U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 08:05 PM
 
1,793 posts, read 612,850 times
Reputation: 1381

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerJAX View Post
If you consider IQ to be a reliable measure of "g" or cognitive ability, then it throws a wrench in the conjecture that variability in human intelligence is primarily due to genetic factors as the Flynn effect demonstrates otherwise. American whites around the WW2 era would score on average 15 points lower than contemporary American whites. This isn't to say that genetics don't play a role, as up 500 genes (last time I checked) have been found that possibly play a role in intelligence. More research is required, as we don't even have a close to a complete picture that genes have on variability in human intelligence. So you can go ahead and peddle your conjecture here as gospel, but you aren't convincing those of us with better judgment and more respect for the scientific process.
They have done genetics/environment studies and found that intelligence as measured by IQ is 70-80% genetic in nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 08:06 PM
 
Location: Jersey
2,305 posts, read 3,415,691 times
Reputation: 2042
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment View Post

Huh?
It was a broad swipe at those who are absolutely convinced that genetics are primarily responsible for variability of human intelligence on the individual level and between different populations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:14 PM
 
145 posts, read 95,626 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment View Post
No, not biologically meaningless, not based on phenotype... nothing to do with a singular common ancestor.
Yes biologically meaningless , entirely based on phenotype ( are you arguing race in America is not based on phenotype ) and I never said a "single common ancestor" .

I know this is a meaningless anonymous forum but , oh my god , interacting with you is quite frustrating .

Are you really dyslexic or something or just cherry picking random words and statements from my post and running with it to **** me off .. I can't really tell.

I started the discussion with the following - is what we today call " Race " in the Unites states of America a real thing ?

Of all the simplistic and disjointed ramblings that you have posted since then , there is nothing which even addresses this question.

I think I am done with you .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:18 PM
 
863 posts, read 274,006 times
Reputation: 401
learn about the royal navy it blossomed at the SAME time as the new central banking system of England..that and the fact that England sits on a mountain of coal the invention of accurate clocks for navigation and one has the answer..this has been pointed out early-on in this thread..period! all these points were also mentioned by buckminster fuller years ago
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:28 PM
 
12,677 posts, read 3,969,410 times
Reputation: 3835
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude5568 View Post
Yes biologically meaningless , entirely based on phenotype ( are you arguing race in America is not based on phenotype ) and I never said a "single common ancestor" .

.
Not biologically meaningless, race in America is not at all based on phenotype, but self identifying ancestry from regions a particular race clusters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:40 PM
 
Location: Japan
10,959 posts, read 4,516,582 times
Reputation: 7027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
They have done genetics/environment studies and found that intelligence as measured by IQ is 70-80% genetic in nature.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the differences in average IQ between groups are 70-80% genetic (although they might be).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:41 PM
 
184 posts, read 18,369 times
Reputation: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude5568 View Post
Yes biologically meaningless , entirely based on phenotype ( are you arguing race in America is not based on phenotype ) and I never said a "single common ancestor" .
Just because original classifications were entirely based on phenotype, doesn't make it biologically meaningless. Afterall, phenotype arises from genotype. I should add that pretty much all classifications - including that of animal species - began with phenotypes.

We now understand that race is more than just shared phenotype. It's really shared ancestors. All us Europeans share the same ancestors if we go back a certain amount of time. We would have to go back even farther in time to share ancestors with those in the middle east. Farther still to share ancestors with those in eastern Asia. And farther back even more so to share it with sub-saharan Africans.

