NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just trying to discover whether you NS-users believe in the innate superiority of certain racial groups and if so to what degree. Or if you, like me, believe that it's so much hot air and that there's very little in it.

I'm just trying to discover whether you NS-users believe in the innate superiority of certain racial groups and if so to what degree. Or if you, like me, believe that it's so much hot air and that there's very little in it.
I'll copy my reply from the other thread (and reword it for your altered question):

I think science has proven that there are measurable differences between genetically distinct groups of people (for example, Indigenous Australians have a much better visual memory that the non-natives). I don't, however, think that any of the differences really matter.

I'll copy my reply from the other thread (and reword it for your altered question):

I think science has proven that there are measurable differences between genetically distinct groups of people (for example, Indigenous Australians have a much better visual memory that the non-natives). I don't, however, think that any of the differences really matter.
Yeah, what you said. Races are obviously different, and that will naturally mean some are better at some things than others. Those differences are pretty insignificant though and you can't judge whether one is better or not. Shouldn't you have voted for option #2?

Inside we're all the same. It's a shame we have to skin each other to prove it.

Shouldn't you have voted for option #2?
I assumed a limit to how specific an 'area' could be (if any level of specificity was allowed, you couldn't not vote for option - for example Africans are clearly the best at having dark skin and not getting sunburnt).

It is certainly possible that people from some ethnic groups are genetically more predispositioned towards certain activities. I don't know, and so far there has been no research that hasn't been tainted by the ridiculous beliefs of those that undertook it.

But even if such research was to appear, it wouldn't matter. We can all see that the individual qualities and experiences of a person are infinitely more important in defining that person's personality or skills. Education, personal interests, environment, and even my parents' genes and the like play a much bigger role in determining whether I can deal with algebra than whether or not I'm Asian.

The much more interesting question is: What do people who do this sort of research (or indeed publish it here on NSG) gain from it? What is their real motivation for doing it?

Racial lessons Ive Learned:

1. Never enter a foot-race with a Kenyan.

2. Never hire anything but a Jewish accountant, if at all possible.

3. Do not tell an Italian you arent hungry.

4. Do not attempt to rough up an old Chinese person...they may know Kung-fu.

5. French people are like dogs. when they get old, they start smelling funny.

6. Never embarrass yourself by playing math games with an Asian.

7. Germans LOVE warm Jagermeister.

8. Scottish cuisine is based on a dare.

9. Polish people are worse than Italians about over-feeding thier guests.

10. Irish folks really, really love to drink, and fight.

Contrary to popular belief, trhe Kenyan afffinity for long distance running is not a racial thing. Kenya is at a much higher altitude than most countries and so Kenyans develop 'thicker' blood which can carry more oxygen. When they run at lower altitudes this gives them an advantage over people from low countries with 'thin' blood. Most countries could produce such runners if they would send babies at birth to high altitudes and keep them there. If enough babies were sent one would be a talented sprinter and recive the thicker blood. It must be said however that thicker blood leads to a higher incidence of heart attacks and blood clots.

Contrary to popular belief, trhe Kenyan afffinity for long distance running is not a racial thing. Kenya is at a much higher altitude than most countries and so Kenyans develop 'thicker' blood which can carry more oxygen. When they run at lower altitudes this gives them an advantage over people from low countries with 'thin' blood. Most countries could produce such runners if they would send babies at birth to high altitudes and keep them there. If enough babies were sent one would be a talented sprinter and recive the thicker blood. It must be said however that thicker blood leads to a higher incidence of heart attacks and blood clots.

All I know, is that theres an annual foot-race every year not far from where I live....guess what nationality of person usually always wins?

