[Potemkin]

Even the term itself - "reactionary socialsm" seems to me contradictory.

It's not contradictory, kami321. It's dialectical.

[kami321]

ROFL!

Having fun?
The floor is dirty, don't roll on it. It's bad for your genes.

[Ixa]

A nationalist wants to conquer more territory,

Error compiling.

I asked you about what nationalism is according to you, not socialism.

And I have provided you with that; I quoted the dictionary. Go back to page one.

The words that you used to describe nationlism would more likely be a description of protectionism/isolationism

Not according to the dictionary. When you attach unusual meanings to common words, discussion becomes irksome.

No, (classical) naitonalists

However much you deny the fact, nationalism in the modern era not only regards itself as being compatible with international or supranational organisations; it is aware of the interdependence brought about by technology. Generally, it has become a people's movement, and to a considerably larger extent than before the World War. In most countries, nationalism and socialism do not exist as opposite and conflicting trends. Nationalism has become 'socialist'; Socialism has become fundamentally patriotic or nationalist.

Dozens of (relatively newly) established nations in Asia and Africa call themselves 'socialist', and find therein no contradiction to their strongly emphasised nationalism. The Chinese Nationalist Sun Yat-sen in his San min chu'i named socialism as one of his chief principles.

Today, nationalism, both in the old nations and the new nations, is no longer a movement of upper-class elites but has become 'people-based'.

always cheer expansion of national interests.

a. Demonstrate that this is contrary to socialism.
b. That is far from being "always" the case, as I have shown above.

No, it is only logical to you and people like you.

It is logical because it positively influences the replication of selfish genes; it offers an alternative to the genetic deterrioration effected by multiculturalism.

Besides, the importance of difference between races has long ago become obsolete.

The dominant view in the relevant scientific disciplines, particularly behavioural genetics, is the opposite. Envirinomental shaping in a direction canalised by a group's underlying genotype is called niche building, and the two races most successful in building socially and economically developed niches have been Asians and Whites.

No nation progressed better than another because of [...] genetical advantage.

You are about fifty years behind in evolutionary psychology and behavioural genetics.

We aren't living in the age where genes decide whether we live or die

Having an intelligence a full standard deviation below the norm does not have any effect on one's standing in life?

education decides much more.

Not according to psychometricians and behaviour genecitists. Do you realise that your view is in the miniroty in the relevant scientific disciplines?

Internationalism stands for international peace and mutual respect between all nations.

Maybe in La La Land. In the real world, internationalism is a form of cynical realpolitik whereby nations extend their sphere of influence.

If you have trouble understanding something it's your problem, not mine.

Maybe you're just inarticulate?

No, I don't. According to pure logic, the person who makes the claim has to present the evidence

Which I have done. And yet you still have no contrary information to present to us. Maybe you don't have any?

[kami321]

And I have provided you with that;

Ok so I see that for some reason you are avoiding giving me a sentence long definition of your understanding nationalism, even though I asked for it like 3 times already.
Ok, that's your right. I'll assume that you are either incapable of doing what i asked, or afraid of something. I'll have to use this as a definition then:

1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

If this really is all the meaning that you put into word nationalism and nothing else, then it is more or less compatible with socialism. However,
First of all: Most nationalists in history as well as present day world don't follow this definition.
Second of all: Again, like I did a page before, I'll bring the example of North Korea - because it seems to fit your definition quite nicely - it is independent, isolationist, protectionist, and self-centered, therefore according to your definition it is nationalist. So does DPRK have a superior culture due to its isolation, or superior genes? I don't think there is evidence of either, however there is substantial evidence that the population is starving and the society is falling way behind the other countries. Can this kind of situation really be seen as socialist? And why?

Nationalism has become 'socialist'

It is true that in many under-developed countries socialism and nationalism can coexist, because both want to throw away (mostly foreign) capitalist opression therefore they can cooperate. But once the foreign capitalist threat is gone, the naitonal-socialist coalitions usually end up breaking apart due to different views on how the country should develop further.

a. Demonstrate that this is contrary to socialism.

Isn't it kind of obvious? Expansion of national interests of one country always leads to opression of another country. Opression of another country /= socialism.

to the genetic deterrioration effected by multiculturalism.

