Time for a "reverse-Ferguson?"
Quote: JyBrd0403Okay, so you don't consider your views racist. Do you understand these are the same exact views held by racist at least. I mean you, of course
aren't racist, but Nazi's (morons) and KKK guys, those guys are racist, right? Or maybe, you don't think they are racist either? The point is, I know you guys don't like getting labeled as racist, but I'm trying to explain when you base stuff solely on race, that's the word that's used to describe you. It's not a curse word I'm throwing at you, it's a description of who you claim to be. Nazi (morons) and KKK guys are actually easier to deal with, they just claim straight out they are racist and don't give a damn. Then you know what kind of morons (nazi's) you're dealing with.
I will say it again. It is not that I am offended or upset if someone calls me racist. It is that I completely don't care. I feel the more one uses the term "racist" the less intellectual their point is going to be. Rush Limbaugh likes the steelers same as me. Does that make me a talk show host? Frank Rosenthal also hated cold weather. Does that make me a mafia inside man? So if you say I am racist expect a big "whatever" in return.
Like they say before a tv of radio commentator comes on air: my views are my own. My views hurt nobody.
Quote:As for differences in intellect between Europe and Africa, you should look at the societies those people lived in shouldn't you. But,that's the point, you look at race not environment, it's not logical. Genetics, can't do anything, but at best give you a start.
So you are saying if a society has an intellect difference as a whole then that society will not be affected? Talk about not logical.
Quote: FaceWe can talk about the "feisty Italian". We can talk about "German tempers". We can talk about "passionate Latinos". And everyone laughs and gives a knowing nod. This is also completely racist, yet we accept it. Partly because it's "not generally offensive", and, I think, partly because there's something to it. If we can do that, surely we can accept that there must be some negatives as well, and can discuss them in a gentlemanly fashion.
Let's try, please. The baby Jesus thanks you ;)
Face, these stereotypes regular people attribute to culture, and upbringing. Only racist attribute these stereotypes to skin color, that's the difference. It's just hard to find another word for racist, when the basis of the arguements are that all these things are based upon race, instead of an intellectual look at culture, environment, and upbringing.
So, if you base these things on race, your a racist. Why would that be difficult for someone to say, if that's what they believe. On the other hand if you believe Italians are feisty, and Germans have tempers, and latinos are passionate due to their upbringing, and culture, and skin color doesn't have anything to do with it, you'd be a non racist. Can't help it if you don't like the word racist, that's what the term is.
Quote: JyBrd0403That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that your connecting things that have absolutely 0% to do with skin color, intelligence, morals, etc. with SKIN COLOR. That's what racism is. That's exactly what the nazi intellectual elites did. It's exactly what you're doing. And, I'm trying to point out that whether YOU want to stay politically correct or not, your viewpoint are by definition racist. Non racist would cite social and economic and other environmental reasons for differences in I.Q. Racist say it's because someone has different skin color. Your views are simply racist, that's the group that believes that.
AZ, Bob wouldn't answer the question, so I'll ask you and Keyser straight out. Do you consider yourself racist, since you base intellect and morals etc with skin color? Or do you guys just happen to be in the bag of science the nazi's (morons) believed, but you yourselves aren't racist, right? You just agree 100% with nazi's (morons) and Klansmen, right?
If that's the case, I'm just trying to point out that the views you side with are obvious propaganda, and don't hold up to the simplest of tests. There's just way too many variables with environment for genes to ever mean squat. I thought I would point out some obvious ones.
As for studies, I can cite the same studies you gave, and just not give a racist point of view. I would just say the differences are because of environment. Same studies, just no racist skew.
It's late in the thread and it was shut down once already, it's hard to let it slide forever. From my perspective you are creating a strawman here and of course trying to knock that strawman down.
Here you use this..."That's what racism is. That's exactly what the nazi intellectual elites did. It's exactly what you're doing. And, I'm trying to point out that whether YOU want to stay politically correct or not, your viewpoint are by definition racist"
I can only assume you are talking about the Fascist party of Germany during ww2, and not the current Nazi party fighting in Ukraine. That is an interesting but different topic. You appear to be declaring "I think" that the victims of extermination were of a "race"? We all know that most of those victims were Jewish, so I need you to clarify first, if you believe a religion to be the same as a "race"? You go on repeatedly to infer that "Nazi's" were morons, if I understand the term "moron", I have to disagree with you.
