Racism - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is Racism a mark for a lack of education or intelligence?

Lack of Education
1
3%
Lack of Intelligence
3
8%
Both
11
28%
Neither
14
36%
Other
10
26%
User avatar
By Godstud
#15001425
Suntzu wrote:Only about half the scientist believe there is such a thing as race.
I doubt it's even close to half.

Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue
Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out

More than 100 years ago, American sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois was concerned that race was being used as a biological explanation for what he understood to be social and cultural differences between different populations of people. He spoke out against the idea of "white" and "black" as discrete groups, claiming that these distinctions ignored the scope of human diversity.

Science would favor Du Bois. Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning. And yet, you might still open a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like "white" and "black" being used as biological variables.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... sts-argue/

Suntzu wrote:These are mostly from the hard sciences such as biology, genetics, etc.,
False. Genetics and the "hard sciences" refute the very idea of race.

The last time I saw a PhD support race, I checked out what the PhD was in, and it was in Philosophy. :knife:
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15001426
Godstud wrote:I doubt it's even close to half.

Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue
Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out

More than 100 years ago, American sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois was concerned that race was being used as a biological explanation for what he understood to be social and cultural differences between different populations of people. He spoke out against the idea of "white" and "black" as discrete groups, claiming that these distinctions ignored the scope of human diversity.

Science would favor Du Bois. Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning. And yet, you might still open a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like "white" and "black" being used as biological variables.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... sts-argue/

False. Genetics and the "hard sciences" refute the very idea of race.

The last time I saw a PhD support race, I checked out what the PhD was in, and it was in Philosophy. :knife:


What was Shockley's PhD in? Watson? :lol:
User avatar
By Godstud
#15001428
So just a criticism, and no evidence or sources? :lol: I never claimed Shockley had a PhD in philosophy, but the comment is valid amongst people who dispute mainstream science. Mind you, Shockley was a physicist and inventor, not a geneticist. These are unrelated sciences. He's also been dead for 30 years.

Typical of someone making a claim they cannot support. You make a reference to a scientist who made discoveries totally unrelated to the relevant topic. How is the invention of the transistor even relevant? :?:
User avatar
By Verv
#15001429
Pants-of-dog wrote:I can explain the science behind how the different colours are distinct.

You are unable to explain the science behind the idea that the races are distinct.


It's actually pretty easy:

I inherit the genes of my parents, who inherit the genes of their parents, and so on; the genetics of groups become distinct because they have interbred with one another as an extended family for millennia. This is why Koreans, Nigerians, and Norwegians all look incredibly different from one another, right?

This accounts not just for differences in color, but also differences in their average heights and body structures, their hereditary diseases, their athletic talents, and, just as how our bodies are made of matter, it also affects their brains that are made of matter. Just as a mental disease can be inherited, so, too, can intelligence, as there is plenty of research showing that intelligence is heritable.


For the third time, race does exist.


Right, race does not exist at all.

But the reason that certain groups excel at long distance running are genetically based, right?

So there would be such a thing as a gene pool that is relevant to a specific region or people, and certainly relevant to everyone that came out of it, right?


You still have not provided a scientific definition of race.


OK, like I said: race doesn't exist. I don't believe in it.


No, I do not agree.

You do this thing where you do bot provide support for your arguments, and then simply rephrase them and ask them in form of a question.


OK, a reminder to the group, this is what I had asked:

"We can simply all agree that certain groups of people have higher athletic aptitudes in certain categories than other groups of people, right? And so if two typical Kenyans from among the tribal groups that excel at long distance running have 10 children, the bulk (if not all) of those children will have the natural aptitude towards long distance running, right? "

So, two clear questions:

(1) Would the children of two people who excel at long distance running from the Kenyan tribes that excel at long distance running be more likely than other children to excel at long distance running?

Let's asy that they had 10 kids... I am sure it is possible that some of them weren't particularly good, but, on average, wouldn't their kids have a greater aptitude for long distance running?

(2) If yes, what does this say about gene pools for specific groups of people? Is it possible for a specific gene pool to produce better long distance runners?

Or is it the case that the Kenyan groups that compose less than ten or fifteen million people are just excellent at training at it or some such..?


As far as I can tell, you have already decided to make this slow and painful like pulling teeth.

For example, you still have not provided a verifiable definition of race.


Sure.

Race doesn't exist.

You convinced me with your better arguments and I have changed my mind.

But gene pools exist, right?
User avatar
By Godstud
#15001430
@Verv What you describe are simply "tweaks". The same way in which a people might be taller than others in a different region.

