is that two groups can differ in tendencies even though the variation in that dimensions is greater within each group than between them. It doesn’t matter whether there is direct evidence of a between group difference in brains. The point is that you are absolutely wrong that between group differences are “meaningless” if there is similar level of variation within the groups. It is really science 101. Anyone who understands what a simple t-test of differences between means would understand what I am talking about. In most scientific experiments when 2 conditions are significantly different, it is still the case that their distributions on the outcome variable greatly overlap and that the within group variance is as great or greater than the between group difference in central tendency. It is clear that you would fail any test of introductory undergraduate research methods.
Merely having differences in the average number of neural connections from the Amygdala to any of the numerous brain regions it connects to would be more than enough.
Which would approach an actual argument if we in fact found such differences to exist...
... we have not.
My argument has never been anything more than claiming that there have been countless environmental pressures that could have produced brain differences and billions of ways that brains could have been impacted to produce group level differences in tendencies, despite large levels of within group variation. I have merely stated differences are highly plausible, you have made the extremist and unscientific assertion that it is a “scientific fact” that no differences exist and that the brains are “identical”. Yes, we need to attempt to make the observations to see if differences exist, both before claiming a difference exists and before claiming (as you have) that no differences exist. Only you have made assertions that require such evidence. My assertions have been merely that that is plausible enough that it is worth looking and that no honest or knowledgeable scientists would be the least bit surprised to find such differences.
Stop tossing around words like "fundamental" when you clearly have no clue how the brain works and how it determines cognition.
Only when you stop accusing people of not having a clue how the brain works before launching into an explanation I already grasped perfectly well back before I could even grow a beard.
Sorry, but no one with the slightest grasp of neuroscience, let alone who grasps it “perfectly well” would ever would ever claim that neural connections are not “fundamental” to psychological variance or that it is a “scientific fact” that two human populations have “identical” brains. I look forward to your backpeddling denying that you have made such claims, despite the fact that without these claims nothing you’ve said in any way contradicts anything I have said.
This illustrates your strawman creation. You are limiting differences to those where one group completely lacks a psychological feature like perceiving color that another population has. That is like saying "Africans experience intense fear, while Europeans completely lack the capacity for experiencing fear. Where is anyone anywhere making such a claim? No one is talking about all or nothing traits where one group has X and the other does not. Nearly every psychological trait is something that varies in degree and quantity, plus in relative degree in relation to other traits.
Yes, you're very clever for misrepresenting as my actual position what I stated to be an *example*; examples, particularly those of the hypothetical kind, tend to be exaggerated for the purposes of discussion.
Your exaggerated example is a very good example of how your entire argument rests upon a straw man exaggeration that any meaningful difference must be a "fundamental difference in brain structure", even though no such extreme differences are needed for highly significant, impactful, and meaningful differences in biologically driven psychological tendencies. Your whole nonsense about group differences having to be qualitatively different from within group variance (a claim inconsistent with every branch of science) rest on this silly straw man. Groups can differ in meaningful ways along the same dimension the individuals within a group differ. Any way in which two persons can differ is a way in which 2 groups can differ in their central tendencies. If you are more aggressive than me, the group we belong to could still be less aggressive than another group, even if one of both of us happen to be more aggressive than some people from that group. It appears that entire argument stems from a basic failure to grasp this simple fact of how within and between group variance on a continuous dimension operates.
A population has a central tendency around with degree of that trait vary and that variance can itself vary in how dispersed or clustered it is, whether it is skewed, bimodal, etc.. It is these averages and/or nature of the distributions for each sub-population that is all anyone is referring to when they talk about psychological differences. For example, if the average ratio of number of connections between the amygdala and the thalamus to the connections between the amygdala and the visual cortex was 8:5 for Europeans versus 5:5 for Africans that could impact psychological processes and thus the outputted behaviors in numerous ways.
And again, you'd have an actual argument if there was actual science demonstrating this to be so.
However, if you want me or anyone else to take this idea to be at all likely, *you* are going to have to point us at some actual *evidence*.
My argument is only that what is known make such differences plausible. I don't need any direct evidence of specific differences for that argument. In fact, such known differences would mean my argument of plausibility is mute, because it is an observed fact that they exist. There has been almost zero attempt to compare European and African brains in most of the ways that would matter for psychological differences (e.g., those “minute” differences you dismiss but that account for most variance in human thought processes). Thus, we wouldn’t expect observed differences if no valid effort has even been made to engage in such observations. To date what we have are many relevant basic facts evolution and neuroscience which together make brain differences between sub-groups with differing environmental histories a strong probability. These are the basic facts about human evolution, the role of environment , variance in environments of sub-groups, variance in the variance of environments for each sub-group, and evidence of the genetic influence on the many brain factors I listed that can combine in billions of ways to produce differences between people, thus allowing for billions of brain features natural selection could impact over 100,000 years to produce measurable psychological and behavioral differences. Then we also have many known biological and genetic differences between these sub-groups. Despite your blind dismissal of the genetic differences between groups, using the full genome of people, they can be categorized according to which human sub-group they belong to with a very high degree of accuracy. This is only possible because while each single difference is only modestly discriminating between groups, there are so many differences that their combination
I realize of course, that it's much easier and more convenient for you to ask me to disprove your idea,
I didn’t ask you to disprove my idea. My idea is merely that what we know in general makes such differences very plausible. To disprove that you would need to refute the basic facts of evolution and human cognition. You have tried the latter by asserting that the billions of variables that produce most variance in human cognition are merely "minute" and "meaningless" differences that couldn't produce group differences in psychology. I have explained how that is absurd and against almost everything in neuroscience in the last 30 years.
What I asked you to do what to provide evidence for your own extremist claim that is is a "scientific fact" that the brains are "identical". That requires evidence to be anything but the pure ideological faith that we both know it is.
Provide some compelling evidence, or expect your notions to be rejected as baseless conjecture.
I have provided extensive bases for my conjectures and you haven't challenged any of it. Instead you have asserted that the probability of differences can be rejected without considering my underlying argument because we already know that no differences in the brains exist as a matter of scientific fact. You're wrong, we don't know anything of the sort. All we know is that such differences could occur in billions of ways and would be consistent with everything we already do know, and that nothing we know precludes their possibility and that no effort has been made to seriously look for such differences.
Wrong. The brain would be the proximal cause of the psychological experience of colorblindness. Genes and experience impact brain biology, then biology impacts psychology. Thus, brain biology is always more causally proximal cause of psychology than genes or experience.
Proximal; situated toward the point of origin. The brain develops based on instructions from the genes, and is acted upon by biological processes that are subservient/dependent upon the genes. So no, the biology of the brain is NOT always the proximal cause.
That is not the definition of proximal cause. Proximal cause is in contrast to “distal” causes that are further away from the consequence being caused in the causal chain of events. The proximate cause is the one that more immediately precedes the event being explained. IOW, it is the cause situated toward the
destination point (the effect) and NOT toward the
origin point, which would be the original and most distal cause. The brain is causally closer than genes or environment to the behavior being explained, thus is the more proximal cause of the behavior. If a chain of events is X --> Y --> Z, then the more proximal cause of Z is Y.
from [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causation" said:
Wiki on "Proximate and Ultimate Causatio[/URL]n]
A proximate cause is an event which is closest to, or immediately responsible for causing, some observed result. This exists in contrast to a higher-level ultimate cause (or distal cause)
• Example: Why did the ship sink?
• Proximate cause: Because it was holed beneath the waterline, water entered the hull and the ship became denser than the water which supported it, so it could not stay afloat.
• Ultimate cause: Because the ship hit a rock which tore open the hole in the ship's hull.