You then use the "strawman" to infer that Az, and I "assume Bob et, al" agree with Klansmen. Another tactic of a strawman argument. You are the only one that I'm aware of to use the term Klan. I know of no one anywhere at wov or woo or elsewhere that has identified with or support any part of that group, if you do, point them out. They are assuredly unwelcome.
IMO, if you want to continue to use the term "Nazi" and refer to the slain as a race of people, and then use "skin color" as part of your argument to prove the others to be racist, what color are Jews that the "intellectual" "morons" wished to eliminate. You seem to think that religion is a race of people, so by that logic if I disagree with the Pope that would make me a racist. What color was it that made the victims so easy to identify for the "morons"?
Like you said, "your viewpoint by definition is racist", IMO.
Quote: petroglyphYou go on repeatedly to infer that "Nazi's" were morons, if I understand the term "moron", I have to disagree with you.
They were and are morons. That's kind of a veiled shot at Nazi's, Petro. Didn't mean to offend you. Actually, I did mean to offend Nazi's. But, yes, what I'm inferring is that their intellect was inferior, to the rest of the worlds. You can read some of that crap if you want to, but it really is moronic. As for the jewish people being a race, I thought that's what you guys said, that the jews were a separate race of their own.
Quote: JyBrd0403They were and are morons. That's kind of a veiled shot at Nazi's, Petro. Didn't mean to offend you. Actually, I did mean to offend Nazi's. But, yes, what I'm inferring is that their intellect was inferior, to the rest of the worlds. You can read some of that crap if you want to, but it really is moronic. As for the jewish people being a race, I thought that's what you guys said, that the jews were a separate race of their own.
While one can call the views of the nazis evil you cannot call their intellect inferior. In many ways 1930s Germany was the must advanced notion on earth. You do not built the worlds best highway system, airplanes, and most sophisticated machines and weapons when you are a nation of morons.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhile one can call the views of the nazis evil you cannot call their intellect inferior. In many ways 1930s Germany was the must advanced notion on earth. You do not built the worlds best highway system, airplanes, and most sophisticated machines and weapons when you are a nation of morons.
Our Rocket Program was a German Rocket program. NASA was directed by a Nazi Officer. Operation Paperclip was the goverments effort to hire all of the Nazi Scientists in exchange for pardoning them. The reason we won the space race is because of the Nazi scientists (many of them SS Officers).
Germany could have easily have had the bomb before us. Luckily Hitler was so delusional that he had his scientist working on other bizarre projects.
Quote: JyBrd0403They were and are morons. That's kind of a veiled shot at Nazi's, Petro. Didn't mean to offend you. Actually, I did mean to offend Nazi's. But, yes, what I'm inferring is that their intellect was inferior, to the rest of the worlds. You can read some of that crap if you want to, but it really is moronic. As for the jewish people being a race, I thought that's what you guys said, that the jews were a separate race of their own.
Just giving my op. The SS and the camp guards and such will always be remembered for the evil they carried out, but not so much for being stupid. Just trying to be accurate here. I took no offense. There is no "you guys" as far as I know. This was my first post since the current meme has been rolling.
I think you are the one that said Jews are a race, I wanted you to either clarify it or quit talking about religion as being indicative of ones color, unless you can help me understand which religion belongs to what color? I asked what color the victims were as you were quick to bring up Nazi's.
If you would have me believe that Jew's are all white, [or semitic] or non-african blacks, I find that a racist statement. Kapish? If you wish to point at other members views on color as racist statements I want you to realize that is what it appears to me you have done as well. pot/kettle/black
Then there was that whole Einstein thing?
Quote: RSHitler... Are you aware of the good things and achievements he's done?
He was a pretty decent painter.
Quote: JyBrd0403They were and are morons. .
You just sunk your own credibility ship, dude.
A 'moron' is:
a person affected with mild mental retardation; a very stupid person
The Nazi's were the polar opposite of
what morons are. They were advanced
in every field of science, including building
the A bomb. In fact we went to Germany
and scooped up a few of these 'morons'
to work in our own nuke program.
If you think Nazi's were morons, you can't
possibly know what racist is. You probably
think it's anybody who notices skin color.