Racial lessons Ive Learned:

1. Never enter a foot-race with a Kenyan.

2. Never hire anything but a Jewish accountant, if at all possible.

3. Do not tell an Italian you arent hungry.

4. Do not attempt to rough up an old Chinese person...they may know Kung-fu.

5. French people are like dogs. when they get old, they start smelling funny.

6. Never embarrass yourself by playing math games with an Asian.

7. Germans LOVE warm Jagermeister.

8. Scottish cuisine is based on a dare.

9. Polish people are worse than Italians about over-feeding thier guests.

10. Irish folks really, really love to drink, and fight.

Isn't it strange how the Jews recieved this reputation for being good with money in Early Medieval Europe when they were the only money lenders (Christians weren't allowed to at this point) yet when Christians started to lend money they were deserted. If people favoured the Lombard bankers why does the reputation persist?

All I know, is that theres an annual foot-race every year not far from where I live....guess what nationality of person usually always wins?

Where do you live?

Where do you live?

*holds up his right hand, and points to the bottom of his middle finger*

Right there.

If you were from the same state, you'd know what that means.

If it helps, not much above Sea-Level.

Isn't it strange how the Jews recieved this reputation for being good with money in Early Medieval Europe when they were the only money lenders (Christians weren't allowed to at this point) yet when Christians started to lend money they were deserted. If people favoured the Lombard bankers why does the reputation persist?

Truthfully?

I honestly dont know, but many of the best ones are.

Maybe its just a genetic knack for manipulating money.....(strange as that sounds)

*holds up his right hand, and points to the bottom of his middle finger*

Right there.

If you were from the same state, you'd know what that means.

If it helps, not much above Sea-Level.

Near Death Valley so Nevada?

The races are obsolete. I'm living proof of that. :)

Near Death Valley so Nevada?

Heh...no.

Death Valley is the lowest point in America in terms of Sea-Level....but I believe its actually lower than sea-level.

Michigan.

Surrounded by the Great Lakes...except to the south.

Not much above SL.

Heh...no.

Death Valley is the lowest point in America in terms of Sea-Level....but I believe its actually lower than sea-level.

Michigan.

Surrounded by the Great Lakes...except to the south.

Not much above SL.

Isn't there part of Michigan that's north of Lake Michigan (an enclave)? Or am I thinking of something else?

Mbandu are better basketball players than Mbuti on average, that part about race i believe...

Isn't there part of Michigan that's north of Lake Michigan (an enclave)? Or am I thinking of something else?
That would be an exclave rather than enclave, but yes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Map_of_USA_highlighting_Michigan.png

See also the Northwest Angle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Angle), a true exclave (not connected to other states).

African races are possibly superior because as a matter of fact they have larger gene pools than other human races (The reasons should be obvious for anybody believing in evolution-related stuff).

So the genetic range of capabilties is largest for African people which is the closest thing to being a "superior race" that I could imagine.

I think science has proven that there are measurable differences between genetically distinct groups of people (for example, Indigenous Australians have a much better visual memory that the non-natives). I don't, however, think that any of the differences really matter.
AFAIK, though, any differenes between groups of people are still well within standard deviation. So it's rather a moot point saying that one particular group is better than others, cause you'll always be able to find people within that group who don't do well and people outside that group who do in any particular task.

Biggest differences are due to diet, upbringing and education.

Isn't there part of Michigan that's north of Lake Michigan (an enclave)? Or am I thinking of something else?

We call it the U.P.

Upper Penninsula.

Its sourrounded on three sides by Lake Superior to the north, and west, and Lakes Michigan, and Huron to the south and east.

Even if such differences do exist, it would be difficult to tell. There are usually greater differences between individuals than between races, and too many other factors determine characteristics.

I'm just trying to discover whether you NS-users believe in the innate superiority of certain racial groups and if so to what degree. Or if you, like me, believe that it's so much hot air and that there's very little in it.



A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.





1.

The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.
2.

Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.
3.

The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.
4.

Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.
5.

Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
6.

Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.
7.

IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.
8.

Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.
9.

Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.
10.

Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.


http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530
http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

I wondered when you'd turn up, NN. I wish Jocabia were here, so you two could begin your duel again...

snip
http://static.flickr.com/11/15664893_7ee3c830b7_m.jpg
Ah well.
*grabs popcorn*

It is certainly possible that people from some ethnic groups are genetically more predispositioned towards certain activities. I don't know, and so far there has been no research that hasn't been tainted by the ridiculous beliefs of those that undertook it.

But even if such research was to appear, it wouldn't matter. We can all see that the individual qualities and experiences of a person are infinitely more important in defining that person's personality or skills. Education, personal interests, environment, and even my parents' genes and the like play a much bigger role in determining whether I can deal with algebra than whether or not I'm Asian.

The much more interesting question is: What do people who do this sort of research (or indeed publish it here on NSG) gain from it? What is their real motivation for doing it?
Arthur Jensen is one serious scientist who did such research on differences. He is not a racist, even though many tried to sabotage his work by saying so. I have his book. Very rational man. He investigated the differences between races with regard to educational policies and such. He found that education, while it can boost IQ a bit, cannot close the gap. Racial differences exist, yet like you say, they are not a reason for discrimination. They are, however, a reason to question the effectiveness of certain policies.

All should be offered equal opportunity and treatment before the law. That does not mean we should try and reverse the laws of nature though by making all equal, a task doomed to failure.

I'm just trying to discover whether you NS-users believe in the innate superiority of certain racial groups and if so to what degree. Or if you, like me, believe that it's so much hot air and that there's very little in it.
I believe in the innate inferiority of anybody dull enough to subscribe to such idiotic racist notions. :)

Inside we're all the same. It's a shame we have to skin each other to prove it.

Obviously not. Certain groups seem to have better abilities in some areas (differing areas of sport, for instance) than others, on the average. Some of this may be cultural instead of racial - but research should be done to determine why.

Ashkenazi Jews have a noted history of achievement. Though only 0.25% of the world population, Jewish scientists make up 28% of Nobel prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine, and economics, and have accounted for more than half of world chess champions. In the United States, Ashkenazi Jews represent 2% of the population, but have won 40% of the US Nobel Prizes in science, and 25% of the ACM Turing Awards (the Nobel-equivalent in computer science). A significant decline in the number of Nobel prizes awarded to Europeans and a corresponding increase in the number of prizes awarded to US citizens occurred at the same time as Nazi persecutions of Jews during the 1930s and the Holocaust during the 1940s.

It's kind of hard to ignore that. I'm not saying it's racial - or completely cultural - but it is an effect. It would be worth determining why the effect is so profound.

@ My Nordland:

But that doesn't answer the question of what an IQ test measures, or even what intelligence is.

To go down to the personal level, my IQ is 92, but I'm a BSc Hons (2.1) in psychology, aiming to go on to my PhD, and have always been an academic high-achiever.

@ My Nordland:

But that doesn't answer the question of what an IQ test measures, or even what intelligence is.

To go down to the personal level, my IQ is 92, but I'm a BSc Hons (2.1) in psychology, aiming to go on to my PhD, and have always been an academic high-achiever.

What does winning Nobel Prizes say? Or an unusually high proportion of academics, lawyers, doctors, and accountants? Scientists? Published scientific works?

Or long distance running? Or basketball?

Is it racial? Is it cultural? It would be nice to know.

MCLMM;11612585']What does winning Nobel Prizes say? Or an unusually high proportion of academics, lawyers, doctors, and accountants? Scientists? Published scientific works?

Or long distance running? Or basketball?

Is it racial? Is it cultural? It would be nice to know.

Do you think they'll give a nobel prize to a person who said "whites are superior", eventhough he discovered something extraordinary?

@ My Nordland:

But that doesn't answer the question of what an IQ test measures, or even what intelligence is.

To go down to the personal level, my IQ is 92, but I'm a BSc Hons (2.1) in psychology, aiming to go on to my PhD, and have always been an academic high-achiever.
So imagine how much more a person with 120 IQ and your disposition could achieve.

Do you think they'll give a nobel prize to a person who said "whites are superior", eventhough he discovered something extraordinary?

Probably not, because no one's proven that.

MCLMM;11612601']Probably not, because no one's proven that.
Many have proven differences though. Tangible ones. Read up on Arthur Jensen, for starters.

Many have proven differences though. Tangible ones. Read up on Arthur Jensen, for starters.

Which is why I say more research is needed.

We're all different...And that's well like that!

MCLMM;11612585']

Is it racial? Is it cultural? It would be nice to know.

It would be, but the Thought Police could never allow actual scientific research into the matter. As the old Christian adage goes, believe and do not investigate.

It would be, but the Thought Police could never allow actual scientific research into the matter. As the old Christian adage goes, believe and do not investigate.

Thought Police my arse. So what if there are little differences between races? Why should any of us give a flying fuck? It shouldn't even matter a fraction.

Why would we know if we're superior or not??? I mean, who minds???
Not me...

For [NS:]MCLMM

What is intelligence? One answer is that it's a tool used to keep an individual or group alive and/or thriving. So the question becomes 'what is an intelligent action/behaviour?'

Why is winning nobel prizes, becoming a lawyer or accountant etc. signs of intelligence? Because we've made a society and culture where they help an individual/group stay alive and thriving. Saying that, _worldwide_, unusual deviation from one single template of intelligence is important is a bit... well, Kenyan village children could say we're unintelligent when we're tested by their measures of intelligent actions and end up dead/diseased in a week or so!

http://home.mn.rr.com/jdweb2/psych/Sternberg%20article.PDF

Thought Police my arse. So what if there are little differences between races? Why should any of us give a flying fuck? It shouldn't even matter a fraction.
...

An example of what I was referring to. If we spend money on policies based on false assumptions, then it sort of does matter, more than a fraction.

...

An example of what I was referring to. If we spend money on policies based on false assumptions, then it sort of does matter, more than a fraction.

Oh, sheer brilliance. Give me an example of such a policy then.

Oh, sheer brilliance. Give me an example of such a policy then.
The belief that mere education will eliminate all IQ differences between individuals.

It would be useful to know what a person's genetic makeup it is, whether in terms of race or not. If these differences are so harmless, why oppose research that unveils them? Hmm?

So imagine how much more a person with 120 IQ and your disposition could achieve.

Disposition? My parents and lecturers wish! :p

I'm a depressive, I'm lazy, I leave everything to the last minute, and am totally lacking in ambition. Neither standardised IQ tests nor personality has predicted any of my successes.

As a pscyhologist-in-training, this is a bit of a worry...!

Disposition? My parents and lecturers wish! :p

I'm a depressive, I'm lazy, I leave everything to the last minute, and am totally lacking in ambition. Neither standardised IQ tests nor personality has predicted any of my successes.

As a pscyhologist-in-training, this is a bit of a worry...!
Perhaps then you are talented in what you want to do? IQ alone does not measure all facets of intelligence. Simply because you have an average IQ does not mean you are not gifted elsewhere.

The belief that mere education will eliminate all IQ differences between individuals.

It would be useful to know what a person's genetic makeup it is, whether in terms of race or not. If these differences are so harmless, why oppose research that unveils them? Hmm?

Because there are far better and less trivial things to be researching? Why whould we really care if one race has an iota of supposed 'superiority' over another? I certainly don't give a damn.

The only people I can see wanting to conduct this are race supremacists, so they can state they have 'scientific evidence' that the mudpeople are inferior to them.

Perhaps then you are talented in what you want to do? IQ alone does not measure all facets of intelligence. Simply because you have an average IQ does not mean you are not gifted elsewhere.

