What if your race is the dumbest of them all?

[Terxpahseyton]

Okay, this is completely false. Glad we could sort that out.

Is that so?
Curious. Since it makes so much sense to me.
I hope you took notice of the other (crucial) criteria you did not quote.

It may interest you to know that your position is rejected by the majority of geneticists.

It may. Not sure this is true, but it surely may. What I am sure of is that it would be very unattractive to look like a racist.

 

[bernie14]

There is no biological definition of race, because race has no biological validity. The only definitions of race are sociological or cultural.

typical communist nonsense.....from 2012....

bernie14 said........I appreciate your efforts and take into consideration your difficulty defining a term you consider artificial/contrived.... however, I still disagree and we are back where we started....

As I see it, humans will try to “justify” anything to assume a position of power over others, including race, religion, wealth, physical prowess, the promise of “equality” and even intellectual wackery. this does not take away from the known genotypic and phenotypic differences amongst populations which in the 21st century, still cluster with a 99.84 concordance to self identified race/ethnicity.

Every biology, anatomy and genetics class I ever took represented “race” as geographically representative populations and the term was neither absolute or monolithic or even exclusive to humans. It never implied that any cluster is/was superior or inferior to any other. however, seems to me the social construct communist view of race has embraced this racist/unscientific definition, so as to justify its dismissal. through the manipulation of language, race is now synonymous with rasicm....that’s fine by me, we can use a more politically correct term, such as “distinct population segments”, that is, until some moron claims there are factors that make one segment superior to another, and we can start all over again....it reeks of newspeak to me.....

Traitorfish responds....Why? You're the one engaging in terminological revisionism. That's never what "race" has meant, nor is it what "race" means to the man on the street. There's no point in trying to find a scientific basis for a concept that was unscientific and highly irrational in its origin, so why bother?

corrected....HAHAHAHAHAHA

What are the races as the cold, hard statistical facts of biology have established them?

perhaps the term "race" is not as useful as it was because of scientific advancement but soon enough, superiority and oppression will be claimed and clade will become cladism and haplogroups will become haplism....populationist?....genomist??

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Every biology, anatomy and genetics class I ever took represented “race” as geographically representative populations and the term was neither absolute or monolithic or even exclusive to humans.

Maybe it is different in English, but it is my understanding, that in biology, race usually refers to beings who can make babies and whose babies also can make babies. So, race just means - breeding compatible. So white horses are not a race, but a breed (though curiously, we call them race when it comes to dogs in German)
Naturally, it was not the best idea to apply this term to different human, geographically separated, pheno-types.

But while we are talking animals and breeds.
Can maybe dog breeds show how pheno-types can be a good marker of other genetic features?
Okay this is going to get me into trouble... But isn't it kinda so, maybe? Though I also read somewhere that dogs are rather unique and have some quirk to their genes which enables greater diversity while maintaining breeding compatibility.

 

[Lexicus]

typical communist nonsense.....from 2012....

Here's what you remind me of:

Curious. Since it makes so much sense to me.

Yes, and I would submit to you that it makes sense to you largely because of the undoubtedly-racist cultural milieu in which you were brought up (not knocking you in particular, virtually everyone in the world today has been brought up in a racist milieu. it's one of the things that sucks about racism).

I hope you took notice of the other (crucial) criteria you did not quote.

I did not quote it because I judged it to be peripheral to the core issue here.

What I am sure of is that it would be very unattractive to look like a racist.

Yeah, the winky face really doesn't make the conspiracy theorizing come across as any less demented.

 

[inthesomeday]

It's so absurd that this is even a conversation in 2017. This type of ridiculous pseudoscientific eugenics was thoroughly disproven last century, and yet here the racists are to cling to their lies.

 

[Senethro]

Why are people so shocked that racial categorizations invented in the 18th century and before don't describe reality accurately?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Lexicus
I am afraid calling me names rather than arguing the, I still think pretty good, reasons I gave, has only made me disregard the possibility you knew what you were talking about when you said I was absolutely wrong.
And yes, the population size is very very relevant. We need large large groups for researching the link of IQ and genes. And large groups have the nasty habit of being genetically diverse. So what can bring them together? What has isolated their inheritance? The same thing which created the big races, I'd say. Geographical (relative) isolation on a continental scale.

Yes in deed, this is a good argument, sorry

Yeah, the winky face really doesn't make the conspiracy theorizing come across as any less demented.

Social pressure is a "demented conspiracy theory"
Well okay then...

 

[Archon_Wing]

Why are people so shocked that racial categorizations invented in the 18th century and before don't describe reality accurately?

Because people are stupid. Smart people show their intelligence by being smart. Stupid people keep trying to convince other people they are smart.

"I know that I know nothing" was said by a wise man. How many fools would be willing to admit this?

