Race is Real?

[RainbowSingularity]

4} Everyone not sociopathic has a problem with self-worth. Blacks face greater challenges than most.

the same as intellectually handicapped people
which is why Barack Obama made such a point about the word "retard" & moving society forward instead of backward

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...1st-century-communications-and-video-accessib

Rosa Marcellino -- it’s so inspiring to have her here. As one of hundreds of thousands of Americans with Down Syndrome, Rosa worked with her parents and her siblings to have the words “mentally retarded” officially removed from the health and education code in her home state of Maryland.

while addressing singular instances of an issue at variant points(is always important), being able to elevate the entire system even by a small notch helps elevate everything... including the instances of extremism.
it helps set a better standard that in turn cultures a better standard.
isolationism & greedy self importance doesn't help reduce discrimination.

the whole "it doesn't matter what i say or do, as long as you do as i say" alt-right cult psychology is only going to make things worse.

 

[Write4U]

What utter nonsense. I would address it but you see the same shit everywhere. By the same token rats are intelligent. How ironic.

They are. They are one of the most successful species on earth. As I said, all currently living species are at the peak of their species' adaptation to the environment.

Do you know who is going to inherit the earth when the last human are dead? Insects!!!
You know why???
Because the insect can adapt to anything we do to the environment.
After a nuclear disaster and everything has died, who is able to inhabit the "radiation zone" ? Insects!!!

Don't give me stuff about superiority. Last species standing is the superior species. Intellect is useless unless used wisely, which mankind has failed to do so far, because of greed.

Watch this if you dare.

and if you still doubt me, watch this;

 

[Write4U]

What utter nonsense. I would address it but you see the same shit everywhere. By the same token rats are intelligent. How ironic.

Wow, I thought it was established that rats were just about the smartest rodent out there.

Why don't you do a little study on the term and meaning of "empathy".

You think that ability to kill other species makes for superior being?

By that standard the AIDS or Malaria virus is more successful than humans.

Are humans worthy of being loved by the rest of the intelligent world?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

"empathy"

some people do not understand what empathy is because they have been taught that feeling emotions for others is a sign of weakness.
they fight against that weakness as a process of self ownership(Ego unable to accept outside emotions) and declare they must have the right to choose who they feel about.
meanwhile they lay claim that other people are forcing them to feel emotions that they dont like.

a developmental disorder that mostly corrects its self.
(i am still currently thinking through this as a thesis[have been for quite a few years])

though there is considerable support for it because of isolated conservative religion excluding critical thinking about morality and the sense of power & control.

not a big fan of labels.
however many people cant think(mentally frame an idea for discussion) without something having a label stuck to it to begin with.
subconscious narcissistic(borderline) psychopathic(behavioral pathological disorder) bi polar disorder might be one way to describe it
i have seen it in low level schizophrenia & uni/bi-polar disorder.

 

[James R]

I'm sorry I seem to have stumbled onto a website of congenital morons pretending to be scientists. I'll see myself out.

Allow me to show you the door.

Goodbye!

 

[EgalitarianJay]

I'm sorry I seem to have stumbled onto a website of congenital morons pretending to be scientists. I'll see myself out.

No! Don't leave just yet! I haven't taken a crack at your arguments.....

So we should assume the mysterious force of "white racism" (the only known force to increase with distance) is to blame for the consistent global achievement pattern and blame white people for everything, until we can mathematically prove otherwise, somehow, even though genetics is a far more parsimonious explanation? No, that isn't science.

Explain how your "discrimination" theory is falsifiable. How does this "discrimination" work to produce the same pattern everywhere? In China, in Canada, in Haiti. It sounds like some imaginary Marxist nonsense with the sole function of attacking white people.

White racism is not a mysterious force. The oppression of White colonists on regions such as Africa and the Americas is a historical fact. But that doesn't mean that White racism is the sole explanatory variable in the cause of racial differences in cultural achievement or IQ score. There are many environmental variables. However I question this claim that there is a consistent global achievement pattern. What is this pattern that you speak of? Is this pattern based on racial groupss? Population? Countries? For example could this alleged global pattern explain the differences in wealth and governmental structure between North and South Korea? How about the difference in standard of living between ethnic Koreans in Japan and native Japanese? What about the difference in nation wealth between countries in Latin America such as Argentina that are majority White and Western European countries? If race, ethnicity or country of origin determined the average achievement of a group you wouldn't have these examples that don't fit in to this alleged pattern.

