Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Different Ethnicities, Different Governments

Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 8:46:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
All humans share 99.9% of their genome, leaving only .1% of a difference between people. That sounds really small, but that .1% is the difference between Gandhi and Ted Bundy. It's the difference between Newton and your everyday imbecile. Mathematically, .1% isn't very large, but when you look at the variety in personality and ability it encompasses, it illuminates the fact that very little variation in very few genes can cause massive differences in individuals. And these differences are not just "physical", they are behavioral, as well. The famous Minnesota Twin Study, conducted by Dr. Thomas Bouchard, revealed the significant role genetics play in behaviors long thought to be determined by upbringing, like impulsiveness, authoritarianism, sociability, etc. Even before, in 1954, H.J. Eysenck did another twin study that provided evidence to substantiate the claim that personality factors like "radicalism" and "tough-mindedness" have a genetic basis. How one measures up on these traits often determines whether you'll be a far left hippy, a neo-Nazi reactionary or just somewhere in between. In the book "Born That Way: Genes, Behavior, Personality", author William Wright says on page 263, "In 1981 Sandra Scarr found a degree of heritability for authoritarianism, an affinity for strict discipline. If such a trait can be transmitted genetically, it might explain why some individuals (or nations) thrive under authoritarian political and religious systems and others rebel against them."

That last quote gets me to the main idea of this post: humans are not the same, different ethnicities are going to have different rates of these inherited behavioral traits. So, (I'm just making up numbers here) if 20% of the British population has an authoritarian personality, but the Japanese have it in 80% of their population, it is only expected that their societies and governments are going to work differently. This also partly explains why America's (and, at one time, Britain's) attempts at spreading its ideal form of government/civilization has been quite a failure. Just because a form of government works for one ethnicity/country, absolutely does not mean that it will work for all. It's actually quite funny hearing people of all political leanings debating-- whether they are communists or hard core capitalists, they all debate with the assumption that all humans and human societies are the same, and that the success of a government/political system depends only on the sound structure of the system itself, instead of also taking into account that not all human ethnicities work the same way. This also bleeds into the immigration debate. Most fans of unlimited intrastate diversity also work on the same assumption that all people are essentially the same (the tabula rasa or blank slate theory) and thus all ethnicities can equally adapt and integrate into any culture. Needless to say, this faulty assumption is already doing damage to many countries (like Britain) that have subscribed to this idea, and, to top it off, it is completely baseless.

What say you?
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 2:44:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm open to the idea, but a bit skeptical of it. There hasn't been much natural selection of traits in humans since the dawn of civilization. Most of the selecting occurred prior to that, during the hunter gatherer days. I would have to take a look at Scarr's study and search for other relevant evidence to reach a conclusion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 8:59:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 8:46:10 AM, Harper wrote:

Have you read A Troublesome Inheritance/ The 10,000 Year Explosion? They deal with these issues.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 6:12:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In Europe this is almost literally a reality. The existence of nation states, namely countries whose emergence resulted from the unique identities of their respective peoples, is manifest. You mentioned immigrants, and I certainly think this is an issue there ought to be more debates on. I strongly oppose mass immigration, and do not support different governments for immigrants in the foreign societies they may live in. Some legal issues could be resolved through a form of independent courts, but these would not be based on separate governments.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 9:02:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 6:12:26 AM, Mirza wrote:
In Europe this is almost literally a reality. The existence of nation states, namely countries whose emergence resulted from the unique identities of their respective peoples, is manifest. You mentioned immigrants, and I certainly think this is an issue there ought to be more debates on. I strongly oppose mass immigration, and do not support different governments for immigrants in the foreign societies they may live in. Some legal issues could be resolved through a form of independent courts, but these would not be based on separate governments.

Yes, many Europeans have some kind of primitive, racially tinged prejudice against immigration. I am so glad I live in America, a country with a strong history of successful immigration that benefits both our country and the people coming in search of opportunity.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 12:29:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 9:02:27 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 5/4/2015 6:12:26 AM, Mirza wrote:
In Europe this is almost literally a reality. The existence of nation states, namely countries whose emergence resulted from the unique identities of their respective peoples, is manifest. You mentioned immigrants, and I certainly think this is an issue there ought to be more debates on. I strongly oppose mass immigration, and do not support different governments for immigrants in the foreign societies they may live in. Some legal issues could be resolved through a form of independent courts, but these would not be based on separate governments.

Yes, many Europeans have some kind of primitive, racially tinged prejudice against immigration. I am so glad I live in America, a country with a strong history of successful immigration that benefits both our country and the people coming in search of opportunity.
This issue is not race. In our countries we face enormous problems caused by immigration, so we prefer (or, at least should do so) alternative means to helping people in need rather than giving them permanent stay in cultures they are not accustomed to. There is almost nothing good that comes from mass immigration than would otherwise not have been as good or better on a societal level. However, if it works in your country (...) then feel free to open your borders. Entirely.

