User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 57

  1. #31
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008


    William Saletan provides evidence for the belief that there is a genetic component to intelligence difference by race:

    Race, genes, and intelligence. (1) - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #32
    Senior Member Anonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007


    To be quite frank, the reasons for this are glaringly obvious, even without the science to back it up. And by "this", I mean most of what's being discussed, such as "intelligence", "race", and culture.

    On intelligence: As stated earlier, this depends very much on how you were raised. It also depends on what kind of intelligence is being needed. It'd be pretty useless for someone who lives off the land in the African savanna to cultivate a kind of intelligence that can be useful for engineering computer chips now, wouldn't it? And good luck to an engineer who decides to go live on the savanna.

    On "race": 01011010's link already addressed this. (Here's the link again: AAA Statement on "Race") There's just not enough diversity to break it down into smaller categories.

    On culture: The reason many African countries are screwed up is because the colonizers thought that their way of life (which was working just fine, though it did have it's downsides and upsides, like everyone else) was bad, due to the fact that it was different, so they thought it was their God-given responsibility to go in there and "help" them. And by help, I mean exploit the people, rape the women, dislocate everyone, and then leave them after three generations of being disconnected from the culture which allowed them to survive in Africa. That's why many African nations aren't doing so well (though there are many more places in Africa which are doing just fine. People are resilient, and what you see on TV isn't all of Africa)

  3. #33
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by professor goodstain View Post
    The hard left has in itself become a fundamentalist religion. They believe in their fundamentals as much as any religion out there. They just havn't writin their scripture yet.
    Their scripture is Das Capital. In it Marx speaks of the necessity to eliminate whole peoples. And that is just what they did. Over a seventy year period, across the world, Marxists killed 100 million of their own people. Not 100 million of the enemy, but 100 million of their own people.

    This has been documented by a group of left-wing French historians in, "The Black Book of Communism".

  4. #34
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    ...the leftists are pro-Palestine and often think Jew=Israel govt)...
    In Das Capital Marx speaks of the need to eliminate whole peoples. And in Mein Kampf the author speaks of the need to eliminate the Jews. And in the Koran the author speaks of the need to eliminate infidels and enslave dhimmi.

    And it is on this basis that the Marxists have made common cause with the Islamists.

  5. #35
    Enigma Nadir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Your last statement is debatable. After all, where does civilisation come from?

    As for the rest, you speak of African stagnation. Why did it stagnate, while Europe did not? Why did Europe progress, when Africa did not?
    Alright, thanks for the inquiries. Like I've said, its a long one, but I'll try to summarize it.

    [I should note, after reading Victor's post below, that the following doesn't deal with the Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution etc. -- probably more up to the decline of the Roman Empire, but it is enough to illustrate the point]

    Now, civilization has its roots in hunter-gatherer societies, basically the first form of civilization that ever existed. Tens of thousands BC. This is the timeframe where we set up (or find) shelter to the best of our ability, hunt animals, and try to live off them. However, this kind of lifestyle doesn't really allow for a sedentary, "settled" society, because eventually the amount of wildlife that can be hunted go down, and we need to move lest we starve. Keep in mind that during this time we're still made of tribes, and we still interact with each other and other tribes. This is important, because eventually, with time (a lot of time!), we learn a very important thing -- planting seeds. This is due to humans' learning (after all -- all this time, we observe nature's processes) and capacity for problem-solving. And eventually we come to a point where we realize that instead of being nature's slave and running off to find food, we can stay where we are and try to make nature work for us.

    This is agriculture. Agriculture is critical, because it allows for a settled society. How is this important? Well, in a settled, agricultural society, two concepts appear: Divison of labor and food surplus. Basically, the society is divided into a class-system with administrators, warriors, artisans, peasants, etc. All of them have their own responsibilities, and all of them possess certain skills that make them belong to their class. Food surplus is even more important -- It's basically extra food that can be stored for the future (ensures longevity), but more importantly, it's potential tax and thereby, currency. So what happens is that, the artisan class (which is a very general term, think of the average "citizen"), over a very, very long time, produces work. Discusses things. Invents new technologies. Trades stuff, also ideas, commercializes professions. (especially around Greece and the like) Meanwhile the administrators keep the show running by taxing the peasants' extra food all this time, which is then redistributed. I'm greatly simplifying here. So as a result, humanity keeps on solving more and more problems. New tools are fashioned, new systems designed. Intellect develops greatly.

    Africa, for the most part, doesn't possess the same kind of geographical advantage Europe does. Irrigation techniques made European farming possible, and irrigation needs rivers. But Africa: The lands are rather infertile, arid, there are a lot of deserts too. Quite a few rivers, you're pretty much in trouble if you're stuck inland. The temperatures are maddeningly hot. Both bad news for any farming and the people. Basically, the guys down there are cheated out of the above fun. They miss the train, and keep on being hunter-gatherers. Which shouldn't be news, we've all heard about "African tribes" one time or another. Same deal. It might sound prosaic, and I have simplified greatly, but this is pretty much the reason why they stagnated. Keep in mind that this process of honing our intellect and problem solving, takes many, many thousands of years. Agriculture was a key catalyst in speeding it up, though.
    Not really.

  6. #36
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    After all, where does civilisation come from?

    As for the rest, you speak of African stagnation. Why did it stagnate, while Europe did not? Why did Europe progress, when Africa did not?
    Good question.

    For 200,000 years we lived in a spoken culture.

    A spoken culture is learnt intuitively and gives rise to intuitive habits of thought, such as the Sun goes round the Earth.

    However in 1440 the printing press was invented in Europe and gave rise to the dream of universal literacy.

    However almost no one learns to read and write naturally and intuitively. In fact we are compelled by law to attend a special institution with specially trained staff, in order to learn to read and write.

    So learning to read and write is counter-intuitive and give rise to counter-intuitive habits of thought - such as the Earth goes round the Sun.

    And counter-intuitive literacy gave rise to the Enlightenment -

    • And Astrology was replaced by Astronomy.
    • Alchemy was replaced by Chemistry.
    • Creationism was replaced by the Origin of Species.
    • Exorcism was replaced by Psychiatry.
    • The encyclopaedia replaced ignorance.
    • Magic and sorcery were replaced by technology.
    • Medicine replaced superstition.
    • Usury was replaced by Adam Smith's, "The Wealth of Nations".
    • Institutional slavery was abolished for the first time in human history by the House of Commons in 1833.
    • Women gained their emancipation in the 20th Century.
    • And in the last 15 years, child sexual abuse was prosecuted for the first time in our Criminal Courts.
    • Nazism was defeated.
    • And Communism was defeated.
    • And Fascism was overcome.
    • And racism was replaced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    • Free Speech replaced ideology.
    • And the Church was separated from the State.
    • And we all became equal under the Law.
    • And beliefs based on evidence replaced beliefs based on divine revelation.
    • And the Divine Right of Kings was replaced by Democracy.

    So it was the Enlightenment that created Europe.

    And it is instructive to look at those who oppose the Enlightenment today. They are Islamists, Marxists, Romantic tribalists and the New Age.

    And most interesting MBTI is part of the New Age Movement.

    In fact a war called Jihad has been declared on the Enlightenment and on us.

    And it is in our interest as well as our moral duty to defend the Enlightenment and ourselves.

  7. #37
    Senior Member professor goodstain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Good question.

    However in 1440 the printing press was invented in Europe and gave rise to the dream of universal literacy.

    And it is in our interest as well as our moral duty to defend the Enlightenment.
    I agree.
    everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?

  8. #38
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    827 sp/so


    Of course, most of those studies are looking at "intelligence" from a strictly western viewpoint and measuring it by the same standards, so the data is biased in the first place. *shrug* Just felt like pointing that one out.
    β€œThe phrase 'Someone ought to do something' was not, by itself, a helpful one. People who used it never added the rider 'and that someone is me'.” - Terry Pratchett

  9. #39
    Content. Content? DigitalMethod's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008


    What do you gain from knowing if there is a link or not?
    "The life of the individual has meaning only insofar as it aids in making the life of every living thing nobler and more beautiful."
    - Albert Einstein

  10. #40
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Another view, propounded by my housemate (who is a scientist (albeit a chemist rather than a biologist, which his father is)), is that there is a single human race, but that black people are less evolved than other types of people (I will call them "races" for simplicity's sake). This is, according to him, because black people are biologically closer to apes (from which every human being evolved) than other races. Think about the logic of this: apes -> black people -> white people.
    You can tell your friend he hasn't understood a single point of the evolution theory, since every living beings on Earth are just "as evolved" as any other one, because their lineages have managed to survive so far.

    Current bacterias are no less "evolved" than men, since their genetic codes had to adapt over the same amount of time than our ancestors. So it depends which criteria you choose to say what "evolution" means for you. For instance, is it the length of the DNA, or the capacity to quickly produce variety and complexity? Then Orchids are, far, far more complex than us. They all have one common ancestor around 5-6 million years ago, and see the result: 35.000 known species today!

    Should we have taken the stomach instead of the brain as the way to measure "evolution", then cows would be considered as the supreme dominant organism.

    Furthermore, while speaking of us, no living man is closer to "apes" than the other, unless you want to mean than we all are a subspecie of chimpanzees (technically, we are). We can say every hominoids diverged from simians exactly at the same moment. Again, this proves that your so-called friend is just prejudiced, and hasn't understood a word of what "evolutionary science" or phylogenetics are.

    The genetic variation of men is very tiny compared to most animals: there are far more differences between various breeds of dogs than between the Neanderthals and us, so technically, we can't use the word "race".
    But on the other hand, we can use the word "haplogroup" for instance, and they reveal a very different story than most of modern myths about races, since a lot of genes can have a far deeper effect than the colour of our skins (which is only a slightly minor effect).
    And there are a lot of different haplogroups within "whites", blacks" or "asians".

    If there is a real difference between Africa and Europe, it's the fact that Europeans haplogroups are more diverse, and more mixed as a whole. While African ones show that the ethnic barriers have been far more rigid within this continent, that the exchanges of DNA material have been far more limited.

    When we go as far as 20.000 to 50.000 years ago, a typical European group will share traces of about 20 mitochondrial "Eves" (with a maximum of 38), while an African one will have barely 3 or 4.

    So technically, they prove that African people have been far more xenophobic during their long story than any other group of men. Curious, isn't it?

    But sometimes, you can have great surprises. Take for instance... The Finnish people! They are caucasoids in appearance, but their dominant mtDNA haplogroup (Z) say that genetically, they are closer to Koreans than Danes...
    And now, take myself! In appearance, I am a typical white guy, and within my family, you will find many people with blue coloured eyes, or blond or red hair. In theory, I am a cross between Celtic and Ashkenazic lineages. This means I should very likely be of haplogroup H something...
    But I'm not.
    I am a mtDNA Y, one of the most uncommon and odd haplogroups. There should only be 4 or 5 mtDNA Ys in France (counting my mother and brother), and my uncommon genotype has already caused me some issues when I had to deal with some medicines or surgical operations.

    According to genetics, I should be an Ainu: you know, the northern Japanese tribe that used to live on the island of Hokkaido? I have the same kind of blood type (AB-), and my internal organs are arranged in the same way, and that means: quite out of the ordinary. My heart and my liver are not where they are supposed to be, according to the average European physiology. Let me reassure you, I'm not an alien of some sort, but there is a difference of at least 10 centimeters (in the case of my liver).
    All I can tell is that my genes have travelled far, very far away to reach the western tip of Europe. Some of my ancestors did make a long journey through the wild spaces of Siberia...


    Do my haplogroups make me more clever, more intelligent? The answer is clearly no. So far, the only genes related to intelligence are those that can impair your cognitive abilities, not the ones that can enhance them.

    So according to our current scientific knowledge, there is no way you can predict the intelligence of someone when you analyze his chromosomes, unless he is suffering from a specific syndrome that will eventually lead to retardation.

    And at last but not the least, there is the whole question of what is a really high intelligence? And why?
    And I do not think there is an objective way to measure it, and if we ever could find one, I guess it won't look like our current IQ tests (1).


    (1) For the sake of scientific objectivity, please read "the mismeasure of Man" of Stephen Jay Gould
    Last edited by Blackmail!; 02-25-2009 at 04:46 AM.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

Similar Threads

  1. Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution supported by scientific evidence and why or why not?
    By RaptorWizard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-18-2015, 04:34 AM
  2. Is the Big Bang Theory supported by scientific evidence and why or why not?
    By RaptorWizard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-13-2013, 01:52 PM
  3. Music and String Theory
    By wyrdsister in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-16-2012, 09:32 PM
  4. What is a scientific theory?
    By Tamske in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-19-2010, 09:14 AM
  5. When folk theory meets scientific theory?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 02:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO