I’m in the partial genetic camp and also the partial shared environmental one. I’m also in the we-will-find-out-soon-camp. Just a few more of the many found hits – see this Beijing based site — need to be well replicated.
Of course they include genetic ancestry too. The following posts by Steve Hsu elucidate this point:
Hsu on European genetic sub-structure:
In relation to Wade’s book, Hsu considersthe second half is too speculative (as Wade sets out himself), but is nonetheless testable. The example of differences in the frequencies of alleles associated with height between North & South Europeans gives an example of how complex traits could be compared across groups:
Pardon. Wrong thread.
Although bumped by mistake, I have to comment that the tactic now for racialists to try to get their sorry ideas into the mainstream is by getting involved in the latest fad of controversial authors or writers getting kicked out of educational institutions because of “leftists being fascists” and “preventing freedom of speech”.
Problem is that no, there is no logical mechanism that makes racialism OK, or accepted in the scientific community, the reality is that after more years have passed their acceptance is not better. Also it should not be a left or right issue. An issue about freedom of speech is serious and I think the ones using violence to prevent it should be arrested, but it does not make anything of what they are peddling good. The most important issue for me is that we all should wonder why is that from the right there is very little to no effort nowadays for other important guys on the right to use their freedom of speech to also point out the reality that racialists, bigots and misogynists deserve criticism too.
What I’m hearing here is that there’s 2 sides :
a. The primary difference between groups of humans who have different genes, on average, is their genes. This applies both to physical characteristics you can easily measure (how tall, how strong) and mental ones, since the brain is a physical computer.
b. Side B says that since racism is evil, it can never be justified. Therefore, people must be equal. Therefore there are no genetic differences. And I’m hearing a few ways people are wiggling out of it : one is that there’s “no such thing as race” (even though it is possible to build a blind laboratory test looking for certain markers to determine race) or “it must all be nurture” (even though nurture doesn’t let a midget play basketball) or “the author is racist”.
Whether side a or side b is correct has profound real world implications. See, if side b is correct, the disparity of differences in success in some endeavors (like academics or modern, high mental requirement jobs like software development) must be due to remaining racism. If it’s not genetics, and the black students got to go to the same school, that means if they all do worse on a test, the test is racist. Therefore we need to bend the curve and give them “racism adjustment” points and treat a black student with lower scores the same as a white student with higher scores.
Now, why do we give asians a negative score, then? If asians aren’t smarter than white people, and they aren’t being given “white privilege”, why exactly do we treat an asian applicant worse than a white applicant to the same elite school?
The relative success of asians and the way schools performing “affirmative action” discriminate against them is only really supported by a genetic hypothesis that I can see…
Well, going for cartoon versions of what the experts are telling us is only setting up straw men.
There are differences, but they are not as big as the racialists claim, nor it is a good justification to continue to make things unfair.
Define unfair. There are finite education dollars. How should you weight spending them? A rational person would weight spending each marginal dollar by marginal gain. So if you need to spend $10 to make a less gifted person learn 1 unit of calculus and $1 to make a gifted person learn a unit of calculus, correct choice is obvious. Now, at some level of education, it’s going to be increasingly more difficult to train someone to the next level up - there might be an equating point - but as long as you don’t have infinite money, offering more educational opportunity to those who demonstrate the capacity to absorb more education makes rational sense.
And if a measurement happens to show that asians tend to do better than white people who happen to do better than black people, so what? If the measurement is shown to have validity, use it.
“Other societies manage not to have the same levels of social ills as we do.” Incidentally, what I get from a lot of the ones that want to follow the unfair misleading path, they do it with conclusions that do not follow the research.
One more item to point out is that you reach for a straw man to make your point, eventually yes, one should not spend much like with secondary education with people that have issues, but the point was that a lot should be invested in the early years of learning.
I am a bit confused (aside from the absolute nonsense)
5 races?
I know of only 3
Caucasian (Of which not all are Lilly white, and some are quite brown)
Asian
African
Might also be listed as Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, feel free to correct what the best name/term would be.
And i do not remember any appreciable contributions from the African contingency towards to art of perfecting war conquest and domination?
Not to say that they lacked those skilled in the art, but they appear to not have seen much use in perfecting the tools of war to cause the largest amount of deaths per tool, let alone seeing if they could pull off subjugating most of the known world for a time.
Not that doing so is racial per say, i don’t think the other 2 groups were terribly into that when they were more tribal either.
The genetic difference between the 3 groups is…
… how about not worth measuring?
Unless you feel like nitpicking the genetic differences between blondes brunettes and redheads and other silly pointless stuff like why my toe is bigger etc.
Does the Blonde Hair Blue Eyed Aryan speech come soon?
Because it makes about as much sense considering that ideology is about as 100% wrong too, but makes great propaganda.
it depends when and where you went to school.
Linnaeus had four:
europaeus,
asiaticus,
americanus,
afer
Blumenbach had five:
the Caucasian or white race.
the Mongolian or yellow race, including all East Asians and some Central Asians.
the Malayan or brown race, including Southeast Asian and Pacific Islanders.
the Ethiopian or black race, including sub-Saharan Africans.
the American or red race, including American Indians.
U.S. secondary education books promoted three for a long time. (I have found books from the 1890s and the 1970s each proclaiming three races.)
I have seen lists that reached 64 races.
Humans are lumpers or splitters and the number of races proclaimed tend to be based on whether one is a lumper or splitter.
The (current) five with which I am most familiar (although they can change depending on who is setting the boundaries) are based on variations of Blumenbach’s hypothesis.
I hear there are 6 races.
Black
Asian
White
Indian
American Indian (somehow Aborigines and Pacific Islanders fall into this race because… science)
and Zombies.
Why can’t it be a bit of column A and bit of column B?
We recently had a thread about the stark academic and economic success of Nigerian immigrants (much better than Asians never mind whites). IIRC much of Americas slave stock comes from that part of Africa. Did only the stupid Africans lose wars that landed them in slavery? Did the interbreeding with their white slave masters make them dumber? Or is it possible that much (if not all) of the difference we see is the result of a broken toxic culture and the legacy of racism?
Well, I mean the very first most likely explanation is misguided attempts at affirmative action. Nigerians who are economic elites getting the benefit of being rich and being treated by key institutions (like Harvard and other Ivy League schools) as if they are severely disadvantaged. The Ivy League advantage to your future career is apparently pretty large.
Feel free to say hey idiot you are wrong shut up, but…
asian, polynesian, native americans etc
Those are all of the asian or mongoloid race, family, group, what ever is a good name for it.
Germans Nordics Arabs Jews Indians etc running from pale white to very nicely browned.
All Caucasian
All the people from the majority of the african continent, the aborigine from australia
and i am sure places along the way that are long forgotten.
All African or Negroid
That is pretty much it, all of us.
3 little tribes of not very much appreciable difference, and only some very mild environmental adaptations, and those can vary even within a tribe.
As far as i know, those 3 are the only distinctions
I guess you might call that lumping, but there is so damned little differentiating those 3, that anything else seems like splitting hairs and i only ever see it presented as a means to promote one over the others if you know what i mean.
Mother Nature did a good job of nearly offing us twice in 200,000 years, pretty much assuring we would not have any appreciable diversity.
I have to say that your “b” is the worst summation of a position that I have ever read. Not a single sentence of it is right. Are you sure that you were reading this thread?
Hmmm… I thought that there was supposed to be more genetic variation within the various populations in Africa than there were between africans and the rest of the world’s ethnic groups. Am i wrong about this? I might not be remembering correctly…
Actually, re-reading it, the first sentence is OK (the one that reads, essentially, “racism is bad.”). OK. But everything that follows after is just comically wrong.
I stand by my statements. I have seen this pattern many, many times.
-
A lot of the arguments made this thread were that it must be nurture
-
Another big chunk was that the *author *must be racist, therefore we need not even consider anything he wrote.
-
“There’s no such thing as race” - just a few posts north of you there are several arguing that very thing, such as how Africans (blacks) have more genetic diversity than the differences between races or that the number of races is arbitrary. (therefore it doesn’t exist)
Have you read any of the citations I made at the start of the thread? It seems like you quite don’t understand why the scientific community has changed perspective towards grouping humans into races. It’s simply because such groupings don’t reflect genetic diversity as it exists in humanity. Its simply not an accurate design of human genetic variation.
Surely you can understand these major points?
- rejection of the validity of the racial paradigm.
- proposing a new model. One based on clines, early/late migration, and geographic distance (with variability decreasing from Africa).
You understand these are the points being made, no?
Cool. Link to the top, say, 10 posts within this thread that say the things you claim they say, which, I may remind you, is:
Side B says that since racism is evil, it can never be justified. Therefore, people must be equal. Therefore there are no genetic differences. And I’m hearing a few ways people are wiggling out of it : one is that there’s “no such thing as race” (even though it is possible to build a blind laboratory test looking for certain markers to determine race) or “it must all be nurture” (even though nurture doesn’t let a midget play basketball) or “the author is racist”.
There are 339 posts in this thread (340 now) that, according to you, are in either group a or group b, so finding 10 that say the things you claim for group b should be easy.