After so many years of affirming that, it is clear that what the writer on the previous cite is more on the money. Keep grasping at straws, at least you are the optimist..
If I ever decide to read enough of Bobby’s work to make a determination (not fucking likely), I’ll happily share whether or not he falls into the same category as you. I’ve certainly read enough of your posts to make the call with utter certainty.
Here’s the deal. I’m not evangelical (hard to be one as an atheist), nor Christian (did I mention that I’m actually an atheist?), nor have I ever bought into any theory as to why we are here other than evolution (we atheists have a hard time with that whole creation thing, what with not believing in the required higher power), but you’re still a racist.
Did I mention that you’re a racist?
Hahaha, yeah right. Then why are you so offended by the idea of population differences? You might as well be a creationist.
Funny how you can ascribe different opinions to others based on what they say, but when we do the same to you, we are mistreating you.
Oh, and we know this isn’t about population differences. If it were, then the fact that there are more differences between people within the races than between different ones would be enough to convince you that choosing to believe races are useful population groups is stupid. But it’s not. Your point is to get us to agree that population groups might have differences due to random chance, so you can say what you’ve said before: that black people are genetically inferior to whites in the area of intelligence.
You just don’t seem to get that we can see through your mask. We can see that you are cherry picking the science to agree with what you believe, not the other way around. The evidence that there is no significant differences between the races in regards to intelligence has been offered to you time and time again, and the only way you can beat it is to try and discredit the messengers, along with citations from very specific sources that have been debunked.
Because, if you weren’t a racist, why the hell would you care?
Dammit, Chen019! I keep telling you these ad hominems are never going to work unless you punch them up a bit. Okay, “terrorist” is a bit last-decade and this is the wrong board to call someone a “socialist” as an insult but you could at least try “pedophile” or “Nazi” or “cat-declawer”. Maybe work in something about foreskins too, for a retro vibe.
As I stated earlier, if all of the data behind your stance were proven completely correct tomorrow, you’d still be a racist.
A bit of explanation. Bone marrow, peripheral blood stem cells & cord blood are all sources of cells for transplant–which work similarly. Peripheral blood stem cells are obtained by pheresis–easier than surgery–& cord blood is, of course, discarded unless it is stored. But locating a donor is the same for all.
For example, a cord blood bank gathers data from both parents–concerning possible genetic problems & other health matters. (The mother visited a malaria-ridden area within the last two years? Not good.) The parents are also asked to complete forms giving their Ethnicity (Hispanic or non-Hispanic) & Race; there are numerous racial categories & each parent may select as many as they wish. Thus, the registry has an idea of the diversity of the cells available–there have always tended to be more white donors & other groups are especially encouraged to donate.
When transplantation is recommended as the best treatment option, the patient’s HLA typing is determined. Then their close relatives are typed to see if any match. If there are no matches, the biggest national registry is contacted; HLA typing of patient & possible donors are compared. “Race” is not relevant.
If there’s still no match, registries in other countries might be contacted. In this step, “race” would help decide which country to check first–the UK, Israel, Japan, etc. But, in every country, HLA typing is matched–not the unscientific category of “race.”
(My kudos to the few sane folks here standing up to Chen & his idiotic, racist cohorts. Of course there’s no convincing them–but knowledge can be imparted to the silent readers.)
My ancestry includes African components. But I’d be pretty stupid to look for any donor matches in West Africa, just like a Maasai-derived American immigrant would likewise not look in South Africa nor Ghana for a match. Yet that’s the kind of thing the race realists would have us do - “continental populations” being what they are and all that.
In the last dozen or so posits we can see that there are really two different issues at play here. One is the degree to people can be categorized into things called races based on a common heritage and traits they share. With a sub theme of the degree to which those differences might reliably be outwardly visible. The other issue is: why would anyone even care if they weren’t a racist? After all, if there is any truth to what the “race realists” say, that information could be put to horrible use.
