Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, that touches on the old question whether or not all modern humans go back to the same relatively recent Africans or whether there has been regional evolution based on more ancient humans "species" that had already been there for a long time.
And I think it rests as well on the now debunked proposition that there was a single mass migration from Africa. The fossil record, as our tests become more sensitive, suggests multiple migrations of various sizes, and at multiple points along the evolution timeline. Which suggest that the human species might have been much more mobile than was previously thought, and if so, that there might be more intermingling of the related human species. Which I think challenges some of the assumptions made about haplogroups. More than that, so much of our haplogroup therapy is based on "fudging" and surmise, that I really think we have to take a big step back from accepting any conclusions based on haplogroup studies.
Is it inappropriate to study race and intelligence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
Is it inappropriate or unethical to study a racial group based on its IQ solely?
Nope, I don't think it is inappropriate at all. Why should it be?
We should encourage learning as much as possible about science which sheds light on human behavior and expected life outcomes. People should be willing to accept certain things about reality.
Inaccurate knowledge is unhelpful and leads to detrimental decisions for society in the long run.
And I think it rests as well on the now debunked proposition that there was a single mass migration from Africa. The fossil record, as our tests become more sensitive, suggests multiple migrations of various sizes, and at multiple points along the evolution timeline. Which suggest that the human species might have been much more mobile than was previously thought, and if so, that there might be more intermingling of the related human species. Which I think challenges some of the assumptions made about haplogroups. More than that, so much of our haplogroup therapy is based on "fudging" and surmise, that I really think we have to take a big step back from accepting any conclusions based on haplogroup studies.
I don't think scientists assume there was a mass migration, back then there were so few people on this planet, it probably was just a number of clans that left Africa.
An interesting aspect regarding that question is the Neanderthal admixture in all modern humans except Africans. If one could date that mingling and compare if the admixture is the same in, say, Chinese and Germans, it would suggest there was indeed no regional evolution, but one source so to speak.
I don't think scientists assume there was a mass migration, back then there were so few people on this planet, it probably was just a number of clans that left Africa.
An interesting aspect regarding that question is the Neanderthal admixture in all modern humans except Africans. If one could date that mingling and compare if the admixture is the same in, say, Chinese and Germans, it would suggest there was indeed no regional evolution, but one source so to speak.
I think that there is so much more to learn. For instance, the fact that they tested Neanderthal remains from a Spanish cave, and came up with Denisovan mitochondrial DNA, I think, shows that not only are the old linear theories completely debunked, but that the "tree" is much more complicated. And if Neanderthals and Denisovans intermingling, then how could haplogroups have been as stable and geographically fixed as current theories seem to think?
Nope, I don't think it is inappropriate at all. Why should it be?
We should encourage learning as much as possible about science which sheds light on human behavior and expected life outcomes. People should be willing to accept certain things about reality.
Inaccurate knowledge is unhelpful and leads to detrimental decisions for society in the long run.
I don't really agree. Just think of the many times scientists thought they had solved questions, only to find out later that they were wrong. Now, imagine they said tomorrow that, for instance blacks are more stupid than Asians (which is what many people think or hope as we all know). It would shatter the already weak self-confidence of many black people. And what would anyone gain from that? Nothing. Less intelligent today means inferior, like it or not, that's our modern priority.
Thus I think it is better to simply not study it in the first place. This way nobody knows. And treating others with respect has never hurt anyone.
There are many things that science could do, but should not do.
I think that there is so much more to learn. For instance, the fact that they tested Neanderthal remains from a Spanish cave, and came up with Denisovan mitochondrial DNA, I think, shows that not only are the old linear theories completely debunked, but that the "tree" is much more complicated. And if Neanderthals and Denisovans intermingling, then how could haplogroups have been as stable and geographically fixed as current theories seem to think?
Some say those Denisovan folks were closely related to Neanderthals. If that were the case, it could mean that there was mixing wherever modern humans and those other folks lived side by side.
Well, I guess we will have to wait a few more years before they have analyzed the entire genome of those ancient humans...
Nope, I don't think it is inappropriate at all. Why should it be?
We should encourage learning as much as possible about science which sheds light on human behavior and expected life outcomes. People should be willing to accept certain things about reality.
Inaccurate knowledge is unhelpful and leads to detrimental decisions for society in the long run.
Ok...so what reality should we be willing to accept?
And this "accurate knowledge"....so, what great decisions are we gonna make for society in the long run based on this accepted reality?
So are you saying that we'll use this info to set standards for people from each race?
BTW...what should be the "expected life outcome" for the less intelligent? And what should we do with the people from the higher intelligent group that doesn't meet the expectation set for that group?
LOL...you guys are throwing out a lot of cryptic opinions, not much specificity. That's the kinda stuff that makes people suspicious of intent. I already know what this is really all about, but it is what it is.
i have seen some good posts on this thread. i dont think assessing an entire race by some IQ or any other test is fair. each and every race has gifted people. i think however that i have some real concerns about social promotion and its effects on the success of our young people and their careers. too many people with high school diplomas do poorly on the military reading and math proficiency exams. there is a strong correlation between illiteracy and incarceration. social promotion attempts to hide this fact. among black young men over 70% have a high school diploma but 1 in 3 will expect to do jail time at some point in their life. this contradicts the strong correlation between illiteracy and incarceration. the explanation is social promotion.
the solution is not blaming anybody but stop giving out fake diplomas to avoid law suits and learn to read.
some good posts have been made about black success in the military. i could not agree more, and i want to see more of it. stop handing out fake high school diplomas.
LOL...you guys are throwing out a lot of cryptic opinions, not much specificity. That's the kinda stuff that makes people suspicious of intent. I already know what this is really all about, but it is what it is.
when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail
when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail
Yep...thing is though, i can discern a nail from other objects....and i'm seeing a ****load of nails.
Of course, it would help if certain questions got answered. Then perhaps i'd see something else.
I mean, i'm just supposed to accept that you're all interested in this topic so much in the simple "interest of science?" LMAO....i'd have to throw away everything i already know about the nature of people in order to believe that...and that's not something i'm about to do without my questions being answered.
Again, tests about race and intelligence have already been done and a new test isn't gonna reveal anything different.
Sooooooooo....
Since we have the data, what's the endgame here? What's the plan for the less intelligent? Also, for the people from the higher intellect group, what should we do with the underachievers from that group?
I mean, i'm not the one that asserted that this test is so important for this and that reason....you and others have. What should we do SPECIFICALLY with this science? And please, no prevaricating. Shoot straight if you're gonna shoot at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it inappropriate to study race and intelligence?