In humans, as in all species, genetic changes are the result of random mutations—tiny tweaks to DNA, the code of life. Mutations occur at a more or less constant rate, so the longer a group persists, handing down its genes generation after generation, the more tweaks these genes will accumulate. Meanwhile, the longer two groups are separated, the more distinctive tweaks they will acquire.

Of course, just because race is “made up” doesn’t make it any less powerful. To a disturbing extent, race still determines people’s perceptions, their opportunities, and their experiences. It is enshrined in the U.S. census, which last time it was taken, in 2010, asked Americans to choose their race from a list that reflects the history of the concept; choices included “White,” “Black,” “American Indian,” “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Japanese,” and “Samoan.” Racial distinctions were written into the Jim Crow laws of the post-Reconstruction South and are now written into statutes like the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or color. To the victims of racism, it’s small consolation to say that the category has no scientific basis.

Genetic sequencing, which has allowed researchers to trace the path of human migration and now allows individuals to trace their own ancestry, has introduced new ways of thinking about human diversity. Or at least so Foeman hopes. The DNA Discussion Project gives participants insight into their own background, which is generally a lot more complicated than they’d been led to believe. And this, in turn, opens up a conversation about the long, tangled, and often brutal history that all of us ultimately share.

That race is a human construction doesn’t mean that we don’t fall into different groups or there’s no variation,” Foeman says. “But if we made racial categories up, maybe we can make new categories that function better.”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maga ... ce-africa/

@Suntzu Rushton was a psychologist, not a geneticist, too.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15001432
Godstud wrote:@Suntzu Rushton was a psychologist, not a geneticist, too.

Then why not quote some geneticist on the subject?
User avatar
By Godstud
#15001433
I don't know why Suntzu did that. You'll have to ask him, @Hindsite. I have no doubt that it's meant to distract.
User avatar
By Verv
#15001442
Godstud wrote:@Verv What you describe are simply "tweaks". The same way in which a people might be taller than others in a different region.

In humans, as in all species, genetic changes are the result of random mutations—tiny tweaks to DNA, the code of life. Mutations occur at a more or less constant rate, so the longer a group persists, handing down its genes generation after generation, the more tweaks these genes will accumulate. Meanwhile, the longer two groups are separated, the more distinctive tweaks they will acquire.

...

That race is a human construction doesn’t mean that we don’t fall into different groups or there’s no variation,” Foeman says. “But if we made racial categories up, maybe we can make new categories that function better.”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maga ... ce-africa/

@Suntzu Rushton was a psychologist, not a geneticist, too.


Right, so you understand that traits are heritable.

Are you willing to accept that, just as some gene pools inherited "tweaks" that make their ability to run faster, there are other groups that inherited traits that have generally made them smarter and more well behaved in society?
User avatar
By Godstud
#15001445
@Verv Yes. Still, not something attributed to race. That's what this thread is about, is it not?
User avatar
By Verv
#15001458
Godstud wrote:@Verv Yes. Still, not something attributed to race. That's what this thread is about, is it not?


Aw, but surely you see that "short-hand" for these groups of people with similar genetics that contribute to collective athletic ability, cognitive ability, and social adaptation is race.

Who shares the most genetic similarity to black Americans? Carribbean blacks, Brazilian blacks, and to lesser extents, Western & Central Africans.

Black Americans and Carribbean blacks are infamous for their performances in sprinting and track and field as well as various other sports.

Perhaps the "black" race is a clumsy concept, right, but the concept of black Americans & Carribbean blacks having similar "tweaks" in their genes that allow for exceptional athletic performance and feats is a real thing.

.. Just as how mental dispositions like Major Depressive Disorder having a high rate of heritability, and just as how IQ as well is said to be highly heritable (with famous pop scientists like Stephen Pinker endorsing it as well)... cognitive ability is also probably heritable to some degree, and thus so would some of the factors that contribute to criminality and other anti-social behaviors that seem to make historically black communities hotbeds of criminality and poverty.

... Do you see the point, Godstud?
User avatar
By Godstud
#15001461
You missed my point. You obviously didn't read the article I posted and what it stated about skin colour, since that's about the biggest variation. It's simply an adaptation to more exposure to the sun. Geographic differences are minor, as well, and no basis for discrimination, which is usually what differentiating between "race" is all about.
User avatar
By Verv
#15001463
Godstud wrote:You missed my point. You obviously didn't read the article I posted and what it stated about skin colour, since that's about the biggest variation. It's simply an adaptation to more exposure to the sun. Geographic differences are minor, as well, and no basis for discrimination, which is usually what differentiating between "race" is all about.