I seems that there is so much passion around the second issue that it is preventing some people from even entertaining the validity of the first.
Look, the article you linked to incorrectly categorized association studies in human behavior genetics with all of behavior genetics. That was my problem with it. It is a factual problem. The factual problem was then used to emphasize the tilt of the article, which is behavior genetics is based in an incorrect model of behavioral development. This is so fucking wrong it’d take a novel to show how it is so. It is a problem of interpretation. Chen019 takes facts and misinterprets them to get what he wants. Douchebag author of your article takes facts and misinterprets them to get what he wants. It’s all lame.
Take two categories: Obese and Healthy Weight. Take something you want to measure: ounces of blood to complete heart surgery. Measure that for 20 obese and 20 healthy weight people. Now you have a data set that you can calculate the mean and variance for as an entirety. This is all the variation.
Then you can partition all the variation into that which is between the groups. That calculated number will get bigger as the means get farther apart. Variation just means dispersion about a central point, and in this case it is the mean of the means. So the mean ounces of blood for obese and healthy weight people are combined to make a grand mean which is in between these two.
Once you take away the variation due to between groups from the total variation, you are left with variation within a group. If the proportion of variation between groups makes up enough of the total variation, then there is a real difference between the groups.
There are lots of similar ways to test for group differences.
If somebody measures a significant difference in any characteristic based on their definition of one race category versus another then I assume they are using any of many similar statistical procedures.
I’m honest about the potential implications of evolution. You claim you accept the theory of evolution but are outraged by the implications. Maybe you should read Peter Singer’s ‘A Darwinian Left’. I suspect you are:
a) in denial;
b) lying;
c) ignorant.
I hate hate HATE to post anything that might possibly put me on the “racist” side of this or any other issue. But in any argument of this sort, I always feel like the anti-racist side somewhat overreaches. That is, I think the “correct” statement to make is something like “races, as traditionally defined, are vague and ill-defined enough that they would rarely be of any actual scientific use; and furthermore, they carry with them such unpleasant historical baggage that even in the rare cases when they might possibly have some meaning it is almost certainly best off not to use them”, or something along those lines. Something which can exist in a world in which well-meaning marrow transfusion centers might use “race” as a first (and not definitive) crude filtering system to help find matches.
However, I feel that anti-racist people go beyond that to something like “races have absolutely zero scientific or genetic meaning whatsoever, period. Any statement that tries to make even the slightest correlation between perceived traditional race and any inborn characteristic is always wrong wrong wrong wrong period no matter what period wrong, la la la, and anyone who ever even considers making such a claim or statement must be someone who’s trying to fool us into agreeing with some harmless claim because then we will have to agree that blacks are dumb, so we will scorch the earth and never given an inch”.
Imagine a thought experiment: we harvest 1,000,000 super-young embryos from pregnant women in America today, at a young enough age that the conditions of the womb haven’t yet had a chance to influence their development. We ship them all to the moon where they are raised in a skinnerian box by robots in a culture totally free of all possible pre-existing racial baggage. We raise them in an artificially created and defined society that places a high premium on a variety of competitive skills… sprinting and playing basketball and chess and a whole bunch of such things.
25 years later, we take photographs of each of those million subjects and have a bunch of normal earth people and say “what race is this person?”, and assign the million people into categories based on the most common answer given for each (which certainly means that some will end up as “dunno”, etc.). Then we see if there are any correlations between the racial groupings and the subjects who excelled at the various different competitive skills.
Now, I’m perfectly happy with a reaction of “uhh, why would we do that? what would be the point?” or a reaction of “you know, there are far more precise groupings you could use than perceived race”. But I feel like anti-racists (and I’m anti-racist in 99.9% of all real life situations) desperately want it to be the case that there would NOT be any such correlations, but I strongly suspect that (in the case of sprinting, for instance), there WOULD be at least some correlations. Which doesn’t prove anything or have any actual meaningful impact on the real world, and should not be the basis of discriminatory laws or behavior (I hope it goes without saying), but which I think makes it hard to make super-absolute statements about the meaninglessness of race.