How can you prove that it is really deterioration? You state it, but you so far haven't proven it. Damn if there was no cultural exchange we would still be using goddamn Roman Numerals!

The dominant view in the relevant scientific disciplines, particularly behavioural genetics, is the opposite.

I don't care about someone's view - I want a proof. The kind of information we inherit through the genes is purely basic and obsolete in present day world. You have to agree that strong arms and sharp teeth don't matter nearly as much in our society as education does.

You are about fifty years behind in evolutionary psychology and behavioural genetics.

Heh, I think it's just the opposite. To me it seems like your view of the world is several generations behind the evolution of this planet.

Having an intelligence a full standard deviation below the norm

Oh are you referring to yourself in this example? Our intelligence is perfectly fine. The Africans are no dumber than Europeans or Americans, so are Arabs and Asians. Care to prove that some nations are genetically behind others?

Not according to psychometricians and behaviour genecitists.

genecitists genecitists... Why do you just trust every word they say (if that really is what they say)? It's probably them that are the only people in this world who are genetically behind others.

internationalism is a form of cynical realpolitik whereby nations extend their sphere of influence.

No, if there are spheres of influence - this is not internationalism. As I said, internationalism is based on mutual respect of all nations. The concept of spheres of influence directly violates this rule, any internationalist will agree with me on this.

Maybe you're just inarticulate?

Maybe. At least I'm open minded, unlike you.

Which I have done.

Nope. You have not provided a credible source (actually you haven't provided any source) which says that more than 50% of leftists in pre-world war 1 period were racist. But lets put this topic to rest because it is only loosely related to the main argument.

[Ixa]

Ok so I see that for some reason you are avoiding giving me a sentence long definition of your understanding nationalism

It's already been done.

First of all: Most nationalists in history as well as present day world don't follow this definition.

Evidence? What proportation of nationalists don't? And how did you arrive at that figure.

Second of all: Again, like I did a page before, I'll bring the example of North Korea - because it seems to fit your definition quite nicely - it is independent, isolationist, protectionist, and self-centered, therefore according to your definition it is nationalist. So does DPRK have a superior culture due to its isolation, or superior genes? I don't think there is evidence of either, however there is substantial evidence that the population is starving and the society is falling way behind the other countries.

You seem to have forgotten what is being under discussion. We could debate the social or economic status of North Korea, but the question is not "how good" North Korea is, but whether it is in fact both nationalist and socialist. We are discussing the compatibility of nationalism and socialism, not how 'likeable' national-socialist states are. Please keep this in mind.

It is true that in many under-developed countries socialism and nationalism can coexist

Good. So we have an admission. The debate has been settled: nationalism is not incompatible with socialism.

Opression of another country /= socialism.

It seems to me that you define socialism moralistically, when in reality Socialism is an economic fact; it may be good or bad, oppressive or unoppressive, expansionist or isolationist, nationalist or internationalist, democratic or undemocratic: the defining element, however, is public ownership of the means of economic production. Several nationalist states have satisfied this condition. Your argument is refuted.

How can you prove that it is really deterioration?

It is brought about by differential r-K selected reproductive strategies.

The kind of information we inherit through the genes is purely basic and obsolete in present day world. You have to agree that strong arms and sharp teeth don't matter nearly as much in our society as education does.

The heritabilities of particular traits - including intelligence, learning capacity, activity level, altruism, aggression, criminality, dominance, submissiveness, emotionality, ability to defer gratification, longevity, psychopathology, neurotocism, sexual preference, sociability, values, even specific ideological tendencies, etc. - can be determined by studying inbreeding depression and certain statistical correlations, including the intraclass (r) correlation, as in doubling the difference between MZ and DZ similarities. These are basically the eqivalent to the cross-fostering designs used in animal experiments to determine the heritabilities of specific traits. Particularly dramatic are studies which combine the two methods, specifically the Minnesota Study (Bouchard) which I suggest you look into.

To me it seems like your view of the world is several generations behind the evolution of this planet.

In fact, the accepted view in the relevant scientific disciplines, including behavioural genetics, is that genetics plays the predominant role in such traits as I have enumerated above; 94 percent of behavioral geneticists, for instance, are of this view with regard to intelligence differences. The 'mainstream' view seems to be that hereditary is the overriding factor in personality and intelligence within the human species.

Our intelligence is perfectly fine. The Africans are no dumber than Europeans or Americans, so are Arabs and Asians.

Considering that the average African IQ is 70, which is equivalent to mental retardation, and that the average Arab IQ is about a standard deviation below the norm, you are incorrect. The average East Asian IQ, however, is 105, above the White average.

Care to prove that some nations are genetically behind others?

No, if there are spheres of influence - this is not internationalism.

By that logic, internationalism has never existed (and probably never will exist).

At least I'm open minded, unlike you.

I have an open mind. A year ago I would agree with everything you've just said. Then I began studying differential psychology and behavioural genetics. Many of my beliefs on nationalism are informed by what I have learned.

ou have not provided a credible source (actually you haven't provided any source) which says that more than 50% of leftists in pre-world war 1 period were racist.

It is a reasonable inferrence based on the then prevailing beliefs on racial issues, and the pronouncements made in contemporary socialist publications and by leading socialists touching on race relations. My contention is that racism was not then a left-wing / right-wing thing.

[kami321]

It's already been done.

Denial is common on this forum, don't worry.

Evidence? What proportation of nationalists don't? And how did you arrive at that figure.

Ok then what famous historical nationalist figures do you identify with? Bismarck? Napoleon (I and III)? Kaiser Whilhelm? Jefferson Davis? W Churchill? Hitler? Tojo? Chiang Kai-Shek? Franco? Does any one of these leaders identify with your definition of nationalism? Doesn't look like that to me.

We are discussing the compatibility of nationalism and socialism, not how 'likeable' national-socialist states are.

I dont' think you are right. How likeable this state is is directly related to how socialist it is. I refuse to call a state socialist if it starves its own population. Besides, I still want you to answer this question:

So does DPRK have a superior culture due to its isolation, or superior genes?

The debate has been settled: nationalism is not incompatible with socialism.

Maybe maybe, I'm still unconvinced.

when in reality Socialism is an economic fact

I have to agree with you here.

It is brought about by differential r-K selected reproductive strategies.

And in practice thes means? Don't speak to me with your geneticist language.

including intelligence, learning capacity, activity level, altruism, aggression, criminality, dominance, submissiveness, emotionality, ability to defer gratification, longevity, psychopathology, neurotocism, sexual preference, sociability, values, even specific ideological tendencies, etc. - can be determined by studying inbreeding depression and certain statistical correlations, including the intraclass (r) correlation, as in doubling the difference between MZ and DZ similarities.

Present to me this statistic please.

Considering that the average IQ in Africa is 70, which is equivalent to mental retardation

First of all: "Africans" and "poeple who live in Africa" are different terms.
Second of all: Have you considered that the low intelligence of poeple who live in Africa may be a result of bad education than genes?

Chart 2

Oh come on you are one of those people who still calculates brain size? You are ridiculous. Not only measuring brain is associated with nazism, but it also don't prove anything. I personally don't care how large my brain is.

Maybe you should start a penis measuring contest to prove genetic superiority? I bet Africans will win!

internationalism has never existed

Full scale internationalism has not existed, true, so is communism. But there were many attempts, for instance in USSR each nation theoretically had as much power as the amount of its population. In practice however the Gensek had more power than anyone. AS for independent nations, non-aligned movement came pretty close.

Then I began studying differential psychology and behavioural genetics.

So are you the kind of person who accepts everything he reads? so tomorrow you will watch a conservatice channel and will become a conservative, then you will read ann's book and will become a libertarian, then communist again, then nazi...

It is a reasonable inferrence based on the then prevailing beliefs on racial issues, and the pronouncements made in contemporary socialist publications and by leading socialists touching on race relations

Blah blah blah. Again a lot of talk and no proof. Just leave it.

My contention is that racism was not then a left-wing / right-wing thing.

No, nationalists are more likely to be racists than internationalists. And you just proved that with your chart, which theoretically is racist.

[Ixa]

Ok then what famous historical nationalist figures do you identify with?

None.

Bismarck? Napoleon (I and III)? Kaiser Whilhelm? Jefferson Davis? W Churchill? Hitler? Tojo? Chiang Kai-Shek? Franco?

One could also mention Ho Chi Minh, Sun Yat Sen, Ghandi, Saddam Hussein, Nasser, Kim Il Sung, Bismarck, and George Washington, to name a few.

I dont' think you are right. How likeable this state is is directly related to how socialist it is.

What you like is irrelevant; it is merely an autobiographical expression of subjective feeling. Socialism, however, is an economic fact; when trying to determine whether a state is socialist, therefore, we analyse its economic system, not introspect as to how much we 'like' it.

And in practice thes means?

The result of differential r-K reproductive strategies amongst unequal populations is cacogenic.

Present to me this statistic please.

High heritabilities have been averaged out ranging from 20 percent to 100 percent, depending on which trait you are talking about.

First of all: "Africans" and "poeple who live in Africa" are different terms.

Right; I was referring to that population which in physical anthropology are called 'Negroids' (who do not constitute the entire population of Africa).

Second of all: Have you considered that the low intelligence of poeple who live in Africa may be a result of bad education than genes?

Yes, I have. The answer is no. See, for instance, Lynn's Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. Intelligence differences and differences in brain size between populations show up before schooling begins (before age 3); an answer must be sought, therefore, in possible factors which are operative before the age of schooling. The evidence is strongly in favour of heredity.

There are, for instance, transracial adoption studies - in which adopted Black babies were raised by middle class Whites, adopted White babies were raised by middle class Whites, and adopted Asian babies were raised by middle class Whites - and the same patterns persist: Whites subtantially out-perform Blacks from infancy in every test of cognitive ability, and Asians substantially outperform Whites from infancy in the same areas.

Oh come on you are one of those people who still calculates brain size?

It's still commonly done in the relevant scientific discplines. There is a subtantial correlation between brain size and intelligence. This is beacuse even small differences in brain size translate into differences in brain efficiency. Hundreds of millions of cerebral cortex neurons differentiate blacks, whites, and asians from each other, sufficient to account for observed differences in intelligence.

Maybe you should start a penis measuring contest to prove genetic superiority?

Unfortunately for some people, penis size doesn't correlate with intelligence.

So are you the kind of person who accepts everything he reads?

No. I was convinced by the strength of the evidence given by certain authorities in psychometrics and behavioural genetics.

Blah blah blah.

Nonresponsive.

No, nationalists are more likely to be racists than internationalists.

Nationalism and internationalism are not interchangeable with leftism and rightism, respectively.

And you just proved that with your chart, which theoretically is racist.

Calling something racist is the most graceless way of admitting you have no argument.

[kami321]

Ok then what famous historical nationalist figures do you identify with?

None.

Doesn't that basically mean you are not a nationalist?
Or do you think those people I listed were not true nationalists?

Socialism, however, is an economic fact; when trying to determine whether a state is socialist

What I'm getting at here is that starvation of population = failure of socialism. And it is caused due to nationalism.

The result of differential r-K reproductive strategies amongst unequal populations is cacogenic

Speak english please. r-K is not part of the english dictionary. If you fail to explain what it means, then you fail to prove your point.

depending on which trait you are talking about.

I'm talking about all traits and I'm talking about the absence of a credible source which confirms the influence genes have on the traits listed in your previous post.

The evidence is strongly in favour of heredity.

Why don't the Asians rule the world then?

There is a subtantial correlation between brain size and intelligence

... you're a nazi. What else can I say. The brain size theory has been refuted so many times already, it's mindboggling that some people still believe it. Are you a holocoaust denier too, I wonder?

The implications of this analogy for the brain are straightforward. Any program that seeks to relate brain weight, cranial capacity, or some other measure of overall brain size to individual performance ignores the reality of the brain's functional diversity. Thus, quite apart from the political or ethical probity of attempts to measure "intelligence" by brain size, by the yardstick of modern neuroscience (or simple common sense), this approach will inevitably generate more heat than light.

Unfortunately for some people, penis size doesn't correlate with intelligence.

Oh but which is the sign of superiority though? I can assure you that for many people of various origins penis size matter much more than intelligence.

Nonresponsive.