By the way, if it makes you feel any better, I am also glad you live where you do. Please do not consider coming to Europe at any point.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:20:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 8:59:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/2/2015 8:46:10 AM, Harper wrote:

Have you read A Troublesome Inheritance/ The 10,000 Year Explosion? They deal with these issues.

I'm planning on it, I just need to either find it in my local library or buy it off Amazon.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:22:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 2:44:25 AM, Death23 wrote:
I'm open to the idea, but a bit skeptical of it. There hasn't been much natural selection of traits in humans since the dawn of civilization. Most of the selecting occurred prior to that, during the hunter gatherer days. I would have to take a look at Scarr's study and search for other relevant evidence to reach a conclusion.

Well, the fact that geographic isolation has resulted in different physical characteristics, it's not much of a stretch to propose that behavioral characteristics also differ (generally, obviously not categorically) between these populations. And it's good that you're skeptical, skepticism is a sign of a healthy mind!
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:24:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 6:12:26 AM, Mirza wrote:
In Europe this is almost literally a reality. The existence of nation states, namely countries whose emergence resulted from the unique identities of their respective peoples, is manifest. You mentioned immigrants, and I certainly think this is an issue there ought to be more debates on. I strongly oppose mass immigration, and do not support different governments for immigrants in the foreign societies they may live in. Some legal issues could be resolved through a form of independent courts, but these would not be based on separate governments.

I'm not saying that immigrants should be given a different government in foreign nations, but that each nationality should generally stick to its original geographic location under its own government. I think it's better for everyone this way.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:28:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:20:21 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/3/2015 8:59:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/2/2015 8:46:10 AM, Harper wrote:

Have you read A Troublesome Inheritance/ The 10,000 Year Explosion? They deal with these issues.

I'm planning on it, I just need to either find it in my local library or buy it off Amazon.

They're both available for free on the internet:
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com...
https://atroublesomeinheritance.files.wordpress.com...
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:37:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 9:02:27 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 5/4/2015 6:12:26 AM, Mirza wrote:
In Europe this is almost literally a reality. The existence of nation states, namely countries whose emergence resulted from the unique identities of their respective peoples, is manifest. You mentioned immigrants, and I certainly think this is an issue there ought to be more debates on. I strongly oppose mass immigration, and do not support different governments for immigrants in the foreign societies they may live in. Some legal issues could be resolved through a form of independent courts, but these would not be based on separate governments.

Yes, many Europeans have some kind of primitive, racially tinged prejudice against immigration. I am so glad I live in America, a country with a strong history of successful immigration that benefits both our country and the people coming in search of opportunity.

Except America was always pretty restrictive with immigration policy, going back all the way to 1798 when the Alien and Sedition Act was passed. It wasn't until 1948 that America passed an immigration act that actively encouraged more people to come, but even then it was restricted to WWII refugees and the old system was restored 4 years later. It was ultimately the Immigration Act of 1990 that gave birth to this system of seemingly limitless immigration (it gave out "diversity visas" and eliminated earlier restrictions).
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:37:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:24:12 PM, Harper wrote:
I'm not saying that immigrants should be given a different government in foreign nations, but that each nationality should generally stick to its original geographic location under its own government. I think it's better for everyone this way.
I generally agree.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:39:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:28:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/4/2015 2:20:21 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/3/2015 8:59:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/2/2015 8:46:10 AM, Harper wrote:

Have you read A Troublesome Inheritance/ The 10,000 Year Explosion? They deal with these issues.

I'm planning on it, I just need to either find it in my local library or buy it off Amazon.

They're both available for free on the internet:
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com...
https://atroublesomeinheritance.files.wordpress.com...

Thank you for the links. I was waiting until I got the print form since I prefer it over e-versions, but it's very kind of you to do that for me.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:48:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:37:17 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/4/2015 9:02:27 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
Yes, many Europeans have some kind of primitive, racially tinged prejudice against immigration. I am so glad I live in America, a country with a strong history of successful immigration that benefits both our country and the people coming in search of opportunity.

Except America was always pretty restrictive with immigration policy, going back all the way to 1798 when the Alien and Sedition Act was passed. It wasn't until 1948 that America passed an immigration act that actively encouraged more people to come, but even then it was restricted to WWII refugees and the old system was restored 4 years later. It was ultimately the Immigration Act of 1990 that gave birth to this system of seemingly limitless immigration (it gave out "diversity visas" and eliminated earlier restrictions).
Even if immigration were successful in America, it doesn't mean it is, or would be, in Europe. There is a difference he has not yet seen. For instance, Muslims in America, and I specifically mean those of non-Western origin, integrate better than those in Europe. Why? Because they are more diversified, and not from one ethnic group only. This means they have more inclination toward aligning themselves toward the society and culture of their new country than had they had a group of people alongside them with whom they could identify. Pakistani people in England have one another, and have easier ways of coping with being different in culture and customs than Pakistanis in America, because in the former, they are more dispersed, and with other Muslims they have a religious connection, and not purely cultural.

So, whatever may work in terms of immigration in America does not necessarily work in Europe. We have nation states (America is an artificially formed political state), and the locals want their culture preserved; this, ultimately, clashes with the idea of other groups trying to force their way in. I live in Denmark and witness on a very regular basis how the immigration debates unfold; literally, nothing is better in the society as a result of immigration. Immigrants tend to isolate themselves, commit more crime, and not integrate well; no, not even the later generations. An exception is, interestingly, Bosnians (I being one of them myself, and living in Denmark), who integrate well, and do even better than Danes when it comes to say, education, and quite a lot better than those of non-European countries. I certainly do not believe it has anything to do with the race of the non-Europeans, or anything of that sort; rather, I think it has to do with issues like difficulty with coping and sense of isolation.

The bottom line is: I much prefer helping people having better lives in their native countries, for immigration on a massive scale is no good in my eyes, and in the eyes of many who have witnessed its bad effects on society.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:51:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:48:59 PM, Mirza wrote:
because in the former, they are more dispersed, and with other Muslims they have a religious connection, and not purely cultural.
That should say "latter."
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 3:08:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 8:46:10 AM, Harper wrote:
All humans share 99.9% of their genome, leaving only .1% of a difference between people. That sounds really small, but that .1% is the difference between Gandhi and Ted Bundy. It's the difference between Newton and your everyday imbecile. Mathematically, .1% isn't very large, but when you look at the variety in personality and ability it encompasses, it illuminates the fact that very little variation in very few genes can cause massive differences in individuals. And these differences are not just "physical", they are behavioral, as well. The famous Minnesota Twin Study, conducted by Dr. Thomas Bouchard, revealed the significant role genetics play in behaviors long thought to be determined by upbringing, like impulsiveness, authoritarianism, sociability, etc. Even before, in 1954, H.J. Eysenck did another twin study that provided evidence to substantiate the claim that personality factors like "radicalism" and "tough-mindedness" have a genetic basis. How one measures up on these traits often determines whether you'll be a far left hippy, a neo-Nazi reactionary or just somewhere in between. In the book "Born That Way: Genes, Behavior, Personality", author William Wright says on page 263, "In 1981 Sandra Scarr found a degree of heritability for authoritarianism, an affinity for strict discipline. If such a trait can be transmitted genetically, it might explain why some individuals (or nations) thrive under authoritarian political and religious systems and others rebel against them."

That last quote gets me to the main idea of this post: humans are not the same, different ethnicities are going to have different rates of these inherited behavioral traits. So, (I'm just making up numbers here) if 20% of the British population has an authoritarian personality, but the Japanese have it in 80% of their population, it is only expected that their societies and governments are going to work differently. This also partly explains why America's (and, at one time, Britain's) attempts at spreading its ideal form of government/civilization has been quite a failure. Just because a form of government works for one ethnicity/country, absolutely does not mean that it will work for all. It's actually quite funny hearing people of all political leanings debating-- whether they are communists or hard core capitalists, they all debate with the assumption that all humans and human societies are the same, and that the success of a government/political system depends only on the sound structure of the system itself, instead of also taking into account that not all human ethnicities work the same way. This also bleeds into the immigration debate. Most fans of unlimited intrastate diversity also work on the same assumption that all people are essentially the same (the tabula rasa or blank slate theory) and thus all ethnicities can equally adapt and integrate into any culture. Needless to say, this faulty assumption is already doing damage to many countries (like Britain) that have subscribed to this idea, and, to top it off, it is completely baseless.

What say you?

Im scared to accept this because then this idea could be used to justify virtually any kind of mindset an individual has. People will use this as an excuse to resist changing themselves, bettering themselves, thinking otherwise, etc. And this line of thinking could have a horrible long term effect on the functioning of communities and society at large.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 3:14:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:48:59 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/4/2015 2:37:17 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/4/2015 9:02:27 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
Yes, many Europeans have some kind of primitive, racially tinged prejudice against immigration. I am so glad I live in America, a country with a strong history of successful immigration that benefits both our country and the people coming in search of opportunity.

Except America was always pretty restrictive with immigration policy, going back all the way to 1798 when the Alien and Sedition Act was passed. It wasn't until 1948 that America passed an immigration act that actively encouraged more people to come, but even then it was restricted to WWII refugees and the old system was restored 4 years later. It was ultimately the Immigration Act of 1990 that gave birth to this system of seemingly limitless immigration (it gave out "diversity visas" and eliminated earlier restrictions).
Even if immigration were successful in America, it doesn't mean it is, or would be, in Europe. There is a difference he has not yet seen. For instance, Muslims in America, and I specifically mean those of non-Western origin, integrate better than those in Europe. Why? Because they are more diversified, and not from one ethnic group only. This means they have more inclination toward aligning themselves toward the society and culture of their new country than had they had a group of people alongside them with whom they could identify. Pakistani people in England have one another, and have easier ways of coping with being different in culture and customs than Pakistanis in America, because in the former, they are more dispersed, and with other Muslims they have a religious connection, and not purely cultural.
Though aren't you Muslim yourself?

