What if your race is the dumbest of them all?

[sophie]

But even if that's true, they wouldn't have been able to divide people in this way if there weren't obvious racial differences between whites and blacks, ie. race caused the racism.

Roman writers didn't comment a whole lot on skin color. However they were obsessively preoccupied with whether a people ate meat, or drank milk, or wore clothes formed from animal hides.

Skin color is but one way among dozens of defining and separating an in-group from an out-group. It's important not to approach a problem teleologically - with an end-point already in mind - lest evidence begin to warp itself to justify the conclusion.

 

[civver_764]

Like almost all concepts we deal with as humans, they certainly were not "invented" by "one single great man", rather they were constructed via human interaction; they are not inherent to us as a species

Racism is a rather recent concept, therefore tracing back its roots is not all that hard.

"Racism" is a very recent concept. If I'm not mistaken the word came about in the 20th century and was used exclusively to describe Europeans.

"Race" is another recent concept, which seemingly came about around the time scientists started doing serious biological classification.

But the concept of noticing differences between different populations? Pretty sure that's been around as long as we've had eyes.

There's also tremendous differences between a southern Greek and a Swede, but somehow they are both white.

There's also tremendous differences between an Indian and a Han Chinese, but somehow they are both asian.

Interestingly some of the biggest genetic differences are all found within the "black race":

The genetic difference between a Berber from northern Africa and a Sotho from Southern Africa is bigger than the difference between a Berber and a southern European.

which, in turn, is why this whole system of thought is ****** in the head and not in the least bit coherent or scientifically accurate

If I had a dime for everytime you guys used these same talking points... You're arguing against strawmen. Go look back a few pages, I posted two diagrams which explains this pretty well.

 

[inthesomeday]

By the way, if genetics are not a thing, how come Jewish people are doing so well? How does the egalitarian model explain that?

.....????!!!!

 

[yung.carl.jung]

If I had a dime for everytime you guys used these same talking points... You're arguing against strawmen. Go look back a few pages, I posted two diagrams which explains this pretty well.

I was not attacking a strawman at all. I will simplify it even more for you.

You said: Differences between races are real (this is correct). Therefore the system of categorizing people into races is scientifically sound (incorrect).

I say: Differences between races are smaller than differences within races, therefore race is not a scientifically sound concept.

This is not an argument you can win, it is also the reason why every single relevant scientist on god's green earth has abandoned the concept of race and accepted haplogroup/ethnicity/lingustic groups as far more viable, sound concepts.

 

[sophie]

There's also tremendous differences between a southern Greek and a Swede, but somehow they are both white.

There's also tremendous differences between an Indian and a Han Chinese, but somehow they are both asian.

Interestingly some of the biggest genetic differences are all found within the "black race":

The genetic difference between a Berber from northern Africa and a Sotho from Southern Africa is bigger than the difference between a Berber and a southern European.

which, in turn, is why this whole system of thought is ****** in the head and not in the least bit coherent or scientifically accurate

Question: are Indians, Persians, and Afghanis White people? Considering the endemic languages spoken by people from those regions - Farsi, Pashto, Hindi, Gujariti, etc. are all Indo-European languages and therefore suggest at least a common linguistic, if not indeed ethnic or cultural descent. Hell, stark similarities, in, e.g. Iuppiter, Zeus pater, and (Skt) dyaus pitr, or in Indian Usas, Greek Eos, Latin Aurora, Germanic Austro, and Baltic Ausra, as well as striking similarities in Indo-European origin myths, such as the founder twins, one of whom is sacrificed by the other; the dog as guardian of the underworld who can only be reached by crossing a river; a hero slaying a serpent; and the presence of a tree of life, would certainly point to a common religious descent that echoes through all of the descendant cultures and myths.


If the argument is of one people, sharing a common genetic descent, then surely that common genetic descent would be reflected at least in echoes, in all peoples of regions with endemic IE languages, since indeed all IE languages descend from a singular language spoken originally in a discrete location that eventually expanded out thence into all the other regions where IE languages have been traditionally spoken.

 

[warpus]

Please, do tell me then, what crucial aspects of intelligence doesn't IQ measure then? It measures how well people do in school and on the job. It also measures how smart a person's peers say they are.

Yes, perhaps the IQ test is a good measure of how well you can expect a person to do in school or on the job. It's a test of your reasoning and problem-solving abilities as they apply to specific types of problems.

There is more to intelligence than just that. As one researcher says:

“To come up with one unifying score and use that to determine a person’s overall ability is fraught with problems,” she says. “We need to get away from that.”

And also

A new study of more than 100,000 participants suggests that there may be at least three distinct components of intelligence. So you could not give a single, unified score for all of them.

Researchers' understanding of the complexities of the human brain has evolved, and so too has the notion of IQ, what it really means, and how it is most accurately captured.

“There are multiple types of intelligence,” says researcher Adam Hampshire, PhD. He is a psychologist at the Brain and Mind Institute Natural Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, Canada. “It is time to move on to using a more comprehensive set of tests that can measure separate scores for each type of intelligence.”

Source

Overall an IQ test is an okay starting point when trying to figure out if certain races are more intelligent than others, if that's what you're trying to do. However, it will never give you the full picture.

 

[civver_764]

I was not attacking a strawman at all. I will simplify it even more for you.

You said: Differences between races are real (this is correct). Therefore the system of categorizing people into races is scientifically sound (incorrect).

I say: Differences between races are smaller than differences within races, therefore race is not a scientifically sound concept.

This is not an argument you can win, it is also the reason why every single relevant scientist on god's green earth has abandoned the concept of race and accepted haplogroup/ethnicity/lingustic groups as far more viable, sound concepts.

So you're not even arguing against race being real, you're just arguing a more fine-tuned version of it. There is no contradiction between our positions here.

The only thing I disagree with: "Differences between races are not smaller than differences within races." That's obviously false (or at least, you're phrasing it in a dishonest way), and I refer you to the diagrams I posted previously.

 

[Kyriakos]

By the way, if genetics are not a thing, how come Jewish people are doing so well? How does the egalitarian model explain that?

They aren't. Only a tiny minority of jewish people are scientists (much like with every other similar society). A large bulk of the jewish population (eg in Israel) follows some weird cult-like religious doctrine, which doesn't seem to be evidence of high intelligence. Some are very racist and trigger happy, and enjoy watching the bombing of palestinians as a show (with chairs on a hill being a prop). TLDR: jewish people can be and indeed are just as dumb as everyone else.

Besides, if genetically the jewish people were so great(er than all others), they wouldn't be literally the most backward society in the eastern part of the (med-related) ancient world.

Re finances, historical context pushes some secondary citizens in empires to be involved primarily in such jobs -- let alone christianity in west/central Europe of old banning christians from being money-lenders). Such groups focus on trade. It also happened with greeks in the ottoman empire era.

 

[Hehehe]

I was not attacking a strawman at all. I will simplify it even more for you.

You said: Differences between races are real (this is correct). Therefore the system of categorizing people into races is scientifically sound (incorrect).

Sure, any categorization is always going to be arbitrary to some degree. But we can make claims based on these arbitrary categories, and these claims will have a truth value that we can assess.

I say: Differences between races are smaller than differences within races, therefore race is not a scientifically sound concept.

What does this mean? Differences in what, if I may ask? What traits do you mean specifically?

Yes, perhaps the IQ test is a good measure of how well you can expect a person to do in school or on the job. It's a test of your reasoning and problem-solving abilities as they apply to specific types of problems.

There is more to intelligence than just that. As one researcher says:

And also

Source

Overall an IQ test is an okay starting point when trying to figure out if certain races are more intelligent than others, if that's what you're trying to do. However, it will never give you the full picture.

Indeed, there are multiple types of intelligence. That's why IQ tests have all these different subtests. As for this "new and improved" test, all you have is one researcher's opinion. What is the general consensus among researchers about this new and improved test? Is there any kind of research that validates this new test? If not, why should we care about it? What life outcomes does that new test measure, that IQ doesn't?

Also, do I really need to get into the whole multiple intelligences/g-factor thing?

They aren't. Only a tiny minority of jewish people are scientists (much like with every other similar society). A large bulk of the jewish population (eg in Israel) follows some weird cult-like religious doctrine, which doesn't seem to be evidence as to high intelligence. Some are very racist and trigger happy, and enjoy watching the bombing of palestinians as a show (with chairs on a hill being a prop). TLDR: jewish people can be and indeed are just as dumb as everyone else.

Besides, if genetically the jewish people were so great(er than all others), they wouldn't be literally the most backward society in the eastern part of the (med-related) ancient world.

Didn't we already go through this? Do I have to go dig up my old posts? They are still over-represented per-capita.

 

[Kyriakos]

Didn't we already go through this? Do I have to go dig up my old posts? They are still over-represented per-capita.

You are talking about a ridiculous outlier. Do you really think that 0,1% or less of a population is basis as to who is "more intelligent" as a "race"? Even assuming all nobels are fair, and only counting science nobels, etc. Geniuses will exist everywhere, from time to time.

 

[warpus]

Indeed, there are multiple types of intelligence.

The point is that just because someone does better in school and at work doesn't mean that they are more intelligent than someone who doesn't.

 

[Hehehe]

You are talking about a ridiculous outlier. Do you really think that 0,1% or less of a population is basis as to who is "more intelligent" as a "race"? Even assuming all nobels are fair, and only counting science nobels, etc. Geniuses will exist everywhere, from time to time.

Ok, how about income? Or how about educational attainment? And please, do keep in mind, I mean only Ashkenazi Jews.

The point is that just because someone does better in school and at work doesn't mean that they are more intelligent than someone who doesn't.

Of course not, but intelligence helps. Now please, do tell me, what did IQ leave out? Was there some concrete thing?

 

[Lexicus]

back when

White supremacy is still one of, if not the, defining social order(s) in much of the world, and scientists and academics are still producing racist garbage to support the narratives underlying white supremacy.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Here's civver's diagram, which indicates that it is "adapted from" a particular source: History and Geography of Human Genes.

So I went to the library to look into Cavalli-Sforza et al. Section 1.6 of their work is titled "Scientific Failure of the Concept of Human Races." Here are some quotes from that section:

From a scientific point of view the concept of race has failed to obtain any consensus; none is likely (19).

We can indentify "clusters" of populations [but] at no level can clusters be identified with races (19).

The analysis we carry out in chapter 2 for purposes of evolutionary study shows that the level at which we stop our classification is completely arbitrary (19).

Then, just before they give their version of the chart whose adapted version civver provided us, they say this:

Lest [sic]* there be no misunderstanding, we do not give the clustering obtained in the tree of figures any "racial" meaning (80)

They knew how their chart was going to be misused and did their level best to prevent its misuse.

*I think they mean either "Let there be no misunderstanding" or "Lest there be any misunderstanding"

 

[Lexicus]

So I went to the library to look into Cavelli et al. Section 1.6 of their work is titled "Scientific Failure of the Concept of Human Races." Here are some quotes from that section:

Good work; I also did some cursory googling to see what I could find about that chart but results were inconclusive. I was however confident that it was either being misrepresented by racists or was produced by racists.

 

[warpus]

Of course not, but intelligence helps. Now please, do tell me, what did IQ leave out? Was there some concrete thing?

Sure. You can suck at reasoning skills but still have a very good memory and language processing skills for one. IQ tests also don't measure motivation.

 

[civver_764]

I think we're talking past each other here. I've never denied that the classification is at some level arbitrary, just pointing out there are very real genetic differences between different populations, and those roughly correspond to what we think of as "race". If race was really just a social construct such a chart should not be possible to construct.

 

[inthesomeday]

Your chart doesn't even show race, it shows a weird mixture of ethnic and national classifications. And tell me, what are these "very real" genetic differences you refer to? Have they got anything to do with intelligence?

 

[civver_764]

Your chart doesn't even show race, it shows a weird mixture of ethnic and national classifications. And tell me, what are these "very real" genetic differences you refer to? Have they got anything to do with intelligence?

Why are you so interested in intelligence, specifically? I think the genetic differences are represented in a large variety of traits, intelligence probably being one of them.

For example - do you think that black people are not inherently superior at playing basketball?

 

[Hehehe]

Sure. You can suck at reasoning skills but still have a very good memory and language processing skills for one. IQ tests also don't measure motivation.

IQ tests have subtests for memory and language. Also, you do realize that these subtests correlate with each other? Meaning that people who do well on one test tend to do well on all of them? This is what we call g, or general intelligence.

As for motivation, surely that would be included under conscientiousness, which is one of the big 5 personality traits? Surely one can still be intelligent despite having poor motivation for something?