Quote: GandlerOur Rocket Program was a German Rocket program. NASA was directed by a Nazi Officer. Operation Paperclip was the goverments effort to hire all of the Nazi Scientists in exchange for pardoning them. The reason we won the space race is because of the Nazi scientists (many of them SS Officers).
Germany could have easily have had the bomb before us. Luckily Hitler was so delusional that he had his scientist working on other bizarre projects.
If Germany had the population and resources the USA had I think they would have easily won the war. At the least they would have not been defeatable. Imagine if Hitler had not embarked on the Final Solution, all that brainpower would have been his.
Not all the projects were bizarre, but his focus was not on the A-Bomb. Possibly he either did not grasp what it could do or his scientists said it would be too far off. Lots of Nazi stuff was way better engineered than American but because it was often over-engineered as well as sheer volumes of USA stuff helped do them in.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf Germany had the population and resources the USA had I think they would have easily won the war. At the least they would have not been defeatable. Imagine if Hitler had not embarked on the Final Solution, all that brainpower would have been his.
Not all the projects were bizarre, but his focus was not on the A-Bomb. Possibly he either did not grasp what it could do or his scientists said it would be too far off. Lots of Nazi stuff was way better engineered than American but because it was often over-engineered as well as sheer volumes of USA stuff helped do them in.
Germany could have won the war if.
1. No final solution: besides the obvious moral problems. This was a huge waste of resources and he killed millions of people that could have been recruits and turned many people against him based purely on his bigotry.
2. Invasion of Russia: if he never broke his treaty with Russia Hitler would be in command of Europe. Russia did far more damage to him than America or England. Plus his winter invasion was beyond foolish and accelerated his defeat. If he stayed friendly with Russia at least until he had U.K., Europe would be his and then Japan and Germany could chip away at Russian territories.
3. Better use of scientific resources. If Germany was not so anti-Semitic it's very possible Einstein would have stayed and worked for Germany. And he could have put some scientists to better use. Germany's rocket program was great, but there were many foolish projects fueled by delusions of grandeur.
If any of the above have been different or reverse, in my view Germany would have likely won or at least lasted much longer. Hitler easily could have won, but luckily his delusions and greed also led to some hasty and poor decisions that led to his defeat.
Quote: GandlerGermany could have won the war if.
1. No final solution: besides the obvious moral problems. This was a huge waste of resources and he killed millions of people that could have been recruits and turned many people against him based purely on his bigotry.
Very much agree. If there was such a cultural problem that Jews could not live alongside Gnetile Germans, and this was probably the case, imagine if there had just been a benevolent relocation. Even if it was to a vassal state created out of conquered territory, the flip in resources, productivity, and goodwill would have made the difference.
Quote:2. Invasion of Russia: if he never broke his treaty with Russia Hitler would be in command of Europe. Russia did far more damage to him than America or England. Plus his winter invasion was beyond foolish and accelerated his defeat. If he stayed friendly with Russia at least until he had U.K., Europe would be his and then Japan and Germany could chip away at Russian territories.
War between Germany and the USSR was inevitable. Every day Hitler waited was going to make the USSR that much harder to conquer. Hitler had a bad choice, invade early and probably lose or wait and probably lose. His dream ally was the Brits and he hated the USSR, friends with the enemy and enemy with the wanted friend.
He should have tried to co-ordinate better, or at all, with Japan for one. Not declared war on the USA for two. Focused on just Moscow and not divided between Moscow, Petrograd, and Stalingrad.
Quote: GandlerGermany could have won the war if.
1. No final solution: besides the obvious moral problems. This was a huge waste of resources and he killed millions of people that could have been recruits and turned many people against him based purely on his bigotry.
2. Invasion of Russia: if he never broke his treaty with Russia Hitler would be in command of Europe. Russia did far more damage to him than America or England. Plus his winter invasion was beyond foolish and accelerated his defeat. If he stayed friendly with Russia at least until he had U.K., Europe would be his and then Japan and Germany could chip away at Russian territories.
3. Better use of scientific resources. If Germany was not so anti-Semitic it's very possible Einstein would have stayed and worked for Germany. And he could have put some scientists to better use. Germany's rocket program was great, but there were many foolish projects fueled by delusions of grandeur.
