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.
The problem with race, is that there are no clear lines. And if you say every person on this side of a line on a map is one race, and everyone on the other side of that line on a map are another race. From a genetic perspective, it seems pretty silly. Since people near those lines will be closer genetically to each other, than they are to people further away in their own supposed "races".
Basically, Greeks are generally considered white, and Turks are not. But, Turks and Greeks are generally more genetically similar than Greeks and Swedes. So why would it make sense that Greeks and Swedes are both considered white, while the Turks are not?
With that said. I do believe that when people argue that "race is a social construct", they are doing so in an attempt to pretend that no real differences exist.
For instance, we know that about 15% of all human diversity is absent when comparing distant population groups. Such as the Irish to the Japanese.
There is a huge amount of human diversity in our world, that goes far beyond skin color. And by pretending those differences are all superficial, is dishonest and harmful.
The problem isn't going to go away by using bully-tactics to silence people who argue that human differences are vast, important, and genetic tendencies by ancestry are noticeable and relevant. People who feel bullied tend to become even more radical.
If we can have an actual constructive discussion. Which doesn't devolve into one side or another hurling racial insults, or charges of racism. Maybe we can get beyond it.
My point of view is, yes, humans are different. But all humans are different. It goes far beyond race or geography. Every single person is different.
Those who obsess about race, tend to advocate for things like government-imposed segregation. This segregation leads to nationalism which creates socialism.
The opposite of racism, tries to argue that humans are inherently equal. And tries to use an expansive government to enforce some system of "fairness"(equality), eventually culminating in something that amounts to a one-world government. Which inevitably is a system which is inherently unfair.
I would rather be somewhere in the middle. Neither racist nor anti-racist. Simply, a realist. Who recognizes that people are different, and that nothing should be done about it. That if people are different, they cannot be equal. Thus there should not be any expectation of economic or social equality between either groups or individuals. That even if you wanted to create a more fair system. That it would be absolutely impossible to even know what fair is. So any system which tries to create equality, would necessarily be unfair. And thus, the best policy, is just to leave people alone.
That sounds like voodoo logic to me. I have no problem in telling what fair is in this context: Treating everyone the same, no privileges etc. for anyone except if they earned it as individuals.
I agree that humans are different, but they are not VERY different. Some are uglier than others, some taller than others, some darker than others, etc. Those are all just quantitative properties. I have no problem with that.
However, if someone tries to find such differences for qualities, and entire ethnic groups rather than individuals, so that individuals of a given group are treated differently just because they happen to belong to that group, I do have a problem with that. If an individual does not have what it takes to study, say, physics, they will not succeed in that area, anyway. So what is the point in telling that person you did not succeed because you are this or that race rather than you did not succeed because your marks were not good enough?
I think people who study intelligence and race, usually have an agenda, whether they are aware of it or not.
That sounds like voodoo logic to me. I have no problem in telling what fair is in this context: Treating everyone the same, no privileges etc. for anyone except if they earned it as individuals.
I agree that humans are different, but they are not VERY different. Some are uglier than others, some taller than others, some darker than others, etc. Those are all just quantitative properties. I have no problem with that. However, if someone tries to find such differences for qualities, and entire ethnic groups rather than individuals, so that individuals of a given group are treated differently just because they happen to belong to that group, I do have a problem with that. If an individual does not have what it takes to study, say, physics, they will not succeed in that area, anyway. So what is the point in telling that person you did not succeed because you are this or that race rather than you did not succeed because your marks were not good enough?
I think people who study intelligence and race, usually have an agenda, whether they are aware of it or not.
This is the slippery slope. I don't believe in equality in the sense that I believe some people are better at math than others, some people are better at hockey than others, some are smarter than others, some are funnier than others, etc. What I do believe in is that everyone is given equality of opportunity and that we never turn some away from a potential college, job, position, etc. because of their race, color, creed, etc. Let the best person for the job get the job on their own merits regardless of their race.
From my experience the average man or woman on the street is about the same intelligence level no matter their race. We get so caught up in who is "smarter" but does it really matter? Great men and women throughout history haven't always been the smartest or most brilliant. I would say most of our presidents and world leaders, good or bad, haven't been genius material. Our great war generals probably weren't MENSA members. What most of the great leaders throughout time did have was a high drive to succeed and the inability to quit. Never giving up is more important than anything else in life.
Agreed. Application and dedication trumps IQ in the overwhelming case of most people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
or you could just call everyone racist. that also works.
no we haven't. at least i haven't.
the topic of the thread is whether it is appropriate to study it, or not.
I didn't call anyone a racist. That's what you want me to do so that you don't have to answer the question about your ultimate intent and endgame given the immutable data. Yeah, i have certain suspicions, and given the history of this country, i SHOULD have those suspicions. I'd be a fool not to. I don't trust anyone...as i shouldn't.
You're not a scientist....or at least you haven't claimed to be one, so what is the practical application for these results? Seeing as how they aren't gonna turn up anything new that previous tests haven't already laid out. Unless of course, you're gonna tell me that the new tests will shake things up a bit and completely change previously held notions. Let's not play games; we both know that's not about to happen.
Whether or not it's appropriate to study is a question i've already answered. I've said that the study doesn't bother me, but that previous studies have already been done and we already know the truth. So what exactly would more studies prove? And to be truthful, how do you know that it isn't being studied right now? Are you saying that you'd be willing to give those studies more preponderance by donating taxpayer money to them in the form of research grants?
This is the slippery slope. I don't believe in equality in the sense that I believe some people are better at math than others, some people are better at hockey than others, some are smarter than others, some are funnier than others, etc. What I do believe in is that everyone is given equality of opportunity and that we never turn some away from a potential college, job, position, etc. because of their race, color, creed, etc. Let the best person for the job get the job on their own merits regardless of their race.
Which would be a slippery slope if there really were considerable intelligence differences between ethnic groups. Since higher intelligence often goes hand in hand with better education and ultimately higher income, it would mean an insurmountable wealth hierarchy along ethnic lines. I don't know any solution to such a scenario, just saying. Maybe a much reduced income spread and in the long run race mixing...
This is the slippery slope. I don't believe in equality in the sense that I believe some people are better at math than others, some people are better at hockey than others, some are smarter than others, some are funnier than others, etc. What I do believe in is that everyone is given equality of opportunity and that we never turn some away from a potential college, job, position, etc. because of their race, color, creed, etc. Let the best person for the job get the job on their own merits regardless of their race.
I was at a coffee shop yesterday morning and I overheard two older gentleman discussing this. I live in the same town as a major research university, so I'm not sure if these guys were professors or just two random dudes. Regardless, they were arguing about the validity of IQ tests on various grounds. One guy was against IQ tests all together and the other cited studies saying that Asians were consistently top performers and then whites, Hispanics, and blacks.
So my question is as follows: Is it inappropriate or unethical to study a racial group based on its IQ solely?
Didn't read the whole thread, might do so when time permits, but as a black person I don't think it is inappropriate.
It actually still occurs and even IQ tests are still used. There have been studies that have even shown that when "motivated" for a reward or prize that black kids who have test the average 80-85 IQ of black Americans are retested after told they will get candy if they try harder that they score in the average white range of 100 IQ points and many people don't believe that IQ is set in stone based on this.
Also, I do think that many people, when speaking of IQ, think that people who score low on school based standardized testing have low IQs when this is not true so there is somewhat of a misconception there as well.
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.
that mentality
