NationStates Jolt Archive

There are differences between ethnic human populations, only the most obvious being skin color. I don't think that it is racist to say, for instance, that endogamous Ashkenazi Jews, in general, have a higher intelligence quotient than other racial groups (again in general). Despite being a tiny fraction of the world population, 26% of all Nobel Prize winners are Jews (Source: http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html).

It is a fact that in the United States, blacks are more likely be convicted of violent crime than whites. It's also a fact that they have certain unique genetic characteristics (i.e. susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia); could a genetic characteristic explain the crime statistics? You might say that it is instead caused by lingering social or economic factors, or perhaps inequalities in our police or justice systems, but the possibility is there. To say that all blacks are crinimals would obviously be a racist generalization. But is it to say that blacks, in general, are more likely to be criminals due to genetics? Where and what is the nature of the line between recognizing these differences and being racist?

There are genetic differences between ethnic human populations, only the most obvious being skin color. I don't think that it is racist to say, for instance, that endogamous Ashkenazi Jews, in general, have a higher intelligence quotient than other racial groups (again in general). Despite being a tiny fraction of the world population, 26% of all Nobel Prize winners are Jews (Source: http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html).

It is a fact that in the United States, blacks are more likely to commit violent crime than whites. It's also a fact that they have certain unique genetic characteristics (i.e. susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia); could a genetic characteristic explain the crime statistics? You might say that it is instead caused by lingering social or economic factors, or perhaps inequalities in our police or justice systems, but the possibility is there. To say that all blacks are crinimals would obviously be a racist generalization. But is it to say that blacks, in general, are more likely to be criminals due to genetics? Where and what is the nature of the line between recognizing these differences and being racist?
When you say they're more likely to be criminals due to genetics, despite the fact that studies don't show it, then you've crossed the line. Simple.

It is a fact that in the United States, blacks are more likely to commit violent crime than whites.

Actually, that's not a fact. What is a fact is that in the United States, blacks are more likely to be *convicted* of committing violent crime than whites.

Huge difference.

Events occur and are done by certain individuals of the populace simply because X has met Y. Its a matter of historical, social, political and economic issues that have created such statistics.

Why are blacks more likely to commit crimes than whites? Because their general culture was altered by years of slavery and segregation. Add in television portrayals of African Americans and you've got a more crime-riddled culture on your hands.

Actually, that's not a fact. What is a fact is that in the United States, blacks are more likely to be *convicted* of committing violent crime than whites.

Huge difference.
My mistake ... fixed ...

At any rate, I'm just using them as an example. What I'm curious about, is if somehow a race has a general advantage, disadvantage, criminal tendency, whatever, is it racist to recongnize that? Or, what actions in response to knowledge of those differences would be racist and which would not?

There are genetic differences between ethnic human populations, only the most obvious being skin color. I don't think that it is racist to say, for instance, that endogamous Ashkenazi Jews, in general, have a higher intelligence quotient than other racial groups (again in general). Despite being a tiny fraction of the world population, 26% of all Nobel Prize winners are Jews (Source: http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html).

It is a fact that in the United States, blacks are more likely be convicted of violent crime than whites. It's also a fact that they have certain unique genetic characteristics (i.e. susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia); could a genetic characteristic explain the crime statistics? You might say that it is instead caused by lingering social or economic factors, or perhaps inequalities in our police or justice systems, but the possibility is there. To say that all blacks are crinimals would obviously be a racist generalization. But is it to say that blacks, in general, are more likely to be criminals due to genetics? Where and what is the nature of the line between recognizing these differences and being racist?
I think it's stupid to bring up genetics at all with regards to crime. The truth is that everyone has the free will to refrain from committing crime. Bringing genetics into this issue is simply absurd and unnecessary.

My mistake ... fixed ...

At any rate, I'm just using them as an example. What I'm curious about, is if somehow a race has a general advantage, disadvantage, criminal tendency, whatever, is it racist to recongnize that? Or, what actions in response to knowledge of those differences would be racist and which would not?
If you atribute genetic reasons to differences which studies have shown to be environemental, you're nor being fair. I've posted some time ago a big bunch of studies showing that the IQ differences between the various human races are environemental. I see no reason to believe the "criminal tendency" would have different reasons.

Ashkenazi Jews...other racial groups

what exactly is the racial model you are proposing here?

What I'm curious about, is if somehow a race has a general advantage, disadvantage, criminal tendency, whatever, is it racist to recongnize that?

more importantly, what if all the happily married bachelors of the world are anti-semitic?

If you atribute genetic reasons to differences which studies have shown to be environemental, you're nor being fair. I've posted some time ago a big bunch of studies showing that the IQ differences between the various human races are environemental.
What do you mean, exactly? Are Ashkenazis generally the best at math and reasoning because they are more or less trained that way by their families or schools? Or has natural selective pressure given them a genetic predisposition to excell in those areas? Or neither?

the single biggest correlation factor of crime is not race, but socioeconomic status. it's not simply that blacks are more likely to commit/be convicted of crimes, it's that poorer people are more likely to commit/be convicted of crimes - and there is a much higher population density of minorities in inner cities and poorer neighborhoods than affluent places.

lack of money lessens the options people have (it doesn't force them to commit crime, of course...), and that same lack of money makes them more likely to not "get away with it" like wealthier people often can.

what exactly is the racial model you are proposing here?
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand your question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi

... married bachelors...
wha???