If any of the above have been different or reverse, in my view Germany would have likely won or at least lasted much longer. Hitler easily could have won, but luckily his delusions and greed also led to some hasty and poor decisions that led to his defeat.
Where do you think "he" got the money considering they had just came out of the hyper-inflation during ww1 and the austerity forced upon Germany at the treaty of Versailles after the war?
It's a easy search to find "Prescott Bush's" part in it.
Quote: JyBrd0403Can't help it if you don't like the word racist, that's what the term is.
You miss my point. Likely because I haven't explained it properly.
I'm not trying to change the definition of "racist". Rather, I'm trying to bring attention to our reaction about it.
Look, there's plenty here I've found "racist". Many are just little comments here and there. Claims that "Indian joints" are lawless, comments about "wampum" and "firewater", jokes about "scalping the white man", and of course, several multi-page threads about the use of "Redskins". Every single one of them, every one, has pissed me off. Every one has hurt.
And that bothers me. It bothers me that society has drilled into my head that the use of these stupid terms are supposed to be taken at the utmost of offense. It bothers me that power over my own self has been stripped of me in the name of propriety. It bothers me that "PC" has turned from a good idea to prevent hate, and is instead used as a controlling mechanism to censor the ideas that we each have.
That is what I'm trying to bring attention to. Much of the "racism" I've found here concerning my own culture isn't a fault of the members who spoke it, it is a fault of mine. I can go off and start labeling the bigots, or I can get over myself and have an intelligent debate. I've so far chosen the latter, and there have been some good discussions as a result.
That's all I'm saying. One way leads to a difficult but productive discussion. The other results in yelling and crying and, usually, bannings. Let's chose a proper path.
Quote: petroglyphWhere do you think "he" got the money considering they had just came out of the hyper-inflation during ww1 and the austerity forced upon Germany at the treaty of Versailles after the war?
It's a easy search to find "Prescott Bush's" part in it.all wars are bankers wars
Please let us not go down that road in this thread...
Quote: Face
That's all I'm saying. One way leads to a difficult but productive discussion. The other results in yelling and crying and, usually, bannings. Let's chose a proper path.
What he said!
Quote: GandlerQuote: petroglyphWhere do you think "he" got the money considering they had just came out of the hyper-inflation during ww1 and the austerity forced upon Germany at the treaty of Versailles after the war?
It's a easy search to find "Prescott Bush's" part in it.all wars are bankers wars
Please let us not go down that road in this thread...
I was just having fun, so I put it in a spoiler, it is now dropped.
Sorry G, Merry Christmas and New Year. Enjoy being warm.
Quote: Face
I'm not trying to change the definition of "racist".
Jesse Jackson has said if he walks down
the street and there are three black guys
in hoodies behind him, he gets nervous.
If they're white, he doesn't. If that's racist,
then I am for sure a racist.
Quote: EvenBobYou just sunk your own credibility ship, dude.
A 'moron' is:
a person affected with mild mental retardation; a very stupid person
The Nazi's were the polar opposite of
what morons are. They were advanced
in every field of science, including building
the A bomb. In fact we went to Germany
and scooped up a few of these 'morons'
to work in our own nuke program.
If you think Nazi's were morons, you can't
possibly know what racist is. You probably
think it's anybody who notices skin color.
Nixon told Kruschev, "my german scientists are smarter than your german scientists."
Quote: mickeycrimmNixon told Kruschev, "my german scientists are smarter than your german scientists."
Exactly. LOL!
Quote: onenickelmiracleCan a study isolate race to show cause and effect
Pretty much, yeah.
Jews make up .02% of the worlds population.
They've won 20% of the Nobel Prizes. How is
that possible, unless there are definite differences
in the races? You realize Nobel Prizes
are given to very smart people, right? How do
you explain that a tiny part of the population
wins 1/5th of the awards? Fluke? Luck?
We are not all the same, and thank god for that.
I want the Jewish doctor who was in the top 5%
of his class operating on me. Don't you?
Quote: EvenBobJews make up .02% of the worlds population.
They've won 20% of the Nobel Prizes. How is
that possible, unless there are definite differences
in the different races?
I don't think you can quite rule out cultural attributes. The Amish are very insular as far as staying within their community, but are concentrated culturally on agricultural, and I suppose basic skills.
They haven't geared themselves to highly driven occupations as a group. Perhaps if they had, we would see the same thing as in a Jewish community.
Jewish and Amish both have diseases related to closely related communities.
So, I believe, you can say, that if the community at large is for whatever reason is not driven culturally to elite types of success, it's not just genetics.
That's my argument, and I'm stickin' to it for now.
Quote: rxwineI don't think you can quite rule out cultural attributes. The Amish
Hmm, yes, the Amish. I hadn't
considered them. The Amish,
the dang Amish.
Sigh. I'm going to bed. The
Amish, really? You're that
desperate?
Quote: EvenBobThe
Amish, really? You're that
desperate?
Nah, I just make a suggestion or two. You can go with it or not. Don't have an (Amish) cow, man.
Quote: rxwine
So, I believe, you can say, that if the community at large is for whatever reason is not driven culturally to elite types of success, it's not just genetics.
That's my argument, and I'm stickin' to it for now.
That is fine and unlike just saying "racist" it is an intelligent argument. But I would have to ask, how do you account for genetics that make up the culture. Or put another way, the people make up the culture and the genetics make up the people, so why would some cultures be smarter based on culture alone?
Another case of his megalomania - he just had to get Stalingrad, named after his most despised enemy. And Russia was inevitable for the lebensraum as outlined in Mein Kampf.Quote: AZDuffmannot divided between Moscow, Petrograd, and Stalingrad.
His micromanagement and interference with the military ultimately caused the downfall.
Quote: AZDuffmanThat is fine and unlike just saying "racist" it is an intelligent argument. But I would have to ask, how do you account for genetics that make up the culture. Or put another way, the people make up the culture and the genetics make up the people, so why would some cultures be smarter based on culture alone?
The way cultures develop is incredibly complex and not simply related to the genetic makeup of the population. There are effects of resources on the population for instance if an area is food scarce more of the people are needed to gather food and hence that leave less time for other things without a readily available mining source it is difficult to enter an industrial revolution same if an adequate energy source is missing. There are also the interactions between different groups which leave marks on the culture through assimilation of cultural aspects. There are geographical considerations which influence the type of ideas about the world and the religions that form about them.
If you take two genetically identical population, since this is a thought experiment we can say there are 10000 in each group and of each of the people in one group have a twin in the second group, if you place these in different geographical areas and let them develop over a period of hundreds of generations it is unlikely that the two will develop the same cultures.
Quote: Twirdman
If you take two genetically identical population, since this is a thought experiment we can say there are 10000 in each group and of each of the people in one group have a twin in the second group, if you place these in different geographical areas and let them develop over a period of hundreds of generations it is unlikely that the two will develop the same cultures.
While this is true and it is also true that when food gathering takes more "free time" then the culture will develop different. However, when a culture is simply less developed on every level then you have to ask if intelligence has anything to do with it.
Genetics will determine skin color, eye color, muscle mass, height, weight, hair color, and a host of other things. Groups of people can be predisposed to a disease or have an immunity to it. Given all that genetics obviously affects, why do you and some others on the board keep defending to the end that genetics even *might* affect how intelligent the people are as a group?
Quote: AZDuffmanWhile this is true and it is also true that when food gathering takes more "free time" then the culture will develop different. However, when a culture is simply less developed on every level then you have to ask if intelligence has anything to do with it.
Genetics will determine skin color, eye color, muscle mass, height, weight, hair color, and a host of other things. Groups of people can be predisposed to a disease or have an immunity to it. Given all that genetics obviously affects, why do you and some others on the board keep defending to the end that genetics even *might* affect how intelligent the people are as a group?
I'm not saying that genetics does not effect the intelligence of a group I am simply saying that this incredibly complex issue and the fact is we do not know currently if genetics plays any role in the difference in IQ between races. Evenbob has been the one proclaiming that it must be so because some races have scored higher on IQ test then others and we know that IQ is genetically linked so therefore some races are simply genetically less intelligent. I take issue with this assertion since current research simply does not support this. As of now we don't know the cause and I admit some of it maybe genetic but it is far from the definite that he is trying to paint it. Similarly the people who have proclaimed genetics played no role are committing the same fallacy in reverse I am simply saying wait till the data comes in.
