|
|
On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more. I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist. On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright: “This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.” We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external. Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States. Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. User was warned for this post
I find it ironic seeing that it was him who started this whole thing by misunderstanding sunprince.
|
On August 03 2012 11:53 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 11:35 xDaunt wrote:
What Reid did is total bullshit. Drop the name of the source or shut the hell up. I'm guessing that Reid is talking out of his ass, and this is all just a calculated maneuver to get Romney to disclose his tax returns. I'm thinking that this is going to backfire.
Edit: Also, didn't Reid say the source was a Bain "investor" as opposed to one of the managing members? How would an investor know anything about Romney's taxes? Reid can peddle whatever rumor he likes about Romney's tax returns uncontradicted. How can it possibly backfire if Romney will never release them?
I dunno, most of the reaction seems to be anti-Reid, not anti-Romney. He's making a pretty serious allegation on the Senate floor and can't substantiate it with anything more than a single private source that he won't reveal.
Peddling rumors for political reasons is one thing, that's part of the game. Playing the dead dad card without a shred of proof just makes Reid a bad person.
|
On August 03 2012 09:46 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 09:38 Defacer wrote:On August 03 2012 09:23 coverpunch wrote:On August 03 2012 08:50 Speece wrote:
Obama is a stronger candidate in literally every way. Can someone explain what Romney has going for him other than he is not Obama? You've never seen Romney play croquet or tie a sweater around his neck. And a robot dance-off? PLEASE. But seriously, if the presidency came down to a bo7 series of StarCraft 2, who would win? Edit: From their social policies, you know Romney plays protoss and Obama plays zerg. I don't. Two templar forming a union sounds a little too much like gay marriage. And zerg has evolution. I guess he's a Terran man.
of course he's terran he has infinite minerals from his mules
|
On August 03 2012 14:02 Kleinmuuhg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 09:46 DannyJ wrote:On August 03 2012 09:38 Defacer wrote:On August 03 2012 09:23 coverpunch wrote:On August 03 2012 08:50 Speece wrote:
Obama is a stronger candidate in literally every way. Can someone explain what Romney has going for him other than he is not Obama? You've never seen Romney play croquet or tie a sweater around his neck. And a robot dance-off? PLEASE. But seriously, if the presidency came down to a bo7 series of StarCraft 2, who would win? Edit: From their social policies, you know Romney plays protoss and Obama plays zerg. I don't. Two templar forming a union sounds a little too much like gay marriage. And zerg has evolution. I guess he's a Terran man. of course he's terran he has infinite minerals from his mules
This exchange was gold.
No pun intended.
|
On August 03 2012 14:02 Kleinmuuhg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 09:46 DannyJ wrote:On August 03 2012 09:38 Defacer wrote:On August 03 2012 09:23 coverpunch wrote:On August 03 2012 08:50 Speece wrote:
Obama is a stronger candidate in literally every way. Can someone explain what Romney has going for him other than he is not Obama? You've never seen Romney play croquet or tie a sweater around his neck. And a robot dance-off? PLEASE. But seriously, if the presidency came down to a bo7 series of StarCraft 2, who would win? Edit: From their social policies, you know Romney plays protoss and Obama plays zerg. I don't. Two templar forming a union sounds a little too much like gay marriage. And zerg has evolution. I guess he's a Terran man. of course he's terran he has infinite minerals from his mules
Haha, if ANYONE runs on the platform of fixing the economy with MULES they have my vote!
|
On August 03 2012 13:44 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more. I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist. On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright: “This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.” We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external. Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States. Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. User was warned for this post I find it ironic seeing that it was him who started this whole thing by misunderstanding sunprince.
As a reminder in case he edits it later, sunprince posted these words himself:
On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
He is not saying that black people are inferior. He is not saying that it is the fault of African-Americans that they are inferior. But he is still saying that they are inferior and that there is even a genetic component to it. If this is a misunderstanding, he hasn't corrected anyone's misunderstanding of his plain and obvious language at all except for claiming that his position is scientific and that disagreeing is motivated by political correctness.
|
On August 03 2012 13:56 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 11:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 03 2012 11:35 xDaunt wrote:
What Reid did is total bullshit. Drop the name of the source or shut the hell up. I'm guessing that Reid is talking out of his ass, and this is all just a calculated maneuver to get Romney to disclose his tax returns. I'm thinking that this is going to backfire.
Edit: Also, didn't Reid say the source was a Bain "investor" as opposed to one of the managing members? How would an investor know anything about Romney's taxes? Reid can peddle whatever rumor he likes about Romney's tax returns uncontradicted. How can it possibly backfire if Romney will never release them? I dunno, most of the reaction seems to be anti-Reid, not anti-Romney. He's making a pretty serious allegation on the Senate floor and can't substantiate it with anything more than a single private source that he won't reveal. Peddling rumors for political reasons is one thing, that's part of the game. Playing the dead dad card without a shred of proof just makes Reid a bad person.
Even Jon Stewart called bullshit on Harry Reid for his stunt, and Jon Stewart has almost no respect for Romney whatsoever.