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand your question.

it could be rephrased as "please list all of the 'races' you believe currently exist"

it could be rephrased as "please list all of the 'races' you believe currently exist"
For that particular example:

Ashkenazi Jews
!Ashkenazi Jews

For that particular example:

Ashkenazi Jews
!Ashkenazi Jews
lol

What do you mean, exactly? Are Ashkenazis generally the best at math and reasoning because they are more or less trained that way by their families or schools? Or has natural selective pressure given them a genetic predisposition to excell in those areas? Or neither?
The developement - both mental and physical - of a child is influenced by many factors. Among them: family size, nutrition, family environement, school quality etc. The IQ scores for the white population have improved constantly over the past century, as the quality of the above mentioned factors increased. It is called the Flynn Effect and it is belived it has ended in some developed countries (that is, we have reached an optimum). The Flynn Effect, however, started at a later date in Africa and for the second class citizens in the first world countries, for obvious reasons (the quality of life started to improve at a later date and at a slower pace for them). The Flynn Effect is still active for these categories of people. It will probably stop when the IQ's equalize.

I've found the studies I've mentioned. I'm posting them here again.

The Flynn effect: The Flynn effect is the continued year-on-year rise of IQ test scores, an effect seen in most parts of the world, although at greatly varying rates. It is named after New Zealand political scientist James R. Flynn, its discoverer, by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in The Bell Curve. The average rate of rise seems to be around three IQ points per decade. Attempted explanations have included improved nutrition, a trend towards smaller families, better education, greater environmental complexity, and heterosis (Mingroni, 2004).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

The IQ differences are due to differences in environement: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/rev1082346.pdf

The Flynn effect in Africa:Iq on the rise: The Flynn Effect in Rural Kenyan Children

Data for this project were collected during two large studies in Embu, Kenya, in 1984 and 1998. Results strongly support a Flynn effect over this 14-year periodhttp://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1467-9280.02434/abs/

Poverty and Brain Development in Early Childhood

Researchers have gathered new evidence on the importance of the first years of life for children's emotional and intellectual development (...) This window of optimal brain development is from the prenatal period to the first years of a child's life. While all children are potentially vulnerable to a number of risk factors which can impede brain development during this sensitive period, a disproportionate number of children in poverty are actually exposed to such risk factors.http://www.nccp.org/pub_pbd99.html

The National Assesement of Educational Progress shows a significant narrowing of the gap between blacks and non-Hispanic whites on reading and mathematics tests between 1971 and 1986http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815746091/html/182.html#pagetop

In Kenia, average IQ scores increased by 11 points over the 14 year period of 1984-1998 (almost three times the rate of increase in industrialized countries); the factors positivelly associated with IQ gains appeared to be parental literacy, shrinking family size and improoved childhood nutrition and healthhttp://www.siue.edu/~garjone/JonesSchne.pdf

A large (21,260 children) and probably the most recent (1998) study found that the Black-White gap for young children in reading and math scores was much smaller than in earlier studies, and that all of the remaining difference could be explained by a few environmental factors.[13] One possible explanation is that the Flynn effect started earlier for Whites but has now stopped, while continuing for Blacks. (...) Some reports indicate that the Black–White gap is smaller in the UK than in the U.S.[14] Other examples are Jews who score much lower in developing nations and Koreans who score much lower in Japan. (...) The difference between the neighboring white Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland is as large as the differences between Whites and Blacks in the U.S.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28Average_gaps_among_races%29

The conclusion of all the articles above (most of them published in peer reviewed journals) is that the IQ differences observed between races are not genetic, but environemental.

Yay! ANOTHER 'soft' racist thread! Seriously...did Stormfront have a server crash, and we're getting the refugees?

There are genetic differences between ethnic human populations, only the most obvious being skin color. I don't think that it is racist to say, for instance, that endogamous Ashkenazi Jews, in general, have a higher intelligence quotient than other racial groups (again in general). Despite being a tiny fraction of the world population, 26% of all Nobel Prize winners are Jews (Source: http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html).
So you're saying Jews are superior to other groups of people. It's a good thing that claims of racial superiority have never led to any problems for the Jews.

I don't think the success of Ashkenazi Jews has anything to do with genetics. I think it's more likely the result of a culture that prioritized studying; as soon as the opportunities for secular learning were open, the same dedication was applied to it, and success followed.

So you're saying Jews are superior to other groups of people. It's a good thing that claims of racial superiority have never led to any problems for the Jews.
Those are the facts. Is my statement untrue? I never claimed that winning Nobel Prizes or being good at math made one superior. If that is racist please tell me how.

Yay! ANOTHER 'soft' racist thread! Seriously...did Stormfront have a server crash, and we're getting the refugees?
I'm sorry if I've offended you. I'm just asking a question. I don't think I'm behaving in a racist manner. I've admitted that my example was flawed; I'm not trying to claim that there is a superior race or anything. Does a curiosity about this subject mean I am a racist?

