In which Danielinthewolvesden defends his racist GD statement...

A spillover from Great Debates,

Whoa, Daniel~, you might as well Open a New Window right now and start firing up the search engine, 'cause I’m gonna need to see a LOT of cites for what you just said. (And thank you, Polycarp, for proving to me that I wasn’t imagining it, that I did hear Daniel~ say what I thought I heard him say.) :rolleyes:

They say this, and believe this, because it’s true.

You say this like it’s a bad thing. Of COURSE it’s attacked as racist, because it IS racist.

A quick tour of Google shows me that there is no real consensus in the dog breeding world as to which breeds are the most intelligent. Every survey I looked at was the opinion of one (1) person, usually a dog trainer, and differed radically in some respects from the very next survey. Some people think Labradors are smarter, some people think poodles are smarter.

However, there have been race-oriented human intelligence tests, and those tests have repeatedly demonstrated that there’s no difference in intelligence between the human races.

No, it is not. If you think it is, you need to show me a cite that says so.

–which there isn’t–

Nice try at backing up to a more politically correct parking space, but it’s too late. :wink:

Here’s MY cite-- :smiley:

–where’s yours? You’re the one making the assertion–YOU be the one to go find me some cites that say:

(a) That the negroid races are taller & faster that the oriental races.

(b) That any race is more intelligent than any other race.

© That the differences between the Races of Man are anything other than, literally, skin-deep.

There is a difference between saying that something is theoretically possible and saying that it is so. You are asserting that it is impossible. This does appear to be convincing - certainly not from anything you’ve posted here.

Make that “this does not appear to be convincing”


why is it impossible? if it’s possible that races have physical differences, which obviously they do, then why not intellectual? among other things, intellectual capacity is based on brain size, cerebral folds, etc. so it’s possible that there are physical differences in the brain between races or species that are physically different in other, more obvious, ways.

Um, this is a website devoted to Fighting Ignorance, remember? :wink: It may be “possible” that one race has a bigger brain than others. It may also be “possible” that there are little green men living on Mars.

Whatever the “possibility”, here at the SDMB one is expected to provide cites to back up one’s assertions. If I were to say, “There are little green men living on Mars”, I would be expected to provide proof of it in the form of a Web link that shows it. (And unfortunately the doesn’t count.)

And FTR, I will repeat, studies have been done, and done repeatedly over the years, that have found that there are no differences in brain size or intelligence between the Races of Man. If you think otherwise, it’s up to you to provide a cite to prove it.

Betcha can’t. :wink:

Here is a manifesto attacking Stephen Jay Gould’s assertion that there is no difference in intelligence between the races, in the guise of a “book review” of Gould’s The Mismeasures of Man.

It’s authored by one J. Rushton, who is evidently the leading light in the “Brain Size Equals Intelligence, and Whites Have Bigger Brains Than Anybody Else, So There” brigade.

The Web has a number of people opposing him. Here’s one.

Daniel~, the challenge for you is going to be to find some cites that don’t involve either of these two men. Rushton, especially, is all over the Web. Find me someone else, a reputable scientist, who doesn’t have scads of other equally reputable scientists criticizing his findings, and who has proved that brain size differs between the races, AND that this proves that one race is more intelligent than the other.

I think it’s telling that Google classifies all this under “Eugenics”. :rolleyes: Because, of course, once you’ve proved scientifically that one race is inferior, the next logical step is to get rid of them, isn’t it? Geez.

Well, let’s define our terms. What is “race”? How many races are there, and what are they? It is possible to be a member of more than one race? If it is not, then how should people of “mixed parentage” be classified? Does everyone belong to a race or are some people impossible to classify? How do we know that “obviously” there are differences between races? Are the characteristics of a race that are different from those of another race expressed in all members of that race, or are they differences on average? All members of the negroid races are darker than all members of the oriental races (or are they?), but not all members of the negroid races are faster and taller than all members of the oriental races, so how is fastness or tallness a distinguishing characteristic between the two? Would not a fast and tall oriental and a fast and tall negroid have more in common genetically than a slow and short oriental would have with a fast and tall oriental?

Before you can determine why something is, you must first determine that it actually exists. Before you can discuss potential differences between races, you must establish that race is a valid concept. I am skeptical that the concept of race, as it is commonly used, actually exists outside of cultural constructs. Prove otherwise, if you can.

I didn’t see the comment as being racist. It’s accuracy is open to debate.

This is also open to debate. There are differences in, musculature, distribution of body fat, etc. between races, so…

I am not prepared to burn Daniel in effigy on the basis of what you have posted.

DDG (and DITWD, if you come here), you should check out this thread - on about page 2 or 3, tomndebb has a long discussion with peace about this very issue, and it pretty much shows that Daniel is just wrong - there is nothing genetic that differentiates one “race” from another.

Umm, DDG, intelligence aside…

Are you claiming that the inhabitants of Western Africa are not, on the average, taller than the inhabitants of South-East Asia? Because if you are, then you’ve lost a hell of a lot of credibility in this debate, and you’re doing your extremely valid argument a disservice.

Remember, height - like hair color, skin pigmentation, body fat, facial features - is also skin deep.

to say something is impossible is what needs a back up cite. can you provide a link or cite to one of the studies you’re referring to? the one link you provided to back up your assertions ends with this quote:

“I am not going to address the issue of racial differences in IQ relative to brain size, because this cannot be resolved here. Clearly, Rushton & Ankney feel that sufficient evidence is available to make their point on racial differences in IQ. The issue is not whether such differences can be observed; they are observed and they are marked and important for a number of reasons. What to make of them is another matter. If cohort differences across time and culture complicate interpretation of brain size dif ferences across races, the additional uncontrolled effects of community variables in the determination of IQ (Church & Katigbak, 1991; Coon, Carey & Fulker, 1992; Wachs, Moussa, Bishry, Yunis, Sobhy, McCabe, Jerome, Galal, Harrison, & Kirksley, 1993) across races render conclusive statements about racial IQ differences even more difficult, if not impossible at present.”

note that he says at the end there that it’s close to impossible to determine whether measured IQ differences are a result of physical or environmental differences or both. so that still leaves us with the possiblity of a physical component. so i’ll use your cite as evidence for my position. can you dig one up as evidence for yours?

You go too far in your protestations, DDG. You are probably right that there are studies out there demonstrating that there are no differences in brain size, but I strongly doubt that you have found studies demonstrating there is no difference in intelligence.
Why do I say such a thing? Because there is no commonly accepted definition of “Intelligence”. What test is used? WAIS, or other IQ tests? Proven to be culturally biased. Without an accurate test, you can’t compare intelligences.

So, what do we have?

  1. Intelligence arises from some function or combination of the brain;
  2. The brain is a physical part of the human anatomy;
  3. There are physical differences among “races” (depending on how you define the term). My citation? Unca Cece: “It turns out that the people of the north have a highly evolved physiology that makes them well suited to life in the arctic: a compact build that conserves warmth, a faster metabolism, optimally distributed body fat, and special modifications to the circulatory system.” ;
  4. If there are physical differences between the races in other parts of their anatomy, there is no biological reason why there would be no differences in the brain and brain function.

Do I believe there are differences in intelligence among the races? Absolutely not. Is it biologically possible? Yes. And it is much more possible than little green men on Mars - that has been tested and proven false (we’ve taken pictures).

Finally, if there are in fact intelligence differences among races, it is irrelevant for two reasons:

  1. There really is no such thing as a pure race on this planet - every race has had interbreeding; and
  2. (related to #1) - that interbreeding can keep going. So long as people can and do fuck each other, the whole question is moot.


*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *

Yeah, them pygmies are towering physical specimens. And the Chinese basketball player that was drafted by the Dallas Mavericks must be a short 7’3".

The fact is that new research has shown that skin colour is a representation of how much UV radiation that an area recieves.

If there were any serious differences between races, than interracial couples would not be able to have viable offspring. Humans are humans are humans.

There is no way that DITWD can defend his comments.

Again, what was said was not the equivalent of saying “There are little green men living on Mars” - it is the equivalent of saying “it is not impossible for there to be green men living on mars”. This in contradiction to someone who says that it is impossible. In such an instance, the burden is only to show that this principle is reasonable and not in contradiction with known facts.

I don’t think it is, as mentioned. But beyond this, due to the extreme political sensitivety of this issue, it is not likely that you will find a whole lot of reputable scientists claiming that this is so even if it is the truth. So I don’t think your challenge holds up at all.


Why are you making the assumption that certain differences must result from genetic differences? Other don’t.

DDG, even if DITWD does attempt to provide you with cites, check them out yourself. He is a liar. He’s been caught again and again misusing and misrepresenting cites. Gaudere ripped him a new one just recently for misrepresenting something that was said at Internet Infidels, and I just caught him again here, alleging that an article in the San Jose Mercury News said something it didn’t, and that Bush’s education plan says something it doesn’t.


You ever been in that awkward position where you think that someone you like and respect (a lot!) has made a poor decision? Or maybe you think that they have good intentions but might benefit from stepping back, taking a deep breath, and rethinking their position with a wider perspective? Or maybe you think that they’re making a mountain out of a molehill? Or just looking for a fight? Or making a fight out of a molehill? Or mixing metaphors?

See what I’m saying?

Check out how Shakespeare puts what I’m trying to say.

Your challenge to Daniel is articulate, well-reasoned and polite. I just don’t think it has much merit.

Phil, be careful, man. You’re feeding the fire by bringing crap like that up in an unconnected thread. That’s just giving him ammuntion with which to protest.

This seems to be based on a misconception that differences in races are related one to another - that if there were differences in intelligence between different races it would be related to the other differences in physical characterisitics. I have never heard anyone make this claim (outside of Leonard Jeffries and the melanin=intelligence school of thought). The significance of differences in physical characteristics is only in that they show that it is possible for different races to differ physically. From which logic would dictate that it is also possible for them to differ mentally.

(I also agree with SuaSponte that it is very difficult to measure intelligence in isolation from other factors. It is possible that - if there indeed are differences in intelligence between the races - that the “dumber” races might turn out to really be the smarter ones, in terms of pure intelligence, and vice versa).

*Originally posted by Amok *

Thanks, Amok, for beating me to the punch. I would go further in the contention that the concept of race IS a cultural construct, and DOES NOT EXIST independent of that context. It has been explained in many previous threads (re: link in Catnip’s response for one example), there is no valid scientific basis for categorizing people into races based on biological characteristics.

Where’s Collunsbury when you need him most? :slight_smile:

Adam yax:
If there were any serious differences between races, than interracial couples would not be able to have viable offspring. Humans are humans are humans

Interracial does not mean interspecies. One race can mate with another race just fine. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t differences between them! There are HUGE differences between an Irish Setter and a Chow (both physically and mentally) but they can still mate and produce offspring. There are differences physically between an Asian, a Caucasian, and a black. That’s not racist.
Let’s just take the difference between males and females. Males, on average, are stronger than females. On average they run faster and on average they jump higher. That isn’t sexist. That’s a fact!
But that doesn’t mean I consider myself to be superior to all females. That doesn’t mean I think I can outrun all females merely because they’re female. And it certainly wouldn’t mean I’m advocating killing females off because they’re “inferior!” Because that claim doesn’t make them inferior unless you believe that your sole worth is your time in the 100m. Christ DDG, I know you weren’t refering to me when you made that Eugenics comment, but which section of left field did that come out of?

The possibility exists for one race to be more intelligent than another in any given subject or all together. Does this mean that, at this time, I believe it is true or that there is sufficient evidence to back that claim up? NO. Does it mean that we will ever have a conclusive test as to what intelligence really is? NO.
If I had scientific evidence to back up the fact that, say, Tahitians are better at biology than any other race, that doesn’t make Tahitians superior overall. It merely means what it means. Calling a spade a spade doesn’t mean I automatically want to get rid of the club, diamond, and heart.

Making cheese? :smiley:

The endless fight against ignorance. How many times do we have to go through this?

DITWD, I’d have never pegged you for a racist, but when someone has been on this board as long as you have and has (supposedly) read at least one of the seemingly infinite number of race threads that pop up here (I know you have posted to at least one-- you did read it didn’t you?) and can still spew such self-serving bullshit about superior race brains, then I can come to no other conclusion.

Biologically humans are just one race. Any percieved difference in size, speed and intelligence is superficial and culturally based. How do you define race, Daniel? Before we can speak of one race being inferior in any context, we must first figure out on what we are basing this concept of race.

So, start 'splaining.