There’s a difference to me between race being a scientifically USELESS concept and race being a totally genetically MEANINGLESS concept. I’m pretty much on board with the first, but think the second is overly absolute.
Ok, and let’s assume that the data is as follows:
Of the obese people, 6 of them need 8 units of blood; 7 of them need 9 units of blood; and 6 of them need 10 units of blood.
Of the non-obese people, 6 of them nee 7 units of blood; 7 of them need 8 units of blood; and 6 of them need 9 units of blood.
Can you should me what the actual calculation would look like?
Umm, does that mean yes or no?
I don’t think there is anything wrong with debating this issue, and doing so doesn’t make one a racist, no matter which side of the matter one might come down on. Chen019 isn’t a racist based the fact that he takes the stance he does, but why he does so. He’s not looking for a scholarly debate, he’s a racist looking for justification. Again, if everything he posted was 100% correct, he’d still be a racist. On the other hand, you could post the exact same links and not be one. I’ve seen nothing in your posting history to suggest otherwise, so fire up the debate.
Did I mention that Chen019 is a racist?
It would help if those arguing that position also called for color blind policies and an elimination of race being used in considering things like college applications. After all, if there are no races how can race be used in law - surely it is too vague to be considered.
Of course then they say, well it’s a social construct. But that can also be used to describe any number of things in nature - social labels to describe observable categories (eg. gender, age, adolescence). And those categories of course also have a biological component which has been discussed earlier in the thread.
Hahaha, what a hypocrite! I’ve provided sources for everything I’ve said on here. You have simply turned up and tried, what Jonathan Haidt refers to as demonization. A great tactic for stopping debate.
I agree with you to an extent, but I think it’s worth noting that there is sometimes no reasonable choice but to use race as a scientific category.
I think a hypothetical will illustrate this pretty well. Suppose that “Race X” is defined as {all people born in Sri Lanka AND all Han Chinese born within 3 minutes of midnight on February 5 of any year AND all people who have lived for the last 5 years within 1 mile of Yankee Stadium}
It might be pointed out that Race X is a scientifically useless concept in that it does not map to any group of people which any reasonable person would naturally group together.
Even so, one can observe that the vast majority of people in Race X have brown eyes. Suppose then, that a controversy erupts as to whether the reason for this fact is genetics or environment. This is a scientific question, and one could in theory resolve it with a scientific study. Such a study, however, would have to make use of the category known as “Race X” and there would be nothing improper about doing so.
No, you never see people group together europeans, east asians, south asians, groups from sub saharan africa etc. Check out this questionnaire used in Oregon for anti-discrimination purposes. Some familiar categories pop up.
You have presented evidence for almost nothing that you have said, and when you have produced references, you have dishonestly misrepresented them over and over again.
Where is your reference that Andamanese and Pakistanis are the same race and closely related?
Where is your evidence that Lebanese in New Zealand are not considered white?
You made those claims. Now where is the evidence for them?
Once again, you are shown to be a liar.
@ Blake Are you insane? Or just satirizing someone who is? I’ve addressed your point regarding the Andamanese several times. Even Mister Nyx seems to have realised this.
As for Lebanese they would be considered white in NZ. In fact I had a couple of guys of lebanese ancestry in my classes at High School.
You’re in such a rush to call other people liars, when you repeatedly do so yourself you tedious f8ckwit.
Overall scientists have no trouble with the applications to human health, what it is clear is that it is naive to ignore the forces that are still present to jump to abuse that information and attempt to subvert the solutions that are in place to prevent those abuses, what it important is that for most scientists the trouble of finding clear evidence of a relation with more touchy subjects like intelligence and after so many attempts shows that even though one could find suggestive evidence, it has just remained that, suggestive after so many attempts; it is more likely that genetics are a factor but not as much as the race realists would like it to be.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/12/the_argument_that_different_ra.php