For that particular example:

Ashkenazi Jews
!Ashkenazi Jews

now that's just silly

I've found the studies I've mentioned. I'm posting them here again.

The Flynn effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

The IQ differences are due to differences in environement: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/rev1082346.pdf

The Flynn effect in Africa:http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1467-9280.02434/abs/

http://www.nccp.org/pub_pbd99.html

http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815746091/html/182.html#pagetop

http://www.siue.edu/~garjone/JonesSchne.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28Average_gaps_among_races%29

The conclusion of all the articles above (most of them published in peer reviewed journals) is that the IQ differences observed between races are not genetic, but environemental.
Interesting. I haven't read them all yet, but the introduction does state heterosis as a factor (passing on of specific genetic traits).

now that's just silly
That's what is relevent, how am I supposed to know how to define race, or know what genes someone has?

Those are the facts. Is my statement untrue? I never claimed that winning Nobel Prizes or being good at math made one superior. If that is racist please tell me how.
I think that suggesting that one "race" is more intelligent is the same as suggesting that that race is generally superior, considering the extreme importance of intelligence. Secondly, although I do have objections to the truth of your statement, I simply haven't presented them at this point. I'm only saying that it's rather short sighted to make claims of racial superiority considering what those claims have led to throughout history.

how am I supposed to know how to define race

don't know. but it seems like that might be an important step to figure out before even attempting to make claims about any relative rankings of different races, no?

wha???

wha wha?

Yay! ANOTHER 'soft' racist thread! Seriously...did Stormfront have a server crash, and we're getting the refugees?

Jesus, just relax will ya? The guy is try to ask a real question and has openly said the he is no way racist. You and your overly sensitive PC pussuas coming here arnt helping debate. Let the kid ask a question, WITHOUT all the cries of RACISM RACISM RACISM.....God, did humanity turn into the softiest, biggest bunch of babies overnight, or is it just NS General. Asking a legit question and mentioning facts (he was right about the nobel prize thing) does not equal Racism. If you think it does, maybe your the one that needs to look at Stormfront and catch a glimpse at what REAL racism is. Stop complaining.

Those are the facts. Is my statement untrue? I never claimed that winning Nobel Prizes or being good at math made one superior. If that is racist please tell me how.


I'm sorry if I've offended you. I'm just asking a question. I don't think I'm behaving in a racist manner. I've admitted that my example was flawed; I'm not trying to claim that there is a superior race or anything. Does a curiosity about this subject mean I am a racist?

Dont be sorry, you did nothing wrong. Dont apologize to over sensitive people who get all up in arms over nothing. Sin seems to like to make a big deal out of nothing.

Asking a legit question...

yeah, i'm still wondering about my happily married anti-semitic bachelors

So you're saying Jews are superior to other groups of people. It's a good thing that claims of racial superiority have never led to any problems for the Jews.

Oh, relax. Go run a mile, get some energy out so you stop jumping to conclusions. He didnt say Jews are superior. What is it with NS General recently? It seems like everyone is Uber-Sensitive.

yeah, i'm still wondering about my happily married anti-semitic bachelors

I didnt understand what you meant there.

Dont be sorry, you did nothing wrong. Dont apologize to over sensitive people who get all up in arms over nothing. Sin seems to like to make a big deal out of nothing.
Sin...wait...not going to speak of myself in the third person....so "I" am a little tired of the obscene number of 'race' related threads, all of which in a very nice, very soft way, question the 'racial characteristics' of certain groups, and oh so sweetly make suggestions about certain groups based on 'genetics', and 'science'...because frankly, people here know they can't get away with the out and out n*gger talk that some would prefer, so they phrase it in a much more PC, but still offensive manner.

Yeah, you're right, I'm over-reacting. March on.

both race and crime are too complex to be easily studied.

its not racist to look at real differences in genetic groups. sickle cell anemia was mentioned. there are other diseases that tend to be more in one group than another.

it only really works when you can find isolated genetic groups. race isnt an isolated group. its a huge division of humanity with a great deal of intermixing from division to division and a great deal of natural diversity within each division. in groups that large genetics are pretty much equal when it comes to anything that has a complex etiology

don't know. but it seems like that might be an important step to figure out before even attempting to make claims about any relative rankings of different races, no?
All I've said is that Ashkenazi Jews (we can use Wiki's definition for simplicity), despite being less than one percent of the world's population, have over a quarter of the world's Nobel Prize winners. It's not a huge departure from logic to say that Nobel Prize winners tend to have better-than-average IQs (if it is, please explain). I didn't mean to imply that I had knowledge of any "rankings of different races" I just put that forward as an example.

You've also said the following:

But is it to say that blacks, in general, are more likely to be criminals due to genetics?

So, do you really think blacks are genetically criminal?

Sin...wait...not going to speak of myself in the third person....so "I" am a little tired of the obscene number of 'race' related threads, all of which in a very nice, very soft way, question the 'racial characteristics' of certain groups, and oh so sweetly make suggestions about certain groups based on 'genetics', and 'science'...because frankly, people here know they can't get away with the out and out n*gger talk that some would prefer, so they phrase it in a much more PC, but still offensive manner.