The Arabs have a great proverb for this: Me against my brother. Me, my brother against my cousin. My family against the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:46 PM
 
184 posts, read 18,369 times
Reputation: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerJAX View Post
If you consider IQ to be a reliable measure of "g" or cognitive ability, then it throws a wrench in the conjecture that variability in human intelligence is primarily due to genetic factors as the Flynn effect demonstrates otherwise. American whites around the WW2 era would score on average 15 points lower than contemporary American whites. This isn't to say that genetics don't play a role, as up 500 genes (last time I checked) have been found that possibly play a role in intelligence. More research is required, as we don't even have a close to a complete picture that genes have on variability in human intelligence. So you can go ahead and peddle your conjecture here as gospel, but you aren't convincing those of us with better judgment and more respect for the scientific process.
I really think all this debate about IQ tests is really missing the point. We really have two choices

1)Differences in human productivity between groups comes down to accident, luck, chance and we're all innately equal.
2)Differences in human productivity has a significant genetic component.

While a lot of people like to dissect the evidence that points very strongly towards 2, we always forget to step back and realize there is no evidence that points to 1, and 1 has an uphill battle to explain the pervasive differences among groups in various environments, cultures.\

If you wanted to take the scientific approach, at the very least be agnostic. But it seems some people very reflexively push 1, despite the evidence to the contrary, despite the sheer amount of "just-how" stories etc. As if they're blinded by the religion of human equality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:51 PM
 
Location: Japan
10,959 posts, read 4,516,582 times
Reputation: 7027
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude5568 View Post
are you arguing race in America is not based on phenotype )
No, I was providing my own definition of race which is not based on phenotype (you asked).
Quote:
and I never said a "single common ancestor" .
Right... you said, "the supposed " common ancestor " of all Europeans"
Quote:
I know this is a meaningless anonymous forum but , oh my god , interacting with you is quite frustrating .
I imagine so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:09 PM
 
145 posts, read 95,626 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Not biologically meaningless, race in America is not at all based on phenotype, but self identifying ancestry from regions a particular race clusters.
One last time and I'll try and write it in a way that is easy to understand .

point 1 ) - People look different from one another . A Norwegian looks different than a Nigerian who looks different than a Korean.

point 2 ) - These " Phenotypic " differences in skin color , hair texture , nose width , lip thickness and on an on are caused by " environmental " factors of the respective regions these populations evolved in .

point 3 ) - How we classify " race " in America has varied tremendously over the years . It has now ( post WW2 ) settled to a " European phenotype " and christian/jewish religion and identifying with a Western civilization . This is in a Social context . Technically , middle easterners and north africans are classified as " White " by the census bureau but of course not seen as such socially . Did you know Indians were also classified as " White " by the 1970 census but self petitioned to be placed in a different category .

point 4 ) - You can make generalized statements like Europeans have a certain percentage of Neanderthal DNA or Denisovan DNA and so on and I'll not refute this . The point is that this is just an interesting tidbit of information and holds no tangible biologic meaning .

point 5 ) - Humans are very similar genetically ( 99.9 percent same).

point 6) - " Race " is what people say it is ( hence a social construct ) . It is a system of classification that has malice at it's core and has brought untold misery to people's lives whether be it slavery , segregation or the holocaust . That combined with that fact that it is a scientifically dubious system of classifying people is my argument for why I discredit it. We humans are insecure , imperfect beings . Before long , curiosities about someone's phenotype evolve into a judgement about their intelligence , morality and culture ( as is abundantly evident on this thread itself ). That is where the problem starts .

Last point ) - No one is saying people don't look different , No one is saying there are not genetic clusters among populations , no one is saying europeans might not have more neanderthal DNA than sub saharan africans and on and on . What I am saying is that these little tidbits are not justifications to divide people into " races ".

It's the classic chicken or the egg . That means that if you for whatever reason WANT to SEE people as different you can use all these " tidbits " to justify what you want to do and what fits your social and political agenda . Your agenda might be a benign one ( " in the name of the truth " or " to show those liberals and social justice warriors whose right " ) or a malicious one ( " all jews must die " ) but that does not change the fact that you CHOOSE to see the world this way . We all evolved from about 3000 " pre humans " about 70,000 years ago and where you draw the line from that till August , 2019 is up-to you man.

Looking at the world this way has only brought mayhem and misery . We are all the same . Whether you accept it or not.

I believe now I am truly done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top