So, whatever may work in terms of immigration in America does not necessarily work in Europe. We have nation states (America is an artificially formed political state), and the locals want their culture preserved; this, ultimately, clashes with the idea of other groups trying to force their way in.
Though even Americans arguably have a culture to preserve. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't see white-nationalist/separatist groups here.

I live in Denmark and witness on a very regular basis how the immigration debates unfold; literally, nothing is better in the society as a result of immigration. Immigrants tend to isolate themselves, commit more crime, and not integrate well; no, not even the later generations. An exception is, interestingly, Bosnians (I being one of them myself, and living in Denmark), who integrate well, and do even better than Danes when it comes to say, education, and quite a lot better than those of non-European countries. I certainly do not believe it has anything to do with the race of the non-Europeans, or anything of that sort; rather, I think it has to do with issues like difficulty with coping and sense of isolation.
And that's another thing-- integration. All people want to hold onto their culture, but when you are in another country that becomes very difficult, which is yet another reason why it's better for each ethnicity to have its own country. The Jews aren't the only ones entitled to a nationalist state, you know.

The bottom line is: I much prefer helping people having better lives in their native countries, for immigration on a massive scale is no good in my eyes, and in the eyes of many who have witnessed its bad effects on society.
Agreed.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 3:22:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 3:08:36 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 8:46:10 AM, Harper wrote:
All humans share 99.9% of their genome, leaving only .1% of a difference between people. That sounds really small, but that .1% is the difference between Gandhi and Ted Bundy. It's the difference between Newton and your everyday imbecile. Mathematically, .1% isn't very large, but when you look at the variety in personality and ability it encompasses, it illuminates the fact that very little variation in very few genes can cause massive differences in individuals. And these differences are not just "physical", they are behavioral, as well. The famous Minnesota Twin Study, conducted by Dr. Thomas Bouchard, revealed the significant role genetics play in behaviors long thought to be determined by upbringing, like impulsiveness, authoritarianism, sociability, etc. Even before, in 1954, H.J. Eysenck did another twin study that provided evidence to substantiate the claim that personality factors like "radicalism" and "tough-mindedness" have a genetic basis. How one measures up on these traits often determines whether you'll be a far left hippy, a neo-Nazi reactionary or just somewhere in between. In the book "Born That Way: Genes, Behavior, Personality", author William Wright says on page 263, "In 1981 Sandra Scarr found a degree of heritability for authoritarianism, an affinity for strict discipline. If such a trait can be transmitted genetically, it might explain why some individuals (or nations) thrive under authoritarian political and religious systems and others rebel against them."

That last quote gets me to the main idea of this post: humans are not the same, different ethnicities are going to have different rates of these inherited behavioral traits. So, (I'm just making up numbers here) if 20% of the British population has an authoritarian personality, but the Japanese have it in 80% of their population, it is only expected that their societies and governments are going to work differently. This also partly explains why America's (and, at one time, Britain's) attempts at spreading its ideal form of government/civilization has been quite a failure. Just because a form of government works for one ethnicity/country, absolutely does not mean that it will work for all. It's actually quite funny hearing people of all political leanings debating-- whether they are communists or hard core capitalists, they all debate with the assumption that all humans and human societies are the same, and that the success of a government/political system depends only on the sound structure of the system itself, instead of also taking into account that not all human ethnicities work the same way. This also bleeds into the immigration debate. Most fans of unlimited intrastate diversity also work on the same assumption that all people are essentially the same (the tabula rasa or blank slate theory) and thus all ethnicities can equally adapt and integrate into any culture. Needless to say, this faulty assumption is already doing damage to many countries (like Britain) that have subscribed to this idea, and, to top it off, it is completely baseless.

What say you?


Im scared to accept this because then this idea could be used to justify virtually any kind of mindset an individual has. People will use this as an excuse to resist changing themselves, bettering themselves, thinking otherwise, etc.
Not necessarily. You are right in saying that this argument can be dangerous, but that's why it needs to be handled responsibly. We need to understand that genes, while influencing our behavior, aren't the only things shaping our personalities. Our own willpower can and does change the way we behave, and that needs to be stressed (even though the amount of willpower an individual has is also genetically influenced, but still.).

And this line of thinking could have a horrible long term effect on the functioning of communities and society at large.
I think the lack of this thinking is ultimately to blame for our current state. We tend to think that all people are the same, so when there's a difference in achievement between different ethnicities/races/sexes, we blame the society instead of considering the fact that it could be biological differences at play.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 3:27:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 3:14:52 PM, Harper wrote:
Though aren't you Muslim yourself?
Yes.

Though even Americans arguably have a culture to preserve. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't see white-nationalist/separatist groups here.
It is not nearly as strong as the cultures in Europe. Americans have, from the very beginning, been aware of what their country is; it is not a state based on a nation. And, the culture is very diversified in comparison to European cultures within their own countries.

And that's another thing-- integration. All people want to hold onto their culture, but when you are in another country that becomes very difficult, which is yet another reason why it's better for each ethnicity to have its own country. The Jews aren't the only ones entitled to a nationalist state, you know.
I agree. In Denmark, some kindergartens do not serve pork any more. From my point of view, that's great. I do not eat it. However, I cannot imagine how I would feel if the roles were reversed; if immigrants came to Bosnia and wanted to remove our customs and impose their rules, I would be very irritated. (Not to mention the fact that they would probably cause countless other issues as well.) Thus my opposition remains.

As for having a national state, indeed; of course Jews are not the only ones entitled to have one.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 3:41:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 3:27:37 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/4/2015 3:14:52 PM, Harper wrote:
Though aren't you Muslim yourself?
Yes.

Though even Americans arguably have a culture to preserve. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't see white-nationalist/separatist groups here.
It is not nearly as strong as the cultures in Europe. Americans have, from the very beginning, been aware of what their country is; it is not a state based on a nation. And, the culture is very diversified in comparison to European cultures within their own countries.
That is a good point, America has had a very flexible culture, and at this point in time, it practically has none at all, but it still was founded on a principle of national identity.

And that's another thing-- integration. All people want to hold onto their culture, but when you are in another country that becomes very difficult, which is yet another reason why it's better for each ethnicity to have its own country. The Jews aren't the only ones entitled to a nationalist state, you know.
I agree. In Denmark, some kindergartens do not serve pork any more. From my point of view, that's great. I do not eat it. However, I cannot imagine how I would feel if the roles were reversed; if immigrants came to Bosnia and wanted to remove our customs and impose their rules, I would be very irritated. (Not to mention the fact that they would probably cause countless other issues as well.) Thus my opposition remains.
It's funny how many immigration fanatics are completely fine with Western countries bending over backwards to accomodate foreigners, but consider the other way around oppression. In my opinion, and as implied in your post, you probably share this opinion as well, both cases are oppressive. No country should have to sacrifice itself for foreign peoples.

As for having a national state, indeed; of course Jews are not the only ones entitled to have one.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 3:51:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 3:41:26 PM, Harper wrote:
That is a good point, America has had a very flexible culture, and at this point in time, it practically has none at all, but it still was founded on a principle of national identity.
No, America is the result of political divergence. The first Europeans there did not have a unique identity in comparison to the one they had initially. They had different political ideologies, and thus formed America. It is not a state akin to those in Europe, whose existence is primarily based on nations. Scotland - Scots, England - English, Russian - Russians; etcetera. America is not based on an ethnos.

It's funny how many immigration fanatics are completely fine with Western countries bending over backwards to accomodate foreigners, but consider the other way around oppression. In my opinion, and as implied in your post, you probably share this opinion as well, both cases are oppressive. No country should have to sacrifice itself for foreign peoples.
Indeed. I especially get bothered by Muslims, because I am able to see both sides from a good perspective. For instance, it is common to make fun of homosexuals, or throw insults against Jews; however, if someone were to do the same against say, women who wear burqa, they would be very annoyed themselves. I understand this. Nobody wishes to be ridiculed for that with which they associate. However, some people simply do not realize that others feel the exact same way as they do when they are being ridiculed. But, yes, I am glad we are on the same boat here. I am particularly happy that my country does not face the same issues in this regard as to countries from other parts of Europe; it would be horrible.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 4:31:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 3:22:46 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/4/2015 3:08:36 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 8:46:10 AM, Harper wrote:
All humans share 99.9% of their genome, leaving only .1% of a difference between people. That sounds really small, but that .1% is the difference between Gandhi and Ted Bundy. It's the difference between Newton and your everyday imbecile. Mathematically, .1% isn't very large, but when you look at the variety in personality and ability it encompasses, it illuminates the fact that very little variation in very few genes can cause massive differences in individuals. And these differences are not just "physical", they are behavioral, as well. The famous Minnesota Twin Study, conducted by Dr. Thomas Bouchard, revealed the significant role genetics play in behaviors long thought to be determined by upbringing, like impulsiveness, authoritarianism, sociability, etc. Even before, in 1954, H.J. Eysenck did another twin study that provided evidence to substantiate the claim that personality factors like "radicalism" and "tough-mindedness" have a genetic basis. How one measures up on these traits often determines whether you'll be a far left hippy, a neo-Nazi reactionary or just somewhere in between. In the book "Born That Way: Genes, Behavior, Personality", author William Wright says on page 263, "In 1981 Sandra Scarr found a degree of heritability for authoritarianism, an affinity for strict discipline. If such a trait can be transmitted genetically, it might explain why some individuals (or nations) thrive under authoritarian political and religious systems and others rebel against them."

That last quote gets me to the main idea of this post: humans are not the same, different ethnicities are going to have different rates of these inherited behavioral traits. So, (I'm just making up numbers here) if 20% of the British population has an authoritarian personality, but the Japanese have it in 80% of their population, it is only expected that their societies and governments are going to work differently. This also partly explains why America's (and, at one time, Britain's) attempts at spreading its ideal form of government/civilization has been quite a failure. Just because a form of government works for one ethnicity/country, absolutely does not mean that it will work for all. It's actually quite funny hearing people of all political leanings debating-- whether they are communists or hard core capitalists, they all debate with the assumption that all humans and human societies are the same, and that the success of a government/political system depends only on the sound structure of the system itself, instead of also taking into account that not all human ethnicities work the same way. This also bleeds into the immigration debate. Most fans of unlimited intrastate diversity also work on the same assumption that all people are essentially the same (the tabula rasa or blank slate theory) and thus all ethnicities can equally adapt and integrate into any culture. Needless to say, this faulty assumption is already doing damage to many countries (like Britain) that have subscribed to this idea, and, to top it off, it is completely baseless.

What say you?


Im scared to accept this because then this idea could be used to justify virtually any kind of mindset an individual has. People will use this as an excuse to resist changing themselves, bettering themselves, thinking otherwise, etc.
Not necessarily. You are right in saying that this argument can be dangerous, but that's why it needs to be handled responsibly. We need to understand that genes, while influencing our behavior, aren't the only things shaping our personalities. Our own willpower can and does change the way we behave, and that needs to be stressed (even though the amount of willpower an individual has is also genetically influenced, but still.).

Also, there should be a study that concludes to what extent the environment an individual grows up in determines/shapes the individual's character, behavior, intelligence, etc. If a first gen baby grows up in his new host country, he's going to grow up facing a dual influence: one from the environment of the host country and the other from the genes that he has, that were likely cultivated from the native country. So, I guess what i'm saying is that it can't be this simple, and what you've discussed in the OP can only make it harder to "figure someone out," and to guide these people from infancy to adulthood.


And this line of thinking could have a horrible long term effect on the functioning of communities and society at large.
I think the lack of this thinking is ultimately to blame for our current state. We tend to think that all people are the same, so when there's a difference in achievement between different ethnicities/races/sexes, we blame the society instead of considering the fact that it could be biological differences at play.

We also tend to believe (in America) in equal opportunity, so when we see these obvious discrepancies in equality, we judge the system the most and not the people since the system should be able to accommodate those who are less endowed (materially and personally).
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 8:31:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 4:31:46 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 5/4/2015 3:22:46 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/4/2015 3:08:36 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 8:46:10 AM, Harper wrote:
All humans share 99.9% of their genome, leaving only .1% of a difference between people. That sounds really small, but that .1% is the difference between Gandhi and Ted Bundy. It's the difference between Newton and your everyday imbecile. Mathematically, .1% isn't very large, but when you look at the variety in personality and ability it encompasses, it illuminates the fact that very little variation in very few genes can cause massive differences in individuals. And these differences are not just "physical", they are behavioral, as well. The famous Minnesota Twin Study, conducted by Dr. Thomas Bouchard, revealed the significant role genetics play in behaviors long thought to be determined by upbringing, like impulsiveness, authoritarianism, sociability, etc. Even before, in 1954, H.J. Eysenck did another twin study that provided evidence to substantiate the claim that personality factors like "radicalism" and "tough-mindedness" have a genetic basis. How one measures up on these traits often determines whether you'll be a far left hippy, a neo-Nazi reactionary or just somewhere in between. In the book "Born That Way: Genes, Behavior, Personality", author William Wright says on page 263, "In 1981 Sandra Scarr found a degree of heritability for authoritarianism, an affinity for strict discipline. If such a trait can be transmitted genetically, it might explain why some individuals (or nations) thrive under authoritarian political and religious systems and others rebel against them."

That last quote gets me to the main idea of this post: humans are not the same, different ethnicities are going to have different rates of these inherited behavioral traits. So, (I'm just making up numbers here) if 20% of the British population has an authoritarian personality, but the Japanese have it in 80% of their population, it is only expected that their societies and governments are going to work differently. This also partly explains why America's (and, at one time, Britain's) attempts at spreading its ideal form of government/civilization has been quite a failure. Just because a form of government works for one ethnicity/country, absolutely does not mean that it will work for all. It's actually quite funny hearing people of all political leanings debating-- whether they are communists or hard core capitalists, they all debate with the assumption that all humans and human societies are the same, and that the success of a government/political system depends only on the sound structure of the system itself, instead of also taking into account that not all human ethnicities work the same way. This also bleeds into the immigration debate. Most fans of unlimited intrastate diversity also work on the same assumption that all people are essentially the same (the tabula rasa or blank slate theory) and thus all ethnicities can equally adapt and integrate into any culture. Needless to say, this faulty assumption is already doing damage to many countries (like Britain) that have subscribed to this idea, and, to top it off, it is completely baseless.