Yeah, you're right, I'm over-reacting. March on.

Your damn right, I'm right, your over-reacting.

If people cant come onto NS General as anoynmous nation names and ask questions they, for whatever reason, cant ask or found out answers to in real life, then whats the point of the this whole thing. The guy is asking a legit question, show me exactly, in the OP, what was racist, and I will prove you wrong. I think we need to sponser free trips to Stormfront so you...people...will understand what racism really is, and not cry wolf over normal questions about crime rates/IQ rates per ethnicity.

Oh, relax. Go run a mile, get some energy out so you stop jumping to conclusions. He didnt say Jews are superior. What is it with NS General recently? It seems like everyone is Uber-Sensitive.
Ashkenazi Jews, in general, have a higher intelligence quotient than other racial groups.
The idea that one race is intillectually superior is TOTALLY different from the idea that that particular race is generally superior, because we all know that intelligence doesn't matter at all.

His statement is entirely true, and I don't object to that. But such a statement, in order to be unbiased, should be made within the context that IQ tests are not universally accepted as measures of true intelligence, and that the concept of race has very little scientific backing.

You've also said the following:



So, do you really think blacks are genetically criminal?
That's a question, not a statement.

If you read the context of it, as well, you would notice that I only said it was a possibility. I specifically mentioned other possible causes, such as limiting social or economic means, or injustices in the judicial system.

The idea that one race is intillectually superior is TOTALLY different from the idea that that particular race is generally superior, because we all know that intelligence doesn't matter at all.

His statement is entirely true, and I don't object to that. But such a statement, in order to be unbiased, should be made within the context that IQ tests are not universally accepted as measures of true intelligence, and that the concept of race has very little scientific backing.

So you know what he is saying is true, yet you dont want to listen to it because it might be offensive?!

Wow, you are like the poster boy for the politically correct retardation of Humanity.

So you know what he is saying is true, yet you dont want to listen to it because it might be offensive?!

Wow, you are like the poster boy for the politically correct retardation of Humanity.

Or it could be he just doesn't give a rats arse. Same as me. I mean, who gives a fuck if one race is smarter than another?

Or it could be he just doesn't give a rats arse. Same as me. I mean, who gives a fuck if one race is smarter than another?

Thats fine...but it seems that he does care since he took time you to comment on the OP.

My problem is that he knows what the OP said was right, he just didnt wanna hear it because it might be offensive. I see a huge problem in that. I dont care if people care about the topic, but when they post on it it shows they do.


By the way, I do love how you say arse....its so...British. :D

So you know what he is saying is true, yet you dont want to listen to it because it might be offensive?!

Wow, you are like the poster boy for the politically correct retardation of Humanity.
No, I'm saying that, while his statement may be technically true, it is incredibly biased to bring up that fact while failing to bring up other facts that support the idea that different races are generally equal intellectually. It would be like saying that ice cream sales are directly related to violent crime without mentioning the fact that the connection is non-causal.

All I've said is that Ashkenazi Jews (we can use Wiki's definition for simplicity), despite being less than one percent of the world's population, have over a quarter of the world's Nobel Prize winners. It's not a huge departure from logic to say that Nobel Prize winners tend to have better-than-average IQs (if it is, please explain). I didn't mean to imply that I had knowledge of any "rankings of different races" I just put that forward as an example.

and ashkenazi jews are a 'race'? how do you know this?

I didnt understand what you meant there.

why not, it's a perfectly legit question

No, I'm saying that, while his statement may be technically true, it is incredibly biased to bring up that fact while failing to bring up other facts that support the idea that different races are generally equal intellectually. It would be like saying that ice cream sales are directly related to violent crime without mentioning the fact that the connection is non-causal.

No.

In fact I think thats a terrible analogy. How do Ashkenazi Jews have high IQ's and winning 1/4 of the world nobel prizes NOT have anything to do with intelligence per ethnic group????:confused: :confused:

why not, it's a perfectly legit question

I'm sure it was, I just didnt get what you were asking.

and ashkenazi jews are a 'race'? how do you know this?

They are not. They are some kind of mixed ethnic group. Ashkenazis are a group...but not a solid group...because they can come from many different types of people, nationalities, and ethnicites...so they are some sort of group.

There are genetic differences between ethnic human populations, only the most obvious being skin color. I don't think that it is racist to say, for instance, that endogamous Ashkenazi Jews, in general, have a higher intelligence quotient than other racial groups (again in general). Despite being a tiny fraction of the world population, 26% of all Nobel Prize winners are Jews (Source: http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html).

It is a fact that in the United States, blacks are more likely be convicted of violent crime than whites. It's also a fact that they have certain unique genetic characteristics (i.e. susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia); could a genetic characteristic explain the crime statistics? You might say that it is instead caused by lingering social or economic factors, or perhaps inequalities in our police or justice systems, but the possibility is there. To say that all blacks are crinimals would obviously be a racist generalization. But is it to say that blacks, in general, are more likely to be criminals due to genetics? Where and what is the nature of the line between recognizing these differences and being racist?


You've shown a correllation. There is a huge leap to saying they are criminals because they are genetically predisposed to such behavior. And in the absense of any evidence, yes, it's racist to say it.