For comparison imagine someone said aliens lived on some distant planet in the goldie locks zone of its star. Me saying we don't know that is not the same as saying it is not possible for life to be there all I'm saying is we need more evidence before we can reach these conclusions
Does this mean that everyone is shallow?
Oh my...
If we're supposed to believe the politically correct crowd on the left, then should we focus solely on appearance?
is sperm from high IQ men more requested
at sperm banks than average sperm. Why
do some banks only accept 1 out of every
200 donors sperm, if genetics doesn't determine
just about everything.
Furthermore, I thought that the left said it wasn't politically correct to marry someone based on appearance?
Would you dare to venture what you might consider a percentage or range of percentages for the effects of genetics on intelligence, as the researchers, some of whom have been referenced here, have done?Quote: TwirdmanAs of now we don't know the cause and I admit some of it maybe genetic but it is far from the definite that he is trying to paint it. Similarly the people who have proclaimed genetics played no role are committing the same fallacy in reverse I am simply saying wait till the data comes in.
intelligence is a core construct in differential psychology and behavioural genetics, and should be so in cognitive neuroscience. It is one of the best predictors of important life outcomes such as education, occupation, mental and physical health and illness, and mortality. Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits. Here, we highlight five genetic findings that are special to intelligence differences and that have important implications for its genetic architecture and for gene-hunting expeditions. (i) The heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in later adulthood. (ii) Intelligence captures genetic effects on diverse cognitive and learning abilities, which correlate phenotypically about 0.30 on average but correlate genetically about 0.60 or higher. (iii) Assortative mating is greater for intelligence (spouse correlations ~0.40) than for other behavioural traits such as personality and psychopathology (~0.10) or physical traits such as height and weight (~0.20). Assortative mating pumps additive genetic variance into the population every generation, contributing to the high narrow heritability (additive genetic variance) of intelligence. (iv) Unlike psychiatric disorders, intelligence is normally distributed with a positive end of exceptional performance that is a model for ‘positive genetics’. (v) Intelligence is associated with education and social class and broadens the causal perspectives on how these three inter-correlated variables contribute to social mobility, and health, illness and mortality differences. These five findings arose primarily from twin studies. They are being confirmed by the first new quantitative genetic technique in a century—Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis (GCTA)—which estimates genetic influence using genome-wide genotypes in large samples of unrelated individuals. Comparing GCTA results to the results of twin studies reveals important insights into the genetic architecture of intelligence that are relevant to attempts to narrow the ‘missing heritability’ gap. -http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2014105a.html
Quote: SanchoPanzaWould you dare to venture what you might consider a percentage or range of percentages for the effects of genetics on intelligence, as the researchers, some of whom have been referenced here, have done?
The range of heritability cited, often times by me in this thread, has been between 20-80% depending on certain factors and I don't doubt those ranges. Specifically it is higher in adults I tend to think IQ is a very heritable trait in adults and while I don't like to make conjectures about this since it is incredibly far removed from the field I am in if you want my personal opinion I'm thinking for adults it is close to the 60-80% range. That does not mean that 60-80% of the difference between races IQ is determined by genetics and given the scant amount of research we have in that area I am not comfortable trying to make a conjecture.
Quote: EvenBobIf genetics don't determine intelligence, why
is sperm from high IQ men more requested
at sperm banks than average sperm. Why
do some banks only accept 1 out of every
200 donors sperm, if genetics doesn't determine
just about everything.
Again very few are denying that genetics plays a role in IQ what people are questioning is the role genes play in determining IQ differences amongst races. You need more proof then you have to say genes determine racial difference in IQ.
Right now your argument goes as follow.
Genes determine intelligence
genes determine genetic race
therefore genetic race determines intelligence
this is an A implies B A implies C therefore B implies C and that is not a logically sound argument.
Quote: TwirdmanAgain very few are denying that genetics plays a role in IQ what people are questioning is the role genes play in determining IQ differences amongst races. You need more proof then you have to say genes determine racial difference in IQ.
Right now your argument goes as follow.
Genes determine intelligence
genes determine genetic race
therefore genetic race determines intelligence
this is an A implies B A implies C therefore B implies C and that is not a logically sound argument.
They are all independent variables.
Saying skin pigemation genetics effects brain development is like saying eye color genes effect brain development...
Quote: TwirdmanYou need more proof then you have to say genes determine racial difference in IQ.
.
Are you saying that a large group of people
that have 115 IQ as the median, and another
group that has 90 as the median, have the
exact same chances of having a child with
a 115 IQ? Why is it we assume two brown
eyed parents will not have a blue eyed baby,
but two blue eyed parents probably will.
Also...Facial Features Predict IQ In Men: Long Face And Wide-Set Eyes Make Men Look Smart, But Not Women
Many scientific studies have been conducted to determine the cause of high IQs, and a lot of it boils down to genetics. According to researchers, psychologists and scientists, personal beliefs and physical appearance can also indicate intelligence.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/20-scientifically-proven-signs-youre-smarter-than-average-2010-12?op=1#ixzz3N2OJ3y7G
Quote: KeyserBut Not Women
What is it in women. Take somebody
like Megyn Kelly on FOX. She is drop
dead gorgeous, and probably the smartest
woman I've ever seen. She is wicked
fast on her feet, and see's six sides of
everything immediately and has a
pertinent comment. She would scare me
to death as a wife.
She has a very smart husband, and they
have 3 very new babies. Does anybody
think for a second that those kids won't
be above average in just about everything?
Some people are simply trying to be politically correct rather than using logic, common sense, and science.
Quote: KeyserEvenBob,
Some people are simply trying to be politically correct rather than using logic, common sense, and science.
Wrong some people are trying to use science, where the default position is one of we don't know, rather then well that feels right No evidence has been put forth that genetics explain the difference in IQ between races.
Yes that's a very good point. Unfortunately it's not evidence (I'm not saying you're wong on this topic and need any evidence) people believe in myths all the time. If you're going use someone's sperm to have a child you don't take any chances.Quote: EvenBobIf genetics don't determine intelligence, why
is sperm from high IQ men more requested
at sperm banks than average sperm. Why
do some banks only accept 1 out of every
200 donors sperm, if genetics doesn't determine
just about everything.
Don't Afican American people belive music, singing and dancing, ryththom, soul is genetic? I'm not sure how someone can claim thats genetics but intelligence isn't.
Quote: AxelWolf
Don't Afican American people belive music, singing and dancing, ryththom, soul is genetic? I'm not sure how someone can claim thats genetics but intelligence isn't.
If I had said that, I guarantee someone here
would call me a racist. Some Native American
peoples have no hair on their bodies and the
men never shave. It's all in the genes. Is that
racist to say?
Quote: EvenBobIf I had said that, I guarantee someone here
would call me a racist. Some Native American
peoples have no hair on their bodies and the
men never shave. It's all in the genes. Is that
racist to say?
I think we need to establish exactly what racism is.
As far as I can tell, the proper definition of racism is the belief that qualities and abilities are established by race, AND that said qualities and abilities can be used to establish superiority.
Your statement that "some Natives are hairless" is neither racist nor untrue. Yes, some Natives are hairless, and yes, it is all in the genes. I, for one, have no chest or back hair, and I can't grow a beard or mustache. It's not racist, it's fact, especially since you used the qualifier "some".
If you were to simply say "Natives are hairless" without the qualifier, then I think you fall into stereotyping. But either way, still not racist.
If you were a contractor in Michigan and wished to hire all whites because "they handle the cold and low light better", then you're assigning superiority based on race, and are therefore being racist (despite any science that supports and/or proves you right).
I don't care if ssomeone calls me a racist because I know I'm not.Quote: EvenBobIf I had said that, I guarantee someone here
would call me a racist. Some Native American
peoples have no hair on their bodies and the
men never shave. It's all in the genes. Is that
racist to say?
I don't remember exactly what you wrote to spark this.
Why you said it may be conidered racist. Someone might think you enjoy trying to prove black people have lower IQs than wite people or somehow you feel white people are supirior. That might be racist to most people. At minimum it's a form of trolling, you know dam well it will upset people and cause trouble.
Does it upset you knowing there are some Black females smarter and more successful than you?
If I had to guess you do feel supirior to black people. Most of your gereration does.
Quote: AxelWolf
If I had to guess you do feel supirior to black people. Most of your gereration does.
Good example of a racist and bigoted comment.
Was that your intent?