I'm the reverse, I have an above average IQ but I haven't found much I'm good at. Thats why I thought Id run for Government ;)

Contrary to popular belief, trhe Kenyan afffinity for long distance running is not a racial thing. Kenya is at a much higher altitude than most countries and so Kenyans develop 'thicker' blood which can carry more oxygen. When they run at lower altitudes this gives them an advantage over people from low countries with 'thin' blood. Most countries could produce such runners if they would send babies at birth to high altitudes and keep them there. If enough babies were sent one would be a talented sprinter and recive the thicker blood. It must be said however that thicker blood leads to a higher incidence of heart attacks and blood clots.

Wouldn't that make Tibetans and Nepalese the best runners in the world? :confused:

Meh, races are different. Different doesn't mean superior or inferior, it means different.

Because there are far better and less trivial things to be researching? Why whould we really care if one race has an iota of supposed 'superiority' over another? I certainly don't give a damn.
So what do you really care if it isn't your money being used for such research? And, if such research can indeed question the nature of expensive policies that are not working, then it is worthwhile. It is most definitely not up to you to question legitimate forms of such research. The research is not about superiority. It is about differences. Or should we stop researching differences between animals simply because it would somehow make one animal superior to another? :rolleyes: If this kind of research can help us reform how we educate children and so on, so as to aid them more efficiently, I am all the more for it. It is also vital in understanding how humans evolve.

The only people I can see wanting to conduct this are race supremacists, so they can state they have 'scientific evidence' that the mudpeople are inferior to them.
Utter rubbish. You are making worthless, presumptuous comments here that you cannot prove for all such researchers.

A lot of these differences are cultural. The family is the primary vehicle of socialisation, so, if we get a Jewish family expressing importance in the quality of money-wiseness, then that quality is likely to be passed on to the next generation. Likewise with a family that glorifies athletic expertise, or indeed, a family that glorifies violence or ignorance.

But of course, people are all different, and any absolute statement about a race relies on mass generalisation. Science may "prove" that Africans are statistically less intelligent, but it could equally be possible that the world's most intelligent person could be African.

Meh, races are different. Different doesn't mean superior or inferior, it means different.
THANK YOU!

Well, blacks seem to be really good at basketball, better than whites. :D

Really, trying to say one race is better than another is some ignorant idea by insecure people. We are equal. Get over it.

The only people I can see wanting to conduct this are race supremacists, so they can state they have 'scientific evidence' that the mudpeople are inferior to them.
I fear a world where academics think this. Education and research is about the advancement of knowledge; as soon as we start considering certain areas 'off limits' because they make our social sensibilities uneasy, the common expansion of knowledge suffers.

A lot of these differences are cultural. The family is the primary vehicle of socialisation, so, if we get a Jewish family expressing importance in the quality of money-wiseness, then that quality is likely to be passed on to the next generation. Likewise with a family that glorifies athletic expertise, or indeed, a family that glorifies violence or ignorance.
Indeed. A lot of them are. This is really a case of nature influenced by nurture. Cultural traditions followed over aeons as well as differing environments eventually lead to genetic differences.

But of course, people are all different, and any absolute statement about a race relies on mass generalisation. Science may "prove" that Africans are statistically less intelligent, but it could equally be possible that the world's most intelligent person could be African.
Very true.

I fear a world where academics think this. Education and research is about the advancement of knowledge; as soon as we start considering certain areas 'off limits' because they make our social sensibilities uneasy, the common expansion of knowledge suffers.
Yep. I oppose any such notions of censorship when it comes to furthering our knowledge about human nature.



Really, trying to say one race is better than another is some ignorant idea by insecure people. We are equal. Get over it.
Agreed. To say one is different to another though, is not.

Perhaps then you are talented in what you want to do? IQ alone does not measure all facets of intelligence. Simply because you have an average IQ does not mean you are not gifted elsewhere.

Could be - although a score of 92 puts me in the 30th percentile, if I remember rightly, so that's actually far below average :)

Are you talking about intelligence as 'developing expertise', in this case in psychology, perhaps? As a concept, that's not really compatible with the epistemology of an IQ test at all, is it? To accept the first means you can't really accept the second, can you?