So how do you account for disproportionate athletic advantages of American & Carribbean blacks in much of track and field, and E. Africans in long-distance running, and generally speaking, the persistent dsproportionate success of black Americans in American supports, Pacific Islanders in Rugby, etc.?

These may not actually be races, right. These are more specific references to more specific individual people. I agree iwth you, clearly, race doesn't exist -- but gene pools exist, right? And they are specific to certain communities. So, we could say, race may not exist, but there are "common gene pools" that contribute to the participants in there.

And, surely, there is a genetic basis for the athletic achievements of some of these groups because it is true that every American group participates a lot in sports in their youth. And the cream rises to the top.

Couldn't it be said that there are more tweaks in their gene pool that lead to these disproportionate outcomes?

Or is it cultural? That seems like a harder sell.

P. S. I know you guys want to make this whole thread into talking about how there's absolutely no scientific basis for race as we have classically defined it, but yeah, whatever, you can't keep hiding behind these pop science semantics.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15001465
Verv wrote:So how do you account for disproportionate athletic advantages of American & Carribbean blacks in much of track and field, and E. Africans in long-distance running, and generally speaking, the persistent dsproportionate success of black Americans in American supports, Pacific Islanders in Rugby, etc.?
There are few sports that people in a lot of those countries can do that are affordable. Running is one of them. Economics plays a factor, but it's often more a cultural thing.

Pacific islanders in Rugby? :eh: Probably because it's really popular there. There are tons of Aussies that love Rugby and it's also popular in the UK, where few Pacific Islanders play.

That's like saying there's more whites in hockey because we are genetically predisposed to it. Are white people more predisposed to rowing and swimming, or is that a more cultural thing?

There is little genetic differences that cannot be overcome with very minor effort. The argument about IQ being genetic doesn't stand up to scrutiny, particularly when the tests being given are often culturally biased.

Using race as an excuse for prejudice and discrimination is often what pseudo-science is all about. Pop science? :roll: Nice try... :lol:
Last edited by Godstud on 28 Apr 2019 12:59, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15001466
Godstud wrote:There are few sports that people in a lot of those countries can do that are affordable. Running is one of them. Economics plays a factor, but it's probably more a cultural thing.

Pacific islanders in Rugby? :eh: Probably because it's really popular there. There are tons of Aussies that love Rugby and it's also popular in the UK, where few Pacific Islanders play.

That's like saying there's more whites in hockey because we are genetically predisposed to it. Are white people more predisposed to rowing and swimming, or is that a more cultural thing?

There is little genetic differences that cannot be overcome with very minor effort. The argument about IQ being genetic doesn't stand up to scrutiny, particularly when the tests being given are often culturally biased.


True! Just think of all the players in the NBA that are under six foot! :lol: I have a box full of I.Q. test that are non-verbal. You figure they are culturally biased? :roll:
By Rich
#15001471
OK lefties, I'll try and explain this as simply as I can.

Tallness exists. but how do you know where short stops and tall starts?. A tall pygmy might means something very different to a tall Somali. It doesn't matter tallness still exists as a scientific fact regardless of the fact that there are no clearly defined or agreed categories of tallness.

Its the same for race. Race exists. Its a scientific fact. The only major difference is that tallness is a single dimensional variable, while race is a many dimensioned variable across numerous different genes. Actually race is not only multiple dimensional it doesn't even have a fixed number of dimensions. There are questions around non gene DNA sequences and epi-genetics, but none of these complications voids the scientific fact that race exists.

So it is perfectly acceptable to talk about a White Caucasian race, a British race, an English race, even a Yorkshire race. One can then analyse these groupings, these sets for genetic clustering, exomic clustering, physical expression and various behaviour results and experiments. There is no exact correspondence between genetic clustering and ethnic / geographical groups, but there is a huge correlation. Treating Africans as a race would be pretty stupid. Defining Semites as a race would be pretty stupid, but anlaysing them as a grouping could produce interesting results.

Note no one is saying that good racial science is easy. No Science is hard generally and good racial science is very hard when it comes to non physical behavioural characteristics. Its not helped by the fact that a lot of genetics work is done by biologists, who are not that smart, at least compared to mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists.

Mind you having said that I was gob smacked when heard that scientists had published a paper proving that Mercury was nearer on average than Mars. I mean that was a 10 second thought experiment to establish that was the case, and these people thought it deserved a scientific paper. :roll:
By Rich
#15001474
As PoFo's leading anti-racist, I have courageously brought to attention the endemic bigotry against WIGs (White Infidel Gentiles). So I note that scientists have tried to aid Blacks by adjusting their IQs for socio-economic status. No one seems to have tried adjusting Jewish IQs for socio economic status. Presumably because that might put White Gentiles in a good light, and the Cultural Marxist Golden Rule is to put down WIG's at every opportunity.
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15001476
Godstud wrote::eh: Was basketball mentioned? No. Height is not linked to skin colour, either, @Suntzu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_in_Mental_Testing


"The book is based on the fact that the average IQ of African Americans had been consistently found to lie approximately 15 points lower than that of White Americans, and the accusation made by some psychologists that IQ tests are therefore culturally biased against African Americans. The book does not address the question of whether the cause of the IQ gap is genetic or environmental, but only whether the tests themselves are valid.[2]

The book presents several arguments that IQ tests are not biased. African Americans' lower average performance on IQ tests cannot be because of differences in vocabulary, because African Americans have slightly better performance on verbal tests than on nonverbal tests. The IQ difference also cannot be because the tests depend on White culture, or that Whites inevitably do better on tests designed by Whites. In fact, Blacks perform better on tests that are culturally loaded than they do on tests designed to not include cultural references unfamiliar to Blacks, and Japanese children tend to outscore White children by an average of six points. Nor can the difference be a reflection of socioeconomic status, because when Black and White children are tested who are at the same socioeconomic level, the difference between their average IQs is still twelve points.[2]

The book also presents evidence that IQ tests work the same way for all English-speaking Americans born in the United States, regardless of race. One is that IQ tests have been very successful in predicting performance for all Americans in school, work, and the armed forces. Another is that the race and sex of the person administering a test does not significantly affect how African Americans perform on it. The ranking in difficulty of test items on IQ tests is the same for both groups, and so is the overall shape of the graph showing the number of people achieving each score, except that the curve is centered slightly lower for Blacks than it is for Whites.[2]

Based on this data, Jensen concludes that tests which show a difference in average IQ between races are showing something real, rather than an artifact of the tests themselves. He argues that in competition for college admission and jobs, IQ tests have the potential to be more fair than many of the alternatives, because they can judge ability in a way that's colorblind instead of relying on the judgement of an interviewer.[2]"
User avatar
By Verv
#15001487
Godstud wrote:There are few sports that people in a lot of those countries can do that are affordable. Running is one of them. Economics plays a factor, but it's often more a cultural thing.

Pacific islanders in Rugby? :eh: Probably because it's really popular there. There are tons of Aussies that love Rugby and it's also popular in the UK, where few Pacific Islanders play.

That's like saying there's more whites in hockey because we are genetically predisposed to it. Are white people more predisposed to rowing and swimming, or is that a more cultural thing?

There is little genetic differences that cannot be overcome with very minor effort. The argument about IQ being genetic doesn't stand up to scrutiny, particularly when the tests being given are often culturally biased.

Using race as an excuse for prejudice and discrimination is often what pseudo-science is all about. Pop science? :roll: Nice try... :lol:


I thought that there was some amount of hope when we were talking about how there can be tweaks in people's DNA to give them advantages here and there.

But I see that this is what you accused others of before: a deflection from the real arguments.

So, even if we play the semantics game and deny that race exists and just try to focus on gene pools, you come back to another set of walls...

Here's some questions...

If IQ testing has a cultural bias, why do far east Asians score the highest, and that has been the case for decades, including back when their culture swere so different? Did white Europeans aim to design a test that would be to the cultural benefit of Asians?

Also, have you ever taken an IQ test? Many of them are based solely on pattern recognition.

Also, if the IQ tests of just affect blacks raised in culturally black environments, why do blacks adopted into white families perform worst than their white siblings in these tests..? Why do they score worst than white adopted kids in white adopting families? The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study is very controversial but, hey, worth checking out.

... And can you really be serious?

You think that millions & millions of non-white kids in the America, Europe, China, etc. have not grown up playing basketball..?

Why do you think that the French football team became basically team Africa? Is it because white French boys never enjoyed soccer and never dreamed of playing it in the major leagues..?

Come on, now, what is really the most logical explanation for all of this..?

Yes, culture is relevant, but it is clearly not the only factor in athletics or in cognitive ability.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 13
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Both sides are just bad faith actors in the sen[…]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the IDF and I[…]

Voting for this guy again would be a very banan[…]

The US government does not care about the ongoing […]