Stating statiscal or evidenced fact is not racist. Ignoring evidence to the contrary, making racial assertions in the absense of evidence or assuming trends are indicative of the individual actions of a person are where racism comes in.

I'm sure it was

really? how many happily married bachelors do you know?

really? how many happily married bachelors do you know?

None...dude are you on crack?

They are not.

then doesn't that sort of undermine at least two of the assumptions inherent in the original post?

then doesn't that sort of undermine at least two of the assumptions inherent in the original post?

Not really...because if you replace the 'race' with 'ethnic group' or whatever word you want, the OP still stands.

Those are the facts. Is my statement untrue? I never claimed that winning Nobel Prizes or being good at math made one superior. If that is racist please tell me how.


I'm sorry if I've offended you. I'm just asking a question. I don't think I'm behaving in a racist manner. I've admitted that my example was flawed; I'm not trying to claim that there is a superior race or anything. Does a curiosity about this subject mean I am a racist?

Your example isn't really the problem. You made a huge leap in logic that is not borne out with a little more research. You noticed a correllation and suggested causation. That's not really a reasonable conclusion.

What if I noticed that 90% of people who were dying were overweight? Would it make sense to claim that dying caused you to get fat or do you think I'd probably have to look around for a bit more information?

None

ah good, i was afraid for a minute.

the point is that i can ask all of the questions i want about the characteristics of happily married bachelors, but they won't be legitimate questions because there ain't no such thing as a married bachelor.

now add this bit of information - races don't exist.

Not really...because if you replace the 'race' with 'ethnic group' or whatever word you want, the OP still stands.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't show any level of causation. It merely demonstrates a strong correllation based on a very subjective measurement. There are DOZENS of potential reasons for such a trend. Who selects the potential winners? Why do they select them? How do they select them? How might being part of that group in terms of what is available to them on more regular basis than to other groups affect the trend? He makes no effort to normalize the group for comparison but makes the comparison anyway. Its flaws are glaring.

and ashkenazi jews are a 'race'? how do you know this?
You're arguing semantics. Whether or not they're a 'race' by whatever definition you are using, the correlation between being ashkenazi and being a nobel prize winner is there. The word 'ashkenazi' would not even exist if there was not some kind of unique, distinguishing characteristic that defined ashkenazis. Are you trying to refute that? What do you mean by 'race' anyway?

So saith Wiki:
Askenazis = "Jews descended from the medieval Jewish communities of the Rhineland."

In the OP I specified endogamous ashkenazis. That's a race, according to the definition of 'race':

"A race is a distinct population of humans distinguished in some way from other humans. The most widely observed races are those based on skin color, facial features, ancestry, and genetics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race

At the very least they're an 'ethnic group' but what does it really matter?

Not really...because if you replace the 'race' with 'ethnic group' or whatever word you want, the OP still stands.

so when we come across assumptions that make questions nonsensical we should answer different questions instead?

i tried to get an answer about what exactly the op thinks races are. turns out that they don't know.

and ashkenazi jews are a 'race'? how do you know this?
Heya

I agree with this question. However, if this question were to be asked surely it could be debated that, if following logic, even a small change in DNA and the certain traits that follow would mean that there are thousands if not millions of different races of people on this earth; thus you really cannot call them a race...just a group. This person or science alone cannot prove they are a race, just a collective name for a group of people.:confused: :rolleyes:

(I'm with you Free Soviets)

Sorry if that made no sense...lol. I normally don't like posing points or arguing, but I thought I should say something. Please tell me if i'm wrong. :p

You're arguing semantics. Whether or not they're a 'race' by whatever definition you are using, the correlation between being ashkenazi and being a nobel prize winner is there. The word 'ashkenazi' would not even exist if there was not some kind of unique, distinguishing characteristic that defined ashkenazis. Are you trying to refute that? What do you mean by 'race' anyway?

So saith Wiki:
Askenazis = "Jews descended from the medieval Jewish communities of the Rhineland."

In the OP I specified endogamous ashkenazis. That's a race, according to the definition of 'race':

"A race is a distinct population of humans distinguished in some way from other humans. The most widely observed races are those based on skin color, facial features, ancestry, and genetics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race

At the very least they're an 'ethnic group' but what does it really matter?

Yes, but is the causation there. You haven't eliminated or even addressed the plethora of other options other than genetics for why that trend exists? Jumping directly to race suggests an agenda, and yes, I would say the same of someone who jumped directly to cultural or environmental causes. (Except of course, we know environments actually exist).

It's got nothing to do with genetics, it's all about the culture. In England, the blacks aren't more likely to get convicted. It's just because of the whole hip-hop culture of America that's brainwashing blacks AND whites. But it affects blacks more, because they have fewer role models to look up to. In America, many black people aspire to either be in music/hip-hop or sports. That's because they dominate those 2 areas.

How many popular black political figures are there today? Okay... Colin Powell, but he's like half-white. There ARE some, but most "role models" are in sports and media. I might get bashed on for being "racist" but I'm only speaking the truth. Just take a look at the media out there today.

Your example isn't really the problem. You made a huge leap in logic that is not borne out with a little more research. You noticed a correllation and suggested causation. That's not really a reasonable conclusion.

What if I noticed that 90% of people who were dying were overweight? Would it make sense to claim that dying caused you to get fat or do you think I'd probably have to look around for a bit more information?
In that situation, there are two possibilities: Either dying causes you to gain weight, or people who are overweight are more likely to die soon than people who are not overweight.

Are you saying, somehow, that winning a Nobel Prize makes one become an endogamous Ashkenazi Jew?

It's got nothing to do with genetics, it's all about the culture. In England, the blacks aren't more likely to get convicted. It's just because of the whole hip-hop culture of America that's brainwashing blacks AND whites. But it affects blacks more, because they have fewer role models to look up to. In America, many black people aspire to either be in music/hip-hop or sports. That's because they dominate those 2 areas.

How many popular black political figures are there today? Okay... Colin Powell, but he's like half-white. There ARE some, but most "role models" are in sports and media. I might get bashed on for being "racist" but I'm only speaking the truth. Just take a look at the media out there today.
I admit it. That was a bad example. That is not, however, the point I intended the thread to be about.

In that situation, there are two possibilities: Either dying causes you to gain weight, or people who are overweight are more likely to die soon than people who are not overweight.

Are you saying, somehow, that winning a Nobel Prize makes one become an endogamous Ashkenazi Jew?

There are not two possibilites. That is the flaw in your logic. The other possiblity that some of the other characterstics that are common or more common in that group are also a characteristic that causes the outcome we're seeing.

Nobel Peace prize winners is a very small portion of even their very small population. There are tons of non-genetic reasons why one might see such a trend. The fact that those reasons might be more or extremely common among the Ashkenazi Jews simply makes the idea easier to explore. It doesn't make it even likely to be genetic.

The example of black people and crime in the US is a great example, because we know of dozens of environmental causes for the trend. It doesn't rule out genetics, but it certainly makes it so there is little to no compelling evidence for the violent crime to be genetically caused.

Yes, but is the causation there. You haven't eliminated or even addressed the plethora of other options other than genetics for why that trend exists? Jumping directly to race suggests an agenda, and yes, I would say the same of someone who jumped directly to cultural or environmental causes. (Except of course, we know environments actually exist).

There are not two possibilites. That is the flaw in your logic. The other possiblity that some of the other characterstics that are common or more common in that group are also a characteristic that causes the outcome we're seeing.

Nobel Peace prize winners is a very small portion of even their very small population. There are tons of non-genetic reasons why one might see such a trend. The fact that those reasons might be more or extremely common among the Ashkenazi Jews simply makes the idea easier to explore. It doesn't make it even likely to be genetic.

The example of black people and crime in the US is a great example, because we know of dozens of environmental causes for the trend. It doesn't rule out genetics, but it certainly makes it so there is little to no compelling evidence for the violent crime to be genetically caused.

I see what you're saying. It's just sort of irrelevent in light of the point I was trying to make. Jews and Nobel Prizes was just an example; the correlation is what was important, not necessarily the acutal reason. You're right, I did say genetics in the OP but it wasn't an intentional exclusion of the other possibilities.

I admit it. That was a bad example. That is not, however, the point I intended the thread to be about.

No, it's a great example. The reason being is that we already know that there we find a strong correlation that is more easily explained by something other than genetics. Mainly, because we explored those avenues. Originally it was common to blame genetics but after to much exposure to so many other relationships we've discovered that it generally is not the likely culprit for such a thing. Your example of the Ashkenazi Jews is not compelling and does not evidence any attempt at all to explore or isolate other factors.

ok by them being jews sounds as if they r conforming to the same religion! thus only a group, if it is indeed correct that they have 25% of all the nobel prize winners, maybe god has enlightened them! or maybe through their religion it is mandatory to eat fish for example which as we all know is rich in omega 3 and fishy oils which is good for mentality, thus maybe it has nothing to do with dna, maybe if this group of ppl did not breed with other groups they may soon diverge and become a new race, and speciation may even occur!!

I see what you're saying. It's just sort of irrelevent in light of the point I was trying to make. Jews and Nobel Prizes was just an example; the correlation is what was important, not necessarily the acutal reason. You're right, I did say genetics in the OP but it wasn't an intentional exclusion of the other possibilities.

Fair enough. The correlation exists. I doubt you would get any argument on that point. As far as the causes of that correlation, if you jump to race-related genetics, yes, you are likely to be considered a racist in the absense of more compelling data.

How can it be caused genetically. If a black family were to adopt a white child, then, what are the chances of it giving into the ethics and way of life that are forced upon it by being in the black community?

that has nothing to do with genetics. Im sorry. but it just doesnt.

What do you mean by 'race' anyway?

i'm not the one asking questions that rely on the existence of the concept in order to even be answerable.

In the OP I specified endogamous ashkenazis. That's a race, according to the definition of 'race'

from what i gather, you think that there are at least two races; ashkenazi jews and 'blacks'. but how is it that 'blacks' are the race, and not masai, hutu, mbuti, ga, wolof, etc?

At the very least they're an 'ethnic group' but what does it really matter?

the terms 'race' and 'ethnic group' refer to different things and have dramtically different social implications.

u r a different race because u r physically so, thus for u to be a darker colour, or have different physical features have to be genetic.
micheal jackson's race is black he will always be black, thats his genetics, yes his skin has become white, that does not make him causasion, yet if u met him on the street not knowing u may believe him to be caucasion despite him not being so.

No.

In fact I think thats a terrible analogy. How do Ashkenazi Jews have high IQ's and winning 1/4 of the world nobel prizes NOT have anything to do with intelligence per ethnic group????:confused: :confused:
A similar question could be asked concerning the other member of the anology. "How is it possible that ice cream sales are directly related to violent crime if ice cream does not cause violent crime?" The answer, of course, is that both ice cream sales and violent crime are increased by a similar factor, warm weather.

Asking "How do Ashkenazi Jews have high IQ's and winning 1/4 of the world nobel prizes NOT have anything to do with intelligence per ethnic group?" shows a similar ignorance. There are other factors, aside from natural born intelligence, that cause people to score high on IQ tests and win nobel prizes. The Jewish culture happens to be wonderful with regards to promoting knowledge and academic persuits.

There is a solid amount of evidence that any claim of racial superiority in intelligence is, at best, scientifically unfounded. Did you know that genetic differences among the members of a race are more extensive than genetic differences among the races as a whole? That fact alone makes it rather silly to make any claim about "race." Another poster in this thread brought up the Flynn Effect. That fact shows that IQ is obviously not an accurate measure of natural born intelligence.

Furthermore, a white man with an IQ of 70 is considered mildly retarded. And rightly so. Such individuals tend to have difficulty functioning in society. Secondly, note that the average IQ among Sub-Saharan Africans is 70. These individuals, however, do not show difficulty in functioning in society. These facts put a massive whole into arguments of racial superiority based on IQ scores.

In conclusion, racism is always based on ignorance. I don't think I would say that the original poster is a racist. He was simply asking legitimate questions, and I hope I have been able to provide reasonable anwers. I will say this: I believe that his original post showed some of the ignorance embodied in many racists, and therefore he is probably in danger of becoming a racist if he is not correctly informed.

Forgive me if I have sounded reactionary. It is difficult, at times, to refrain from such emotions when I can see the potential for something as evil and vile as racism. We should not blame the original poster for this, however, as his ideas were merely based on a lack of information rather than a refusal to acknowledge the information that has been provided to him. In fact, he has shown to be very receptive to this information.

Well, stating that all black people in America listen to rap music would be racism...However, saying that saying that there is a large community of Rap admirers and saying that a majority of them are black isn't racism....thats just a social thing...so whats the arguement here?

Race is nonexsistent. Only .15% of the human genetic makeup composes skin color, eye color etc. The reason a disproportianate number of jews win the Nobel prize was because throughout history they were generally discriminated against, forcing them to get smarter and more business-savvy. The reason more blacks get convicted is because cops in general tend not to trust black people as much and are more prone to searching their cars then they are to other people. In addition, since so many more black people then white people are in poverty, more of them will have to commit crimes in order to get along.

Race is nonexsistent. Only .15% of the human genetic makeup composes skin color, eye color etc. The reason a disproportianate number of jews win the Nobel prize was because throughout history they were generally discriminated against, forcing them to get smarter and more business-savvy. The reason more blacks get convicted is because cops in general tend not to trust black people as much and are more prone to searching their cars then they are to other people. In addition, since so many more black people then white people are in poverty, more of them will have to commit crimes in order to get along.

...Because of ignorance, again.

However, how can one ignore racism? if one has to understand it first, then it won't ever go away. Unless we are never taught about it...But that, again, wouldn't work, because we cant surpress something as big as racism in today's world, so how do you educate people not to know about racism without telling them it doesnt exist in the first place?

I will admit that Ashkenazic Jews are more intelligent on average. And there is a good reason for it - they literally evolved slightly better intelligence over several centuries.

For this to work, you have to accept that intelligence is at least PARTIALLY genetic.

The Ashkenazic Jews lived in Europe and were forbidden to practice most professions. So they became bankers and moneylenders. These are professions that require (among other things) intelligence. The smarter ones were more successful, and had more children, spreading their genes within the Ashkenazic gene pool.

This condition continued for several centuries. There was time for a marked increase in intelligence to occur.

...endogamous Ashkenazi Jews...
So you mean Germans? :rolleyes:

Race is purely a man-made creation, if humans stop making a big deal about race and various racial prejudices and look beyond skin color, it will be a big step forward to stopping racism, although race has been so ingrained in our society that this will take a very long time

I will admit that Ashkenazic Jews are more intelligent on average. And there is a good reason for it - they literally evolved slightly better intelligence over several centuries.

For this to work, you have to accept that intelligence is at least PARTIALLY genetic.

The Ashkenazic Jews lived in Europe and were forbidden to practice most professions. So they became bankers and moneylenders. These are professions that require (among other things) intelligence. The smarter ones were more successful, and had more children, spreading their genes within the Ashkenazic gene pool.

This condition continued for several centuries. There was time for a marked increase in intelligence to occur.

That requires accepting a number of assumptions that have no real support in order to draw your conclusion.

There are a number of other explanations that could address such a thing. For one thing one would reasonably expect the culture of such a group to evolve to support those professions, thus helping develop such skills without a genetic difference. And the time frame you are talking about is a short period in the span of genetics.

Meanwhile there are different types of intelligence and the type that would be encouraged by such professions would not necessarily lend itself to nobel peace prizes. You're not talking about professions that would encourage creativity.

I don't find your claims compelling.

you don't find my claims compelling? Race is truly to small of a genetic factor to make a difference.

So you mean Germans? :rolleyes:

no, the races are jews, blacks, and everyone else. germans probably fall under 'black' in this guy's schema

Race is a man made creation, therefore it exists.....

Race is a man made creation, therefore it exists.....

just like the fountain of youth

There are differences between ethnic human populations, only the most obvious being skin color. I don't think that it is racist to say, for instance, that endogamous Ashkenazi Jews, in general, have a higher intelligence quotient than other racial groups (again in general). Despite being a tiny fraction of the world population, 26% of all Nobel Prize winners are Jews (Source: http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html).

It is a fact that in the United States, blacks are more likely be convicted of violent crime than whites. It's also a fact that they have certain unique genetic characteristics (i.e. susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia); could a genetic characteristic explain the crime statistics? You might say that it is instead caused by lingering social or economic factors, or perhaps inequalities in our police or justice systems, but the possibility is there. To say that all blacks are crinimals would obviously be a racist generalization. But is it to say that blacks, in general, are more likely to be criminals due to genetics? Where and what is the nature of the line between recognizing these differences and being racist?

I think people like you need to be readucated about different races and tolerance. I'm really tired of all these racist threads that have recenly popped here. No they dont commit more crimes cause of their genes, shudder* its just that their social and economic situation is bleak, and they feel like they have little or no hope of climbing the ladder to prosperity.

There are differences between ethnic human populations, only the most obvious being skin color. I don't think that it is racist to say, for instance, that endogamous Ashkenazi Jews, in general, have a higher intelligence quotient than other racial groups (again in general). Despite being a tiny fraction of the world population, 26% of all Nobel Prize winners are Jews (Source: http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html).

It is a fact that in the United States, blacks are more likely be convicted of violent crime than whites. It's also a fact that they have certain unique genetic characteristics (i.e. susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia); could a genetic characteristic explain the crime statistics? You might say that it is instead caused by lingering social or economic factors, or perhaps inequalities in our police or justice systems, but the possibility is there. To say that all blacks are crinimals would obviously be a racist generalization. But is it to say that blacks, in general, are more likely to be criminals due to genetics? Where and what is the nature of the line between recognizing these differences and being racist?

In our legal system, more whites are brought to court, and more blacks are actually convicted. Pointing to that as a realiable stat is misleading. People, judges included, have a preconception that blacks are more prone to crime, so that's what their actions tend to portray as well. The things that really cause crime are incentives, not genetics. White's are just as likely to commit crimes if the circumstances are the same - if you find cash on the ground, if you're addicted to drugs etc.

Furthermore, while there is no actualy evidence to support the theory of a genetically driven crime difference, there IS evidence to support the theory that racial stereotypes strongly influence both performance and judgements. In the most notable study I am aware of, two groups of minorities are given a test, and found to be of the same average IQ. Then, they retake a different but similar test, only the members of one of the groups are simply reminded beforehand that they are minorities. They do substancially worse than the control group.

As an evolutionary biologist in training, I'm confident in saying the salience of potential actions and outcomes is genetically based (IE the reason why people commit crimes is usually a byproduct of our evolution). It is extraordinarily unlikely, however, that criminality was selected for in minorities and against in whites. Same for intelligence, same for parenting ability, same for a host of any other behaviors you can think of. The environmental circumstances would have to be just too far outside of typical, universal human sociological behavior.

In short, there is evidence of discrimination and none for the evolution of genetic, behavioral characteristics that are segregated by race. This discrimination is called racism.

Furthermore, while there is no actualy evidence to support the theory of a genetically driven crime difference, there IS evidence to support the theory that racial stereotypes strongly influence both performance and judgements. In the most notable study I am aware of, two groups of minorities are given a test, and found to be of the same average IQ. Then, they retake a different but similar test, only the members of one of the groups are simply reminded beforehand that they are minorities. They do substancially worse than the control group.

I read about this test and the evidence is quite compelling in regards to not just the negative stereotypes that even members of the race hold but the effect of even mild suggestion. And the question simply asked the race of the participants. It proves that the studies that analyze things like IQ and race have to normalize for such effects and I've never seen one that does.

I don't believe that genetics (which is, of course, seperate from Race, as one is real, the other is not) has anything to do with a persons' personality. I don't care what science says, that is just something that I refuse to believe.

Any _statistical_ leads to suggest that one ethnic group is more criminal/intellectual that another can be brought down fairly definately to culture and upbringing.

I don't care what science says, that is just something that I refuse to believe.

that ain't healthy

There is a strong (negative) correlation between Eskimos and temperature...

So Eskimos cause the temperature to drop!

So, here is the solution to global warming: spread eskimos throughout the world!!!