Racists are only able to claim a pattern by being selective and I have never heard a compelling argument for why environmental explanations can not be the sole cause of the patterns they cite rather than genetic differences. Now when it comes to genetics and the Race & IQ debate the hereditarian argument has been ripped to shreds by actual biologists and geneticists. Joseph L. Graves for example has refuted the arguments of the world's top racial hereditarians such as J. Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen and Vincent Sarich. He has actually presented genetic data showing that genes related to intelligence do not show a racial association.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

I will let you have a crack at this research if you choose to return which shows that the racial hereditarian theory of gene-based IQ differences has been shown to be false. If you are unfamiliar with Graves you should know that he has videos on the internet where he has debated or spoken at colleges about race and intelligence. He is an evolutionary biologist who has done genomics research which disproves both the existence of biological races and racial differences in IQ having a genetic basis.

"My research is in the area of evolutionary genetics, now more accurately called evolutionary genomics. My PhD was granted in the area of Evolutionary, Environmental, and Systematic Biology. Professional scientists are always undergoing development during their careers, for example I added Next Generation Sequencing data analysis and various bioinformatics protocols to my tool set in the last 5 years." - Joseph Graves

The Search for Genes for IQ

A major development since the Neisser et al. (1996) report has been the mapping of the human genome and the increasing availability and practicality of genotyping technology.

The high heritability of cognitive ability led many to believe that finding specific genes that are responsible for normal variation would be easy and fruitful. So far, progress in finding the genetic locus for complex human traits has been limited. Whereas 282 individual genes responsible for specific forms of mental retardation have been identified (Inlow & Restifo, 2004), very little progress has been made in finding the genes that contribute to normal variation (Butcher, Davis, Craig, & Plomin, 2008 ). For example, a recent large study—a genome-wide scan using 7,000 subjects (Butcher et al., 2008 )—found only six genetic markers (SNPs) associated with cognitive ability, and only one of those remained statistically significant once the critical values were adjusted for multiple tests. When the six markers were considered together they barely explained 1% of the variance in general cognitive ability. Further, in the many studies of a similar nature that have purported to find genes for cognitive ability, the (very slight) influence of only one gene has been consistently replicated in subsequent studies (Butcher et al., 2008 ).

Source: Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments American Psychologist Vol. 67, No. 2, 130–159 (2012)

Source: Genome-wide quantitative trait locus association scan of general cognitive ability using pooled DNA and 500K single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays Genes, Brains and Behavior, 7, 435–446 (2008)

More recently, Gail Davies and colleagues (2011), in a genome-wide scan of 549,692 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from 3,511 unrelated adults, concluded that 40 percent of the crystallized-intelligence variation and 51 percent of the fluid-intelligence variation was accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between known SNP markers and unknown causal variants. Using SNP data alone, similar to the studies above, they could only account for 1% of the variation in IQ scores. These studies indicate that individual difference in human intelligence is determined by many genes of small effect. Thus the evidence summarized above suggests that we can state that cognitive performance is definitely influenced by genetic variation, that cognitive performance is heritable (and therefore varies by families), we cannot reasonably state that differentials measured in socially-defined racial groups results from differences in underlying genetic potential for cognitive performance.

Source: Race, Genomics, and IQ: Slight Return for Intelligence Quotient: Testing, Role of Genetics and the Environment and Social Outcomes, Ed. Joseph Kush, Nova Scientific Publishers, pp. 69 –86 (2013)

POPULATION SUBDIVISION

Population subdivision is a means to test the amount of genetic variation amongst subpopulations within a species. This concept was developed by American evolutionary geneticist Sewall Wright (1978). Populations, which have undergone significant adaptation to local conditions, differ in population dynamic history, and limited gene flow between them should differ in allele frequencies at a number of loci. The population subdivision statistic (FST) compares the allelic diversity of each of the subpopulations against a pooled total population. Since Wright's invention of F coefficients, which examine the proportioning of genetic variation between different levels within a species, population geneticists have utilized a minimum value of differentiation between subpopulations and the total species as the threshold for identifying the existence of biological races (FST> 0.250). Wright chose this value to maximize the probability that the subgroups were actually fixed for alternative different alleles at various loci.