What say you?


Im scared to accept this because then this idea could be used to justify virtually any kind of mindset an individual has. People will use this as an excuse to resist changing themselves, bettering themselves, thinking otherwise, etc.
Not necessarily. You are right in saying that this argument can be dangerous, but that's why it needs to be handled responsibly. We need to understand that genes, while influencing our behavior, aren't the only things shaping our personalities. Our own willpower can and does change the way we behave, and that needs to be stressed (even though the amount of willpower an individual has is also genetically influenced, but still.).

Also, there should be a study that concludes to what extent the environment an individual grows up in determines/shapes the individual's character, behavior, intelligence, etc. If a first gen baby grows up in his new host country, he's going to grow up facing a dual influence: one from the environment of the host country and the other from the genes that he has, that were likely cultivated from the native country. So, I guess what i'm saying is that it can't be this simple, and what you've discussed in the OP can only make it harder to "figure someone out," and to guide these people from infancy to adulthood.
There have already been studies to that effect. Most traits are 40-70% heritable. I don't remember the specific numbers, but the thing is that we've already estimated the heritability of behavioral traits. And of course it's more complicated that genes, environment does have an effect, but what I'm saying is that under the same environment, people are still going to come out different because of their genes.

And this line of thinking could have a horrible long term effect on the functioning of communities and society at large.
I think the lack of this thinking is ultimately to blame for our current state. We tend to think that all people are the same, so when there's a difference in achievement between different ethnicities/races/sexes, we blame the society instead of considering the fact that it could be biological differences at play.

We also tend to believe (in America) in equal opportunity, so when we see these obvious discrepancies in equality, we judge the system the most and not the people since the system should be able to accommodate those who are less endowed (materially and personally).
But equality of opportunity does not mean equality of outcome. If I am less intelligent/skilled than you, and we both apply for the same job, it only makes sense that you get the job over me, that's not unequal opportunity because you and I both had the opportunity to go for it, but our success depended on our merits.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 8:40:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If that is true, why do the Japanese, (South) Koreans, and Israelis all have similar democratic governments to the white Europeans and North Americans? Why does Chile have a long history of democracy? Why did some native American tribes live by the ideals of Karl Marx? Why has South America become (I mean, kinda) a democratic country? Heck, Botswana is an economic paradise in terms of Africa because they have capitalist institutions, and despite having no resources have grown to be a democratic and functioning society.

So, no, government type is not really correlated with race.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 10:39:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 12:29:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/4/2015 9:02:27 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 5/4/2015 6:12:26 AM, Mirza wrote:
In Europe this is almost literally a reality. The existence of nation states, namely countries whose emergence resulted from the unique identities of their respective peoples, is manifest. You mentioned immigrants, and I certainly think this is an issue there ought to be more debates on. I strongly oppose mass immigration, and do not support different governments for immigrants in the foreign societies they may live in. Some legal issues could be resolved through a form of independent courts, but these would not be based on separate governments.

Yes, many Europeans have some kind of primitive, racially tinged prejudice against immigration. I am so glad I live in America, a country with a strong history of successful immigration that benefits both our country and the people coming in search of opportunity.
This issue is not race. In our countries we face enormous problems caused by immigration, so we prefer (or, at least should do so) alternative means to helping people in need rather than giving them permanent stay in cultures they are not accustomed to. There is almost nothing good that comes from mass immigration than would otherwise not have been as good or better on a societal level. However, if it works in your country (...) then feel free to open your borders. Entirely.

Racism, xenophobia, call it what you will. And actually, there are tons of benefits from mass immigration, including more workers, more jobs, more exchange of ideas, more cultural diversity... you get the drift. In fact, mass immigration is one of the factors that contributed to the US surpassing the European powers in military and economic strength. I'm not surprised Europeans still don't understand they are on the wrong side of this. And to your last point, our country has had completely open borders before and I'd certainly like to see it happen again. Unfortunately, we have our share of xenophobes and people who don't understand economics here as well, so the political climate won't favor that any time soon.

By the way, if it makes you feel any better, I am also glad you live where you do. Please do not consider coming to Europe at any point.

I've already visited. Some parts are nice, but I definitely wouldn't want to live there. Not because of the xenophobes, mind you. America is just a better place to live if you aren't poor.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 10:55:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:37:17 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/4/2015 9:02:27 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 5/4/2015 6:12:26 AM, Mirza wrote:
In Europe this is almost literally a reality. The existence of nation states, namely countries whose emergence resulted from the unique identities of their respective peoples, is manifest. You mentioned immigrants, and I certainly think this is an issue there ought to be more debates on. I strongly oppose mass immigration, and do not support different governments for immigrants in the foreign societies they may live in. Some legal issues could be resolved through a form of independent courts, but these would not be based on separate governments.

Yes, many Europeans have some kind of primitive, racially tinged prejudice against immigration. I am so glad I live in America, a country with a strong history of successful immigration that benefits both our country and the people coming in search of opportunity.