How else can I respond to your lack of evidence?

Calling something racist is the most graceless way of admitting you have no argument.

I have an argument - you are racist.

[Ixa]

Doesn't that basically mean you are not a nationalist?

No, it means that I don't identify with anyone.

Or do you think those people I listed were not true nationalists

They were true nationalists, among many other true nationalists. Nationalists are a diverse group.

r-K is not part of the english dictionary.

Elementary biology. I assumed you would have some notion of r-K reproductive strategies. Look it up yourself.

I'm talking about all traits

So you want me to prove that "all traits" are heritable. I never claimed that "all traits" are heritable; just the ones I've listed. If you want to discuss specific traits, such as intelligence, then I can show you some statistics. Otherwise I might as well write a book on the subject. Not being able to do that, I can instead refer you to books - the writings of Lynn (Race Differences in Intelligence), Jensen (Conversations with Jensen, Straight Talk About Mental Tests), Eysenck (Intelligence, Genius: A Natural History of Creaivity), Rushton (Race, Evolution and Behaviour), Pinker, Dawkins, Hernnstein, and E.O Wilson to name a few. You are demanding I give you all the evidence for a subject - the heretability of a vast amount of traits - which comprehends an extremely wide area, if current trends continue.

and I'm talking about the absence of a credible source which confirms the influence genes have on the traits listed in your previous post.

I have already referred you to the famous Minnesota Study of Bouchard.

Why don't the Asians rule the world then?

Asian intelligence is above average, but statistically speaking, Asians tend to cluster more around the mean than do whites. That is: There are more white geniuses, and more white idiots, though the average IQ of whites is slightly lower than Asians. Second of all, and perhaps more importantly, there are many other factors than intelligence which determine whether a people 'rules' or not - though intelligence is undoubtedly the most crucial factor. Or perhaps European dominance is just a temporary blip in history. The claim is often made that China was ahead of Europe for most of its existence. And some people are of the view that, if current trends continue, Asia will again overtop the West. Five hundred years of dominance isn't that long a period of time, historically speaking.

... you're a nazi.

How would that refute the fact that intelligence correlates with brain size?



Bigger really is better -- at least for brains

Toronto ? Bigger is better when it comes to brain matter, says a leading neuroscientist.

Canadian researchers examined the brains of 100 people who were given extensive IQ tests before they died and found a correlation between cerebral volume and intelligence.

"This is essentially the first study that is actually looking at the size of the brain directly and not through imaging,? Sandra Witelson, who headed the study at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University, said Thursday from Hamilton.

"What is very clear is that there is a correlation between brain size and intelligence, particularly verbal ability,? said Dr. Witelson, noting that verbal ability encompasses comprehension of complex sentences, understanding verbal logical information and verbal memory.

The study looked specifically at the size of the cerebrum, the thinking part of the brain, and found a correlation with verbal intelligence in women. The same correlation was found for right-handed men.

The research paper was published online this month by the journal Brain.

Dr. Witelson is the scientist who made headlines in 1999 after painstakingly studying the brain of the scientific genius Albert Einstein. She discovered that one part of his brain -- the inferior parietal region, which is related to mathematical reasoning ? was 15 per cent wider on both sides than normal.

Her latest study involved the brains of 58 women and 42 men who all lived and died in the Hamilton area over the past 25 years. The subjects had secondary stage cancers -- their cancers had spread, or metastasized -- and while still relatively healthy, they agreed to take the intelligence tests as well as donate their brains to science after death.

Some studies have looked at intelligence using MRI images of the brain, but Dr. Witelson noted there is room for ambiguity in the images that come through computer programs.

Likewise, she said people can't just look at head size and determine that a smaller head means a smaller brain, or vice versa. "There's a lot inside a skull other than just the brain," she said.

The brains in her study were weighed and the volume calculated through the simple Archimedes' principle -- they were placed in water, and measures were taken of how much water was displaced.

The individuals had also been tested for spatial thinking skills, which would include doing block designs and putting pieces together to make a puzzle.

Spatial intelligence was also correlated with brain size in women, the researchers found.

"But the relationship was not as strong," Dr. Witelson said. "But the point is, in women, whether it was verbal or non-verbal intelligence, brain size was positively correlated -- that means the bigger the brain, the better they did."

In men, visual-spatial intelligence was not related to overall brain size.

Previous research found that Einstein's overall brain was a normal size, she noted, but the specific portion known for spatial intelligence was wider and had a unique anatomy.

"What we're suggesting, and this remains to be tested by further work, that in men it isn't the size of the overall brain that is correlated with how well they do on all these mazes and three-dimensional perception tests, but it might be the structure, it might be the size or the anatomical microscopic structure of the region in the brain that is important for that kind of thinking," Dr. Witelson said.

She also found that brain size decreased in men over the years -- from age 25 to 80 -- but age hardly affected brain size in women.

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Albert Einstein/Irving Zucker Chair in Neuroscience at McMaster University.

Scientist’s Study Of Brain Genes Sparks a Backlash

CHICAGO—Last September, Bruce Lahn, a professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago, stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis: He had found signs of recent evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others.

It was a triumphant moment for the young scientist. He was up for tenure and his research was being featured in back-to-back articles in the country’s most prestigious science journal. Yet today, Dr. Lahn says he is moving away from the research. “It’s getting too controversial,” he says.

Dr. Lahn had touched a raw nerve in science: race and intelligence.

What Dr. Lahn told his audience was that genetic changes over the past several thousand years might be linked to brain size and intelligence. He flashed maps that showed the changes had taken hold and spread widely in Europe, Asia and the Americas, but weren’t common in sub-Saharan Africa.

Web sites and magazines promoting white “racialism” quickly seized on Dr. Lahn’s suggestive scientific snapshot. One magazine that blames black and Hispanic people for social ills hailed his discovery as “the moment the antiracists and egalitarians have dreaded.”

[...]

More recently, Dr. Lahn says he was moved when a student asked him whether some knowledge might not be worth having. It is a notion to which he has been warming. Dr. Lahn says he once tried testing himself for which version of the brain genes he has. The experiment’s outcome was blurry “but it wasn’t looking good,” he says. He hasn’t tried testing himself again.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

Asian intelligence is above average, but statistically speaking, Asians tend to cluster more around the mean than do whites. That is: There are more white geniuses, and more white idiots, though the average IQ of whites is slightly lower than Asians.

I've been following this debate closely, but..... what evidence do you have to support such an outlandish claim?

[Ixa]

That Asians have a higher above average intelligence, or that they tend to cluster around the mean?

[Thunderhawk]

Asian intelligence is above average, but statistically speaking, Asians tend to cluster more around the mean than do whites. That is: There are more white geniuses, and more white idiots, though the average IQ of whites is slightly lower than Asians.

Ive heard this too.

I think it came from "The bell curve"





As for the bar graph from "Race, Evolution and Behaviour"
- Did the information that was taken account for body mass?
Ive seen and heard this a few times, and some of those times people dug up the research: If a person is 50% heavier then the "average" then his brain size is scaled down 1/3 to bring him to what he should be - and that scaled down version of brain size is then used to calculate average brain size for whatever group the man belongs too.

I'll hunt for links..

[Ixa]

From page 131 of Race, Evolution, and Behavior by Rushton:

"The uncorrected sex-combined mean cranial capacity of Mongoloids (1,335 cm^3) is viritually the same as for Caucasoids (1,341 cm^3), both of which average larger than Negroids (1,284 cm^3). Using the body size corrected figures in section C shows Mongoloids average 1,356 cm^, Caucasoids 1,329 cm^3, and Negroids 1,294 cm^3. These differences are highly significant within studies."

Page 132:

"Body size differences cannot be the cause of the racial differences because Mongoloids have a greater cranial capacity than Negroids although they are often shorter ni height and lighter in weight (Eveleth & Tanner, 1990). The racial ordering remains constant even in samples where Negroids are taller than Caucasoids . . . or when the races are statistically equated by adjusting for body size."

[kami321]

Sorry I couldn't follow the debate cause I was in Mexico for a week.
Now that I'm back I'll just say that I revised my opinion and came to conclusion that on certian occasions nationalism is compatible with socialism, which was the original topic of the debate IIRC. I won't read or comment on anything else.