Also using scientific results as a blunt object also shows a lack of basic understanding of science too. But that's how you invent a psuedoscience. Something about correlation not equaling to causation. It's great for making excuses too. You can always tell about how you are naturally the best and brightest but [insert evil thing here, but it's generally a minority group] that has conspired to hold you back. It's all quite dull, but I think a book called Mein Kampf summarizes it quite well.

 

[warpus]

We need large large groups for researching the link of IQ and genes.

Even if there is a link between genetics and IQ, that does not imply that there is a link between genetics and overall intelligence.

And even if there was, what practical application of this information could there possibly be?

 

[Lexicus]

I am afraid calling me names

I never called you any names, I merely insulted the silly things you were saying.

Social pressure is a "demented conspiracy theory"

No, what is a demented conspiracy theory is the notion that many geneticists are shading their opinion for fear of being persecuted by the Political Correctness Squad or whatever. That narrative is common among contemporary proponents of scientific racism and I'm sure you totally invoked it by accident.

 

[bernie14]

Maybe it is different in English, but it is my understanding, that in biology, race usually refers to beings who can make babies and whose babies also can make babies. So, race just means - breeding compatible. So white horses are not a race, but a breed (though curiously, we call them race when it comes to dogs in German)
Naturally, it was not the best idea to apply this term to different human, geographically separated, pheno-types.

this definition is close enough....

"In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies."

Here's what you remind me of:

HAHAHAHAHA....i better get that blood transfusion quick!!!!

It's so absurd that this is even a conversation in 2017. This type of ridiculous pseudoscientific eugenics was thoroughly disproven last century, and yet here the racists are to cling to their lies.

so you would be against gene therapy?....just another example of word play instead of dealing with reality

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Even if there is a link between genetics and IQ, that does not imply that there is a link between genetics and overall intelligence.

And even if there was, what practical application of this information could there possibly be?

There most certainly is a link between genetics and IQ, that, I dare to say, is beyond reasonable doubt.
Same goes for overall intelligence. Now we are arguing weather the sky is blue.
Any biologist knows that genes are crucial to what a human will become. What is the rule of thumb? 50%? It really is just a dumb number to illustrate: yeah, genes are important, we know that much.

Your second question is a good one. I have asked that myself, on the last page, actually.
Well we can, potentially, better understand the relationship of genes and intelligence, getting us closer to those designer Einsteins.

 

[inthesomeday]

If your reality includes this insidious new branding of eugenics, "race realism", then you need a reality check, my friend.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Maybe you can collect your posts and make a wisdom calendar for sale.

 

[Lexicus]

this definition is close enough....

"In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies."

It's pretty hilarious how you evidently missed the fact that there is an entirely separate article called "Race (human classification)" the first two sentences of which are

A race of humans is a grouping based on shared physical traits, ancestry, or genetics. Although such groupings lack a firm basis in modern biology, they continue to have a strong influence over contemporary social relations.

the only time the word "human" occurs in the article you linked to is

This article is about the biological taxonomy term. For the sociological concept, see Race and society. For the anthropological term, see Race (human categorization).

 

[Gori the Grey]

this definition is close enough....

"In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies."

This gets us somewhere. Or could.

Go to the various Wikipedia entries in bernie's quote, Ctrl-F "race," and when it doesn't come up as a level of formal biological taxonomies, say what that absence means about the biological grounding for the notion of races.

Ooops, xpost: Lex's response gets at this more directly (and more quickly) than I did

(But my little exercise could work as a way into the matter, too.)

 

[inthesomeday]

It's pretty hilarious how you evidently missed the fact that there is an entirely separate article called "Race (human classification)" the first two sentences of which are



the only time the word "human" occurs in the article you linked to is

Inb4 "oh never mind Wikipedia is commie propaganda"

 

[Archon_Wing]

Inb4 "oh never mind Wikipedia is commie propaganda"

Well, that's why you only take the non-commie pages. Those are objective truths that prove your opponent is a nub. Everything else is just a lie.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

No, what is a demented conspiracy theory is the notion that many geneticists are shading their opinion for fear of being persecuted by the Political Correctness Squad or whatever. That narrative is common among contemporary proponents of scientific racism and I'm sure you totally invoked it by accident.

I think the following is true: Weather race-related genes correlate to a relevant extend with different IQ tendencies or not - the cultural climate in academia / politics will be extremely hostile towards such a suggestion and towards researches interested in that possibility.
What that means in practice, I do not know, for sure, but I am sure it means something.
Make of that what you will, since you will, anyhow winkey-wink

 

[warpus]

There most certainly is a link between genetics and IQ, that, I dare to say, is beyond reasonable doubt.
Same goes for overall intelligence. Now we are arguing weather the sky is blue.

IQ is really irrelevant here, as IQ is a bad indicator of overall intelligence. If your IQ is higher than mine, that doesn't mean that you're more intelligent than me.