As is, I've got competencies beyond 'what I want to do'. I draw and paint a little (1 exhibition in an online gallery, anyway :D OK, fine, it doesn't count!); have 3 published short stories (written after I dropped out of a law degree, but before I got a place to study psychology, a few years later); I liked history, english, politics at school and got into a good school of law (at Glasgow university) on the strength of my A-levels in those subjects. The thing is, as a test, IQ measures didn't detect any of these potentials.

I realise this is all only anecdotal, but it points to a more important point, that we're not actually sure what intelligence is, or how to measure it.

Meh, races are different. Different doesn't mean superior or inferior, it means different.Just "races"? I know I have traits that make me superior genetically where some aspects of daily life are concerned as opposed to other "whites".

People are people, nobody is exactly the same, some people have certain gifts that others don't have, it's not important who has what, it's important that everyone has a fair chance.

The end.

Wouldn't that make Tibetans and Nepalese the best runners in the world? :confused:

Well... I don't think there is enough flat ground to supply running space for all the people, that and the fact that the traditional dress includes an ancle-length gown probably means that they do not get a lot of running practice.

But that's just a guess, I don't know, maybe they are freakishly fast, but just haven't realised that innate talent.

Because there are far better and less trivial things to be researching? Why whould we really care if one race has an iota of supposed 'superiority' over another? I certainly don't give a damn.

The only people I can see wanting to conduct this are race supremacists, so they can state they have 'scientific evidence' that the mudpeople are inferior to them.

For ex: If these research were to be proved, a white mother who wants a child artificially might not prefer a black man's sperm, because it would dumb down the baby.
There, a usage for this type of research, other than your hypothesis...

For ex: If these research were to be proved, a white mother who wants a child artificially might not prefer a black man's sperm, because it would dumb down the baby.
There, a usage for this type of research, other than your hypothesis...
Your trolling is usually better disguised than that. I'm surprised.

People are people, nobody is exactly the same, some people have certain gifts that others don't have, it's not important who has what, it's important that everyone has a fair chance.

The end.
I concur.

Regarding the "thick blood" thing. I cannot remember of any good long distance running Bolivian, and they have the altitude thing, (check the altitude of La Paz city, as a example), and they have the cultural, historical background, (In the Inca Empire, the messages were delivered by long distance runners, who sometimes ran from Colombia to Chile in long strides). Weird, don't you think?

Regarding the IQ thing, I have measured 131, and yet my attention problem and my lack of focus and dedication have prevented me to achieve anything really big, out of having a successful professional career. Raw intelligence barely has anything to do with achievements.

Let's take world leaders. Chávez, for example, had a registered IQ of 91 when he went to the military academy here. I would want to check Bush's status in that department. Surprisingly, smart people usually do not reach the top.

If people with black skin colour were from a different race then people with white skin colour it would be impossible for them to have babies.

1 race: human race

Well... I don't think there is enough flat ground to supply running space for all the people, that and the fact that the traditional dress includes an ancle-length gown probably means that they do not get a lot of running practice.

But that's just a guess, I don't know, maybe they are freakishly fast, but just haven't realised that innate talent.

Body types are important, as well - africans tend to be relatively tall and slim in build as an adaptation to disipate heat. This adaptation happens to give them a body type well suited to certain kinds of athletics.

Regarding the IQ thing, I have measured 131, and yet my attention problem and my lack of focus and dedication have prevented me to achieve anything really big, out of having a successful professional career. Raw intelligence barely has anything to do with achievements.

Let's take world leaders. Chávez, for example, had a registered IQ of 91 when he went to the military academy here. I would want to check Bush's status in that department. Surprisingly, smart people usually do not reach the top.
Agreed. Still, what you are saying is that genetic factors do influence an individual considerably. Your attention deficit is no doubt some genetic malfunction. Certain genetic traits combine well, and when the right environment and mentality combines with them, you get very successful individuals.

If people with black skin colour were from a different race then people with white skin colour it would be impossible for them to have babies.

1 race: human raceNot according to the scientific definition, actually. Then again, the scientific definition usually only works for most animals and goes completely off target when used in botany.

If people with black skin colour were from a different race then people with white skin colour it would be impossible for them to have babies.

1 race: human race
Species. Humans are a species. Duh. Sort of like a Persian cat and a Russian blue...they can interbreed (much to their owners' dismay), but they are of different race (or breed).

If people with black skin colour were from a different race then people with white skin colour it would be impossible for them to have babies.

1 race: human race

:rolleyes:

Look up what species mean...

Body types are important, as well - africans tend to be relatively tall and slim in build as an adaptation to disipate heat. This adaptation happens to give them a body type well suited to certain kinds of athletics.

That's a positive stereotype

http://www.cherwell.org/files/1-3-Notorious-B-I-G.jpg

Agreed. Still, what you are saying is that genetic factors do influence an individual considerably. Your attention deficit is no doubt some genetic malfunction. Certain genetic traits combine well, and when the right environment and mentality combines with them, you get very successful individuals.

Well, hold on, take a step back and look at it.

God, I'm sorry if I sound rude, Aelosia, hope you'll forgive me if I give offense :(

Here's a person who says they have an "attention problem", a "lack of focus and dedication", and has not "achieve[d] anything really big, out of having a successful professional career" - they don't think they're doing so well.

If an IQ test doesn't in fact measure intelligence, or if our understanding of what 'intelligence' really is is flawed, this makes sense, and can be explained. Maybe doing well or badly on an IQ test is not an indicator of intelligence, I mean to say.

Of course, your explanation - "Your attention deficit is no doubt some genetic malfunction... Certain genetic traits combine well, and when the right environment and mentality combines with them", and by implication, that by misfortune Aelosia doesn't possess benificially-combining traits - fits the data just as well. But without further data, we can't say for sure which explanation is the right one, can we?

According to the Human Genome Project, there is less than a 200th of a billionth percent difference between the so called races. Scientifically speaking, there's MUCH more difference between a tall guy and a short one than black and white.

I'm sure My Nordland doesn't like the news, but thems the breaks.

BTW, HGP also noted that the famous book, The Bell Curve, which concluded that differences between racial IQs had to be somewhat genetic had no basis once the full map was out.

Race is a shatter shot that means... nothing. Sorry. Party's over.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/kron/archive/1998/02/23/race_part1.dtl&type=special
(Summary only, but not bad)

If an IQ test doesn't in fact measure intelligence, or if our understanding of what 'intelligence' really is is flawed, this makes sense, and can be explained. Maybe doing well or badly on an IQ test is not an indicator of intelligence, I mean to say.
IQ tests do what they are meant to; they measure a very specific type of intelligence, namely mathematical/cognitive intelligence. However, they are limited to that. It's not a flaw, just a limitation. If you want to measure intelligence as a whole, you need to measure more than just IQ.

Of course, your explanation - "Your attention deficit is no doubt some genetic malfunction... Certain genetic traits combine well, and when the right environment and mentality combines with them", and by implication, that by misfortune Aelosia doesn't possess benificially-combining traits - fits the data just as well. But without further data, we can't say for sure which explanation is the right one, can we?
Well it's the best interpretation I can give to the poster's condition.

Agreed. Still, what you are saying is that genetic factors do influence an individual considerably. Your attention deficit is no doubt some genetic malfunction. Certain genetic traits combine well, and when the right environment and mentality combines with them, you get very successful individuals.

Well, according to my tests, and my...therapist? the attention disorder is more a consequence of my upbringing, where my father and mother let me do whatever I wanted without further supervision, than to a genetical flaw. I had like 4 or 5 different activities during a week, from ballet, cello classes, to aikido, english classes, and wasted leisure time. I