Four nucleotides can be found in DNA, adenosine (A), Thymine (T), Guanine (G), and Cytosine (C). In coding regions of the genetic code three nucleotides in succession determine which amino acid should be placed in the resultant protein. The code is redundant, but a change in a position can result in a different amino acid being specified. When we examine the coding and non-coding regions of DNA in a population, most people will have the same nucleotide at the vast majority of the positions within the code. However, at some positions, a variant will be found in some individuals. Such a variant is called a SNP. One study examined 4,833 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 538 clusters across the human genome in Europeans (N = 30), African Americans (N = 30), and Asians (N = 40).

In the study the mean frequency for FST at each locus was 0.083, with only 10 percent of the loci exceeding FST of 0.18 and about 6.5 percent exceeding FST of 0.250. This is consistent with the general finding that, averaged across the genome, FST in humans does not approach Wright's threshold (and is generally FST = 0.110). Utilizing eleven genes that have been reputedly associated with general intelligence (ASPM, OXTR, CCKAR, ADRB2, DTNBP1, ALDH5A1, IGF2R, CHRM2, MCPH1, DRD4, and CTSD; Deary, Johnson, & Houlihan, 2009) I calculated FST from the SNP's currently reported within these genes. The data on SNP's FST values was retrieved from the Allele Frequency Database (ALFRED, maintained by the Kidd Laboratory at Yale University). I calculated FST values for SNP's found within genes and for all SNP's found within these eleven genes. Table 1 reports the mean and standard deviation for FST within each gene. Of the eleven, nine have mean values well below Wright's threshold, OXTR barely exceeds it (0.251) and ASPM is well differentiated at 0.322. The FST values for each SNP were calculated from populations worldwide. The range of populations sampled varied between 4 and 87.

However the vast majority of the SNP's frequencies in these genes were sampled from around 50 populations varying from regions identified as Africa (sub-Saharan Africa), Europe, Asia (Middle East and Eurasia), East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas. Generally, there were more populations sampled in Europe and East Asia, compared to Africa. This discrepancy in sampling makes all world-wide calculations of genetic variability suspect, simply because the data we have at present is not representative of the entire spectrum of human populations. The mean FST for all SNP's from these seven genes is 0.150, with a S. D. of 0.075. Only 12.5% exceeded Wright's threshold of 0.250, see Figure 1. This is to be expected in this sample, since nine of the eleven genes examined had mean FST values for all SNP's within them below Wright's threshold. Despite the limitations of sampling across world populations, the analysis presented above does not support the notion that there should be "racially"; differentiated genetic variation for genetic variants associated for intelligence.

Source: Race, Genomics, and IQ: Slight Return for Intelligence Quotient: Testing, Role of Genetics and the Environment and Social Outcomes, Ed. Joseph Kush, Nova Scientific Publishers, pp. 69 –86 (2013)

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Now whether or not races are real depends on your definition of race. The differences in definition for example between socially-defined and biologically-defined racial groups makes the discussion or racial classification difficult to have. Personally I think that whatever differences do exist between humans on a biological level are not socially important. So the existence of races discussion in not important to me from the perspective of an egalitarian who values equality (fairness and equal treatment under law and in social life). I will say though that your definition of races as genomic similarity is problematic from a scientific perspective. You have to define groups scientifically before you can determine the significance of genomic similarity. Two different people are more or less related depending on their genetic similarity and the same is true for populations. But to identify populations as biological races you need a scientific definition of biological race. This is where the race debate between geneticists, biologists and anthropologists becomes a scientific discussion. How do we define race? How genetically differentiated are human populations and how important are these differences on a biological and social level (ex. do they have relevance socially, impact health conditions, intellectual performance etc.)? Those questions are answered by Graves in the video and the research above from genome-wide association studies is the best I have seen to give a scientific answer to whether or not genetic differences have an impact on IQ score differences between groups.

 

[Write4U]

not a big fan of labels.
however many people cant think(mentally frame an idea for discussion) without something having a label stuck to it to begin with

That brings to mind an interesting picture. A label is a mental picture.... (lech...)

Perhaps it the reason why we acquire that ability for empathy. It rests on our ability to form and remember pictures. Subjective experiences and emotional responses.

Empathy is a "recognition"of a previously experienced emotional action or situation and produces the same emotional chemical experience in the observer as in the observed person or situation.

In the end it always seems to come down to pattern recognition.

 

[James R]

Administrator note:

Several posts have been removed from somebody who signed up under the name Dr. M.H. B.Sc. M.Sc. M.D.
The individual in question has been permanently banned from sciforums.