Edit: Sorry, I was ninja'd ... by you! lol.
|
On August 03 2012 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 13:44 RavenLoud wrote:On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more. I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist. On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright: “This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.” We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external. Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States. Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. User was warned for this post I find it ironic seeing that it was him who started this whole thing by misunderstanding sunprince. As a reminder in case he edits it later, sunprince posted these words himself: Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). He is not saying that black people are inferior. He is not saying that it is the fault of African-Americans that they are inferior. But he is still saying that they are inferior and that there is even a genetic component to it. If this is a misunderstanding, he hasn't corrected anyone's misunderstanding of his plain and obvious language at all except for claiming that his position is scientific and that disagreeing is motivated by political correctness.
The African Americans that came to the US weren't the best and brightest Africa had to offer and so they were culturally / genetically / whatever-ly disadvantaged, as a group even before you add on the social issues of slavery and racism which only compounded the problem.
I *think* that's what he was getting at, though I disagree with it personally.
|
I have mixed feelings about Reid's stunt ('stunt' is the correct word for the shit he pulled).
On the one hand, it's a cheap shot that lowers the overall level of political discourse.
On the other hand, it's a cheap shot in a campaign already rife with cheap shots from the opposition.
|
On August 03 2012 14:30 Defacer wrote:
I have mixed feelings about Reid's stunt ('stunt' is the correct word for the shit he pulled).
On the one hand, it's a cheap shot that lowers the overall level of political discourse.
On the other hand, it's a cheap shot in a campaign already rife with cheap shots from the opposition.
Mentioning that Romney's dad would be disgraced by his dad is a new low. I could handle the scumbagness of saying Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10years but using his dead dad? That's a fucking low blow, ashamed Reid is actually a person of power in washington, let alone part of my party...
|
On August 03 2012 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 13:44 RavenLoud wrote:On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more. I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist. On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright: “This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.” We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external. Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States. Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. User was warned for this post I find it ironic seeing that it was him who started this whole thing by misunderstanding sunprince. As a reminder in case he edits it later, sunprince posted these words himself: Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). He is not saying that black people are inferior. He is not saying that it is the fault of African-Americans that they are inferior. But he is still saying that they are inferior and that there is even a genetic component to it. If this is a misunderstanding, he hasn't corrected anyone's misunderstanding of his plain and obvious language at all except for claiming that his position is scientific and that disagreeing is motivated by political correctness.
He was only trying to counter xDaunt's allegations with logical assumptions. He did not say that black people are inferior because they are black nor that Africans are inferior, he's saying that the Africans forcefully bought to American had a really, really, bad starting point under the crappiest system of them all (for them) and that it's a fallacy to compare them directly the situation of Asian Americans who voluntarily came to American even though they both had an history of oppression.
Again, I'm surprised you are angry at sunprince, but not xDaunt because he heavily insinuated that African Americans deserved their misfortune because of they have an inferior culture.
|
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say.
|
On August 03 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say.
You may want to go reread what was said. A few people whined with the usual, predictable outrage of the politically correct. A few others argued that it was genetics and not culture that was the cause, and one person argued economics, but seemed to hedge after I asked some questions. I'm still waiting for something that rebuts what I threw out there. I haven't said anything because I figured everyone else gave up and would rather talk genetics.
|
On August 03 2012 22:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say. You may want to go reread what was said. A few people whined with the usual, predictable outrage of the politically correct. A few others argued that it was genetics and not culture that was the cause, and one person argued economics, but seemed to hedge after I asked some questions. I'm still waiting for something that rebuts what I threw out there. I haven't said anything because I figured everyone else gave up and would rather talk genetics.
What? Did you already forget the "different waves of immigrants" thing that you immediately conceded?
|
On August 03 2012 23:01 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 22:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say. You may want to go reread what was said. A few people whined with the usual, predictable outrage of the politically correct. A few others argued that it was genetics and not culture that was the cause, and one person argued economics, but seemed to hedge after I asked some questions. I'm still waiting for something that rebuts what I threw out there. I haven't said anything because I figured everyone else gave up and would rather talk genetics. What? Did you already forget the "different waves of immigrants" thing that you immediately conceded?
No. What he mostly was arguing is that the later waves were wealthier .... ie economics. I asked whether there were studies showing how the descendants of the original Asian immigrants did, and haven't see one.
|
Oh I must have mixed posts up then. Nevermind.
|
On August 03 2012 22:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say. I'm still waiting for something that rebuts what I threw out there.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. I'm not even denying culture can play a role in economic development - I'm simply waiting for you to even define culture in the context of your argument, and back your specific claims with data/scientific studies. Of course, the original argument was about culture being the crucial factor in the average income difference between Palestinians and Israelis, and that's so blatantly false it's not really worth discussing.
|
Amid all the politics, sooner or later someone has to answer for this:
![[image loading]](http://delong.typepad.com/.a/6a00e551f080038834017616fafc3b970c-pi)
|
On August 03 2012 22:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say. You may want to go reread what was said. A few people whined with the usual, predictable outrage of the politically correct. A few others argued that it was genetics and not culture that was the cause, and one person argued economics, but seemed to hedge after I asked some questions. I'm still waiting for something that rebuts what I threw out there. I haven't said anything because I figured everyone else gave up and would rather talk genetics.
I honestly didn't read what you wrote in it's entirety because it was pretty clear it going to get off-topic and ugly in here.
gj with that by the way. lol.
|
On August 04 2012 00:20 coverpunch wrote:Amid all the politics, sooner or later someone has to answer for this:
elaborate please. honestly not sure i understand what i looking at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
