Total Posts:225|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

One race being naturally more intellegent

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 9:52:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 9:13:46 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

Actually, what these results really indicate is that expansion of opportunities to people empower them and affect the IQ scores. It really cuts away at nonsense about African Americans being less intelligent.

This thread is being brought up (for the hundredth time on DDO) because of this quote.

I am not saying, nor will I say that any race is more intelligent than any other. However, I must ask, why is it "nonsense"?

Does saying Africans are naturally more athletic seem like "nonsense," that women are naturally more emotional seem like "nonsense" or any other various things?

If we accept these other things, then way is it so hard to accept that one race or sex, might be naturally better at intelligence?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 10:42:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
On a site like this where we value intelligence more than some others, to say one race is superior in that regard is to imply that they are better overall. Then people would scream racism.

Thats the short answer....
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 10:48:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 10:42:06 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
On a site like this where we value intelligence more than some others, to say one race is superior in that regard is to imply that they are better overall. Then people would scream racism.

Thats the short answer....

So we don't do it, not because we believe it to be inaccurate, but because we are fearful of how others may see it?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 10:52:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 10:48:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 10:42:06 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
On a site like this where we value intelligence more than some others, to say one race is superior in that regard is to imply that they are better overall. Then people would scream racism.

Thats the short answer....

So we don't do it, not because we believe it to be inaccurate, but because we are fearful of how others may see it?

correct. The PC machine is quite strong.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:06:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 10:48:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 10:42:06 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
On a site like this where we value intelligence more than some others, to say one race is superior in that regard is to imply that they are better overall. Then people would scream racism.

Thats the short answer....

So we don't do it, not because we believe it to be inaccurate, but because we are fearful of how others may see it?

Something like that. But my post is moreso drawing a distinction between intelligence and other race comparisons you brought up, like black athleticism and women's emotions.

That said, I agree that people are generally hesitant about talking about race intelligence. If any major public figure (politician, celebrity, etc) said something, even so much as a tweet, expect the circus to come to town.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:10:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Writing that kind of reminded me of something from a while back. When JT and Mengele were frequently creating topics on Race, the threads quickly devolved to personal insults/bashing. I wonder though if that was mostly because of the topic being sensitive, or if it was because of how aggressive/arrogant their posts were. I kind of wonder what a Race Intelligence thread would be like if the people initiating the threads were more cordial.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:16:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 11:10:17 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Writing that kind of reminded me of something from a while back. When JT and Mengele were frequently creating topics on Race, the threads quickly devolved to personal insults/bashing. I wonder though if that was mostly because of the topic being sensitive, or if it was because of how aggressive/arrogant their posts were. I kind of wonder what a Race Intelligence thread would be like if the people initiating the threads were more cordial.

Depends on the person responding really. Some people will throw a hissy fit regardless. I do imagine the conversation would be more civil than the last time though.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 2:22:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 9:52:08 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:13:46 PM, royalpaladin wrote
Actually, what these results really indicate is that expansion of opportunities to people empower them and affect the IQ scores. It really cuts away at nonsense about African Americans being less intelligent.

This thread is being brought up (for the hundredth time on DDO) because of this quote.

I am not saying, nor will I say that any race is more intelligent than any other. However, I must ask, why is it "nonsense"?

Does saying Africans are naturally more athletic seem like "nonsense,"

Biggie Smalls, Dave Chappell, Rick Ross, plus the 500,000 other overweight "African Americans" shows that's false.

that women are naturally more emotional seem like "nonsense" or any other various things?

If we accept these other things, then way is it so hard to accept that one race or sex, might be naturally better at intelligence?

Because gender exists, race doesn't. Race is a social construct having zero basis in science (confirmed fact, I've done the research and read the University findings and statements). Sex differences have basis in science and not social construct. Society didn't classify you into being male, but society did tell you your race.

If you still want to say that race exists based on groups of people breeding within a specific geographic area, then ok, Amish is a race, Texan is a race, Canadian, Chicagoan, Californian, Russian, Hawaian, and New Yorkians are all races.

And within each manufactured group there are intelligent people and not so smart people.

Discussion over.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 2:25:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 10:52:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So we don't do it, not because we believe it to be inaccurate, but because we are fearful of how others may see it?

correct. The PC machine is quite strong.

Stfu, I dont give a goddamn about political correctness. I care about the truth and decency towards fellow equal human beings.

There is no scientific subdivision amongst homo sapiens sapiens, FACT. You have been refuted.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 2:31:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see how race being a "social construct" means it doesn't exist. Religion is a social construct--but that doesn't mean we can't talk meaningfully about it, or that religious groups couldn't different average intelligences/other traits.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 2:32:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't understand what is so controversial with stating that black, African people are less intelligent. All of the intelligence tests on the subject lead to that conclusion. Intelligence is shown to be 70% inherited genetically, so it would make sense for groups of people in some areas to have lower intelligence than others. Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ of around 114, is that enraging? People make the leap from empirical data to emotionalism, which is implicitly conceding the validity of intelligence and IQ studies.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 6:43:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem is that the difference is a result of repression.

All of these people who claimed that African Americans were inherently less intelligent were looking at IQ scores. Well, IQ scores showed that women were less intelligent until very recently (now women have higher IQs than men do).

Why was there a change for women? Women are being repressed less and are given more educational opportunities. This has led to empowerment and thus an increase in IQ scores.

African Americans tend to live in impoverished areas that do not receive proper educational funding. Since we have seen that IQ scores raise with educational opportunities, the results for women point to the notion that the lack of educational opportunities is what is causing the discrepancy.

Now, the claim that women are more emotional is nonsense. Men are more emotional since they don't know how to cooperate, fight to be the "leader" (when they really do nothing), and always exercise anger.

Women are also more intelligent than men according to the new results. :)
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 8:32:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 2:31:52 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I don't see how race being a "social construct" means it doesn't exist. Religion is a social construct--but that doesn't mean we can't talk meaningfully about it, or that religious groups couldn't different average intelligences/other traits.

How can you use the "social construct" of religion to say that one religious group is "naturally" or "inherently" more intelligent than the other. That's not even coherent.

-____-
yang.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:22:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 2:25:53 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/16/2012 10:52:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So we don't do it, not because we believe it to be inaccurate, but because we are fearful of how others may see it?

correct. The PC machine is quite strong.

Stfu, I dont give a goddamn about political correctness. I care about the truth and decency towards fellow equal human beings.

There is no scientific subdivision amongst homo sapiens sapiens, FACT. You have been refuted.

Your response is a pretty angry for someone who just wants to refute my claims. Why so angry? Why can't there be a rational discussion on it?

I was never a hereditarian until jimtimmy came along. I rarely mention it unless its actually relevant to the topic, as it is in this case. So the idea that my views are based on "bigotry" are unfounded. Its one I saw him debate the topics that I came convinced and did some more research on my own.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:28:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 6:43:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The problem is that the difference is a result of repression.

I swear every answer to any kind of inequality in the world:
it is due to "repression". Although it might be an inconvience to your ideology if there are other forces at play like genetics. Except of course homosexuality. I don't deny that environment doesn't play a factor, but you believe it is the *sole* factor for pretty much everything.

All of these people who claimed that African Americans were inherently less intelligent were looking at IQ scores. Well, IQ scores showed that women were less intelligent until very recently (now women have higher IQs than men do).

Why was there a change for women? Women are being repressed less and are given more educational opportunities. This has led to empowerment and thus an increase in IQ scores.

African Americans tend to live in impoverished areas that do not receive proper educational funding. Since we have seen that IQ scores raise with educational opportunities, the results for women point to the notion that the lack of educational opportunities is what is causing the discrepancy.

Now, the claim that women are more emotional is nonsense. Men are more emotional since they don't know how to cooperate, fight to be the "leader" (when they really do nothing), and always exercise anger.

Women are also more intelligent than men according to the new results. :)
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:37:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 9:28:23 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/17/2012 6:43:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The problem is that the difference is a result of repression.

I swear every answer to any kind of inequality in the world:
it is due to "repression". Although it might be an inconvience to your ideology if there are other forces at play like genetics. Except of course homosexuality. I don't deny that environment doesn't play a factor, but you believe it is the *sole* factor for pretty much everything.

LOL

Do me a favor:

Explain why when women were liberated, they turned out to be more intelligent than men.


All of these people who claimed that African Americans were inherently less intelligent were looking at IQ scores. Well, IQ scores showed that women were less intelligent until very recently (now women have higher IQs than men do).

Why was there a change for women? Women are being repressed less and are given more educational opportunities. This has led to empowerment and thus an increase in IQ scores.

African Americans tend to live in impoverished areas that do not receive proper educational funding. Since we have seen that IQ scores raise with educational opportunities, the results for women point to the notion that the lack of educational opportunities is what is causing the discrepancy.

Now, the claim that women are more emotional is nonsense. Men are more emotional since they don't know how to cooperate, fight to be the "leader" (when they really do nothing), and always exercise anger.

Women are also more intelligent than men according to the new results. :)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:38:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd LOVE a genetic response for that, Kermit. Use genetics to explain why women are more intelligent than men in nations in which they are not oppressed.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:41:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 9:37:01 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/17/2012 9:28:23 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/17/2012 6:43:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The problem is that the difference is a result of repression.

I swear every answer to any kind of inequality in the world:
it is due to "repression". Although it might be an inconvience to your ideology if there are other forces at play like genetics. Except of course homosexuality. I don't deny that environment doesn't play a factor, but you believe it is the *sole* factor for pretty much everything.

LOL

Do me a favor:

Explain why when women were liberated, they turned out to be more intelligent than men.

I never stated that environment factors don't play a role. I'm just saying that genetics play a role as well. Nor is your example "proof" of why the hereditarian position is wrong. Are you telling me that squirrels, if given the same opportunities as humans, would be just as intelligent as humans? maybe it's their repression that causes their lack of intelligence.

It's not even a debate between "nature" or "nurture". In fact both are required factors. Debating between nature vs. nurture is like debating whether combustion occurs due to oxygen or a sufficient amount of activation energy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:42:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 9:38:03 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I'd LOVE a genetic response for that, Kermit. Use genetics to explain why women are more intelligent than men in nations in which they are not oppressed.

but i thought women are always oppressed everywhere :p.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:47:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 9:41:27 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/17/2012 9:37:01 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/17/2012 9:28:23 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/17/2012 6:43:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The problem is that the difference is a result of repression.

I swear every answer to any kind of inequality in the world:
it is due to "repression". Although it might be an inconvience to your ideology if there are other forces at play like genetics. Except of course homosexuality. I don't deny that environment doesn't play a factor, but you believe it is the *sole* factor for pretty much everything.

LOL

Do me a favor:

Explain why when women were liberated, they turned out to be more intelligent than men.

I never stated that environment factors don't play a role. I'm just saying that genetics play a role as well. Nor is your example "proof" of why the hereditarian position is wrong. Are you telling me that squirrels, if given the same opportunities as humans, would be just as intelligent as humans? maybe it's their repression that causes their lack of intelligence.

Are you seriously bringing up that strawman again? I already refuted it; my arguments only apply to humans because they have a cognitive capacity that permits education to improve intelligence. Again, use the principle of charity. Strop strawmanning my position on purpose.
It's not even a debate between "nature" or "nurture". In fact both are required factors. Debating between nature vs. nurture is like debating whether combustion occurs due to oxygen or a sufficient amount of activation energy.
Oh, I agree that genetics probably play some role at the individual level. My argument is that as a whole, no one race is more intelligent than the other.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:47:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 9:42:26 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/17/2012 9:38:03 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I'd LOVE a genetic response for that, Kermit. Use genetics to explain why women are more intelligent than men in nations in which they are not oppressed.

but i thought women are always oppressed everywhere :p.

Levels of oppression vary. When women are truly liberated, men will be left in the dust.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:49:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
My other point is that educational opportunities obviously increase IQ scores. AAs are denied equal opportunities so their IQ scores cannot be used as a measure of intelligence.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:55:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 9:47:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/17/2012 9:41:27 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/17/2012 9:37:01 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/17/2012 9:28:23 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/17/2012 6:43:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The problem is that the difference is a result of repression.

I swear every answer to any kind of inequality in the world:
it is due to "repression". Although it might be an inconvience to your ideology if there are other forces at play like genetics. Except of course homosexuality. I don't deny that environment doesn't play a factor, but you believe it is the *sole* factor for pretty much everything.

LOL

Do me a favor:

Explain why when women were liberated, they turned out to be more intelligent than men.

I never stated that environment factors don't play a role. I'm just saying that genetics play a role as well. Nor is your example "proof" of why the hereditarian position is wrong. Are you telling me that squirrels, if given the same opportunities as humans, would be just as intelligent as humans? maybe it's their repression that causes their lack of intelligence.

Are you seriously bringing up that strawman again? I already refuted it; my arguments only apply to humans because they have a cognitive capacity that permits education to improve intelligence. Again, use the principle of charity. Strop strawmanning my position on purpose.

It isn't a strawman. Its called a reductio ad absurdo. I didn't see your previous response before.

Different human segments have been isolated from one another for thousands of years. There will be genetic differences between the races due to different environments and different ways people evolved. This is already a priori true. The question is at what extent these differences in past environmental differences and evolutionary pressures affect intelligence.

You say that your example above doesn't work because humans are different from squirrels. And of course, this is because If we find a common ancestor between squirrels and humans, they have diverged from one another for millions of years. Well differences between different types of humans is just a smaller time scale, but there are still differences. Think of differences between races as sub-species.

It's not even a debate between "nature" or "nurture". In fact both are required factors. Debating between nature vs. nurture is like debating whether combustion occurs due to oxygen or a sufficient amount of activation energy.
Oh, I agree that genetics probably play some role at the individual level. My argument is that as a whole, no one race is more intelligent than the other.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 10:01:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 9:55:45 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/17/2012 9:47:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/17/2012 9:41:27 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/17/2012 9:37:01 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/17/2012 9:28:23 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/17/2012 6:43:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The problem is that the difference is a result of repression.

I swear every answer to any kind of inequality in the world:
it is due to "repression". Although it might be an inconvience to your ideology if there are other forces at play like genetics. Except of course homosexuality. I don't deny that environment doesn't play a factor, but you believe it is the *sole* factor for pretty much everything.

LOL

Do me a favor:

Explain why when women were liberated, they turned out to be more intelligent than men.

I never stated that environment factors don't play a role. I'm just saying that genetics play a role as well. Nor is your example "proof" of why the hereditarian position is wrong. Are you telling me that squirrels, if given the same opportunities as humans, would be just as intelligent as humans? maybe it's their repression that causes their lack of intelligence.

Are you seriously bringing up that strawman again? I already refuted it; my arguments only apply to humans because they have a cognitive capacity that permits education to improve intelligence. Again, use the principle of charity. Strop strawmanning my position on purpose.

It isn't a strawman. Its called a reductio ad absurdo. I didn't see your previous response before.

No, it actually is a strawman. You knew very well that I was talking about HUMANS.
Different human segments have been isolated from one another for thousands of years. There will be genetic differences between the races due to different environments and different ways people evolved. This is already a priori true. The question is at what extent these differences in past environmental differences and evolutionary pressures affect intelligence.

Race is a social construct that does not even exist at the biological level. There are more genetic differences within "races" than between "races". If I reject the notion of race in the first place, then there can be no genetic differences between them.

Moreover, even if you prove that certain populations of humans have genetic differences, which is fine, you have to prove that it applies TO INTELLIGENCE. All you are doing is asserting that differences exist. What you are not doing is demonstrating that 1. These differences are in coding regions of DNA that affect intelligence and 2. That the differences affect phenotype in terms of intelligence.
You say that your example above doesn't work because humans are different from squirrels. And of course, this is because If we find a common ancestor between squirrels and humans, they have diverged from one another for millions of years. Well differences between different types of humans is just a smaller time scale, but there are still differences. Think of differences between races as sub-species.

Races aren't sub-species. They don't exist at all on a biological level. At best, they are social constructs that are based on culture and skin color. Plus, the level of divergence in thousands of years really isn't that much, especially since races weren't completely distinct due to trading. Interracial matings have been happening ever since the races "separated".
It's not even a debate between "nature" or "nurture". In fact both are required factors. Debating between nature vs. nurture is like debating whether combustion occurs due to oxygen or a sufficient amount of activation energy.
Oh, I agree that genetics probably play some role at the individual level. My argument is that as a whole, no one race is more intelligent than the other.
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 10:12:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 10:01:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Race is a social construct that does not even exist at the biological level. There are more genetic differences within "races" than between "races". If I reject the notion of race in the first place, then there can be no genetic differences between them.

Race is most definitely not a social construct or a notion, it is fact. Genetics determine the concentration of skin melanin and consequently, skin colour.

Moreover, even if you prove that certain populations of humans have genetic differences, which is fine,

Done.

you have to prove that it applies TO INTELLIGENCE. All you are doing is asserting that differences exist. What you are not doing is demonstrating that 1. These differences are in coding regions of DNA that affect intelligence and 2. That the differences affect phenotype in terms of intelligence.

This, however, is true.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 10:23:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 10:12:20 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/17/2012 10:01:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Race is a social construct that does not even exist at the biological level. There are more genetic differences within "races" than between "races". If I reject the notion of race in the first place, then there can be no genetic differences between them.

Race is most definitely not a social construct or a notion, it is fact. Genetics determine the concentration of skin melanin and consequently, skin colour.

Race isn't just defined by skin color.
Moreover, even if you prove that certain populations of humans have genetic differences, which is fine,

Done.

you have to prove that it applies TO INTELLIGENCE. All you are doing is asserting that differences exist. What you are not doing is demonstrating that 1. These differences are in coding regions of DNA that affect intelligence and 2. That the differences affect phenotype in terms of intelligence.

This, however, is true.
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 10:32:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 10:23:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/17/2012 10:12:20 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/17/2012 10:01:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Race is a social construct that does not even exist at the biological level. There are more genetic differences within "races" than between "races". If I reject the notion of race in the first place, then there can be no genetic differences between them.

Race is most definitely not a social construct or a notion, it is fact. Genetics determine the concentration of skin melanin and consequently, skin colour.

Race isn't just defined by skin color.

Indeed. That was simply a biological, genetic distinction between certain populations of humans (i.e. race).

Moreover, even if you prove that certain populations of humans have genetic differences, which is fine,

Done.

you have to prove that it applies TO INTELLIGENCE. All you are doing is asserting that differences exist. What you are not doing is demonstrating that 1. These differences are in coding regions of DNA that affect intelligence and 2. That the differences affect phenotype in terms of intelligence.

This, however, is true.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 10:34:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 10:32:39 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/17/2012 10:23:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/17/2012 10:12:20 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/17/2012 10:01:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Race is a social construct that does not even exist at the biological level. There are more genetic differences within "races" than between "races". If I reject the notion of race in the first place, then there can be no genetic differences between them.

Race is most definitely not a social construct or a notion, it is fact. Genetics determine the concentration of skin melanin and consequently, skin colour.

Race isn't just defined by skin color.

Indeed. That was simply a biological, genetic distinction between certain populations of humans (i.e. race).

No, I don't think you get it. Race isn't equivalent to skin color. I'm not arguing that there is no genetic basis for skin tone. I'm arguing that there is not genetic basis for race.

Studies demonstrate that there are more genetic variations within "races" than between them.
Moreover, even if you prove that certain populations of humans have genetic differences, which is fine,

Done.

you have to prove that it applies TO INTELLIGENCE. All you are doing is asserting that differences exist. What you are not doing is demonstrating that 1. These differences are in coding regions of DNA that affect intelligence and 2. That the differences affect phenotype in terms of intelligence.

This, however, is true.
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 10:40:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 10:34:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/17/2012 10:32:39 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/17/2012 10:23:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/17/2012 10:12:20 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/17/2012 10:01:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Race is a social construct that does not even exist at the biological level. There are more genetic differences within "races" than between "races". If I reject the notion of race in the first place, then there can be no genetic differences between them.

Race is most definitely not a social construct or a notion, it is fact. Genetics determine the concentration of skin melanin and consequently, skin colour.

Race isn't just defined by skin color.

Indeed. That was simply a biological, genetic distinction between certain populations of humans (i.e. race).

No, I don't think you get it. Race isn't equivalent to skin color. I'm not arguing that there is no genetic basis for skin tone. I'm arguing that there is not genetic basis for race.

"Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by heritable phenotypic characteristics, geographic ancestry, physical appearance, ethnicity, and social status."

4/5 of those criteria are biological and determinable through genetic analysis. So how is there no genetic basis for race again?

Studies demonstrate that there are more genetic variations within "races" than between them.
Moreover, even if you prove that certain populations of humans have genetic differences, which is fine,

Done.

you have to prove that it applies TO INTELLIGENCE. All you are doing is asserting that differences exist. What you are not doing is demonstrating that 1. These differences are in coding regions of DNA that affect intelligence and 2. That the differences affect phenotype in terms of intelligence.

This, however, is true.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.