Advice to this person, in case you're reading:
1. When you sign up to a new forum community, don't start by insulting the existing members.
2. Never refer to a black person as "this negro".
3. Learn some manners.
4. I pity your "grad students", if you actually have any. You don't sound like an academic.

 

[Zwitterion]

How do we define race?

Ancestry or genomic similarity, which are effectively the same thing. That's a predictive (the sine qua non of science) system, and we use the same system in phylogenetics. But politically motivated pseudoscientists want to make an exception for humans.

How genetically differentiated are human populations and how important are these differences on a biological and social level (ex. do they have relevance socially, impact health conditions, intellectual performance etc.)?

Well just look at the Congo, Japan, Haiti, Iceland, Detroit, Brazil. There's your answer.

Those questions are answered by Graves in the video and the research above from genome-wide association studies is the best I have seen to give a scientific answer to whether or not genetic differences have an impact on IQ score differences between groups.

I don't think anyone's falling for an argumentum ad tl;dr. Usually when people can't succinctly make their case in their own words and claim the answers are in a nine hour video or buried among thousands of copy pastes somewhere they're just gaslighting.

 

[James R]

Well just look at the Congo, Japan, Haiti, Iceland, Detroit, Brazil. There's your answer.

Sorry. What are we supposed to deduce from your list of nations?

 

[Zwitterion]

Sorry. What are we supposed to deduce from your list of nations?

Well you tell me pal. Notice any pattern?

 

[James R]

Well you tell me pal. Notice any pattern?

This isn't a guessing game. It's your argument to make. You allude to some kind of difference based on genetic differences in something or other relating to these nations you list, but you don't spell it out.

The nations you list have widely separated geographic locations, different environmental conditions, different histories of colonisation and exploitation, different levels of wealth. I take it that you think that there is something genetic that contributes to these differences.

Well?

 

[Zwitterion]

The nations you list have widely separated geographic locations, different environmental conditions, different histories of colonisation and exploitation, different levels of wealth. I take it that you think that there is something genetic that contributes to these differences.

You have the situation exactly.

 

[Zwitterion]

For example could this alleged global pattern explain the differences in wealth and governmental structure between North and South Korea? How about the difference in standard of living between ethnic Koreans in Japan and native Japanese?

Koreans are hardly that different when you compare them to Africa. If anything North Koreans are even more stable and productive. And differences are due to external forces e.g. American occupation, or Japanese racism. However last time I checked Koreans in Japan aren't significantly illiterate, illegitimate, impoverished or criminal so I hardly see how this doesn't fit the pattern as you claim.

 

[James R]

You have the situation exactly.

What's the connection to race? That's the thread topic, isn't it?

 

[Zwitterion]

What's the connection to race? That's the thread topic, isn't it?

You're going to pretend you can't see the pattern? Ok, as you wish.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

I don't think anyone's falling for an argumentum ad tl;dr. Usually when people can't succinctly make their case in their own words and claim the answers are in a nine hour video or buried among thousands of copy pastes somewhere they're just gaslighting.

You're being intellectually lazy if you can't respond to the posting of some genetic research. People can watch the videos on their own time.

Koreans are hardly that different when you compare them to Africa. If anything North Koreans are even more stable and productive. And differences are due to external forces e.g. American occupation, or Japanese racism. However last time I checked Koreans in Japan aren't significantly illiterate, illegitimate, impoverished or criminal so I hardly see how this doesn't fit the pattern as you claim.

So in other words the example of Koreans isn't noteworthy if they don't conform to enough racist stereotypes. The point still stands. Also if external forces can have an effect on Koreans then why do differences in the standard of living of Blacks between Whites and Asians have to be due to genetic differences? Are you sure you don't just hate Black people and want to dehumanize them with notions of inferiority?

 

[Zwitterion]

You're being intellectually lazy if you can't respond to the posting of some genetic research. People can watch the videos on their own time.

No I'm just not wasting my time. If you can't state your position succinctly you can just be dismissed.

So in other words the example of Koreans isn't noteworthy if they don't conform to enough racist stereotypes.

Right.

The point still stands.

Wrong.

Also if external forces can have an effect on Koreans then why do differences in the standard of living of Blacks between Whites and Asians have to be due to genetic differences?

Because the Black difference is large and consistent. Like really "there is some environmental effect, all effects are environmental". That's retard tier.

Are you sure you don't just hate Black people and want to dehumanize them with notions of inferiority?

Whether or not I hate Black people is irrelevant to a parsimonious explanation of differences. Straight into the ad hominem pseudoscience. Typical.