Except America was always pretty restrictive with immigration policy, going back all the way to 1798 when the Alien and Sedition Act was passed. It wasn't until 1948 that America passed an immigration act that actively encouraged more people to come, but even then it was restricted to WWII refugees and the old system was restored 4 years later. It was ultimately the Immigration Act of 1990 that gave birth to this system of seemingly limitless immigration (it gave out "diversity visas" and eliminated earlier restrictions).

No. The alien and sedition act was not targeted towards restricting immigration, it was a political maneuver intended to silence anti-federalist voices. The law said nothing about not letting immigrants in, it simply allowed the government to deport aliens who were considered "dangerous." Furthermore, these acts were so unpopular that they were allowed to expire around 1800-1801.

Also, the country saw huge waves of Irish, German, Scottish immigrants in the 1800s, as well as Chinese immigrants to help build the railroads in the late 1800s, and Mexican immigrants during the 1950s and 60s as part of the braceros programs.
Not to mention that the Founding Fathers, including George Washington himself, were immigrants themselves.

So yes, our country has a long and proud history of welcoming those who want to make a better life for themselves and their families, and help build this great nation into what it is today. It's sad that the descendants of immigrants from 50 or 100 years ago spit in the face of their own ancestors by complaining about today's immigrants, who are following in those footsteps.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 11:22:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 8:40:27 PM, 16kadams wrote:
If that is true, why do the Japanese, (South) Koreans, and Israelis all have similar democratic governments to the white Europeans and North Americans? Why does Chile have a long history of democracy? Why did some native American tribes live by the ideals of Karl Marx? Why has South America become (I mean, kinda) a democratic country? Heck, Botswana is an economic paradise in terms of Africa because they have capitalist institutions, and despite having no resources have grown to be a democratic and functioning society.

So, no, government type is not really correlated with race.

Exceptions to a rule does not preclude a general trend. And most of the countries you mention had to import western institutions because they were not independently developed (in the case of Japan, "foisted upon" is probably more accurate than merely "imported"). Left alone, the races did indeed go in different paths, and those paths produced environments with different selection pressures.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 11:42:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 11:22:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/4/2015 8:40:27 PM, 16kadams wrote:
If that is true, why do the Japanese, (South) Koreans, and Israelis all have similar democratic governments to the white Europeans and North Americans? Why does Chile have a long history of democracy? Why did some native American tribes live by the ideals of Karl Marx? Why has South America become (I mean, kinda) a democratic country? Heck, Botswana is an economic paradise in terms of Africa because they have capitalist institutions, and despite having no resources have grown to be a democratic and functioning society.

So, no, government type is not really correlated with race.

Exceptions to a rule does not preclude a general trend. And most of the countries you mention had to import western institutions because they were not independently developed (in the case of Japan, "foisted upon" is probably more accurate than merely "imported"). Left alone, the races did indeed go in different paths, and those paths produced environments with different selection pressures.

I'll read the books you posted, but I really don't buy the hypothesis.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 11:45:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 11:42:20 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/4/2015 11:22:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/4/2015 8:40:27 PM, 16kadams wrote:
If that is true, why do the Japanese, (South) Koreans, and Israelis all have similar democratic governments to the white Europeans and North Americans? Why does Chile have a long history of democracy? Why did some native American tribes live by the ideals of Karl Marx? Why has South America become (I mean, kinda) a democratic country? Heck, Botswana is an economic paradise in terms of Africa because they have capitalist institutions, and despite having no resources have grown to be a democratic and functioning society.

So, no, government type is not really correlated with race.

Exceptions to a rule does not preclude a general trend. And most of the countries you mention had to import western institutions because they were not independently developed (in the case of Japan, "foisted upon" is probably more accurate than merely "imported"). Left alone, the races did indeed go in different paths, and those paths produced environments with different selection pressures.

I'll read the books you posted, but I really don't buy the hypothesis.

I think you'll like them.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 11:48:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 11:45:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/4/2015 11:42:20 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/4/2015 11:22:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/4/2015 8:40:27 PM, 16kadams wrote:
If that is true, why do the Japanese, (South) Koreans, and Israelis all have similar democratic governments to the white Europeans and North Americans? Why does Chile have a long history of democracy? Why did some native American tribes live by the ideals of Karl Marx? Why has South America become (I mean, kinda) a democratic country? Heck, Botswana is an economic paradise in terms of Africa because they have capitalist institutions, and despite having no resources have grown to be a democratic and functioning society.

So, no, government type is not really correlated with race.

Exceptions to a rule does not preclude a general trend. And most of the countries you mention had to import western institutions because they were not independently developed (in the case of Japan, "foisted upon" is probably more accurate than merely "imported"). Left alone, the races did indeed go in different paths, and those paths produced environments with different selection pressures.

I'll read the books you posted, but I really don't buy the hypothesis.

I think you'll like them.

The 10,000 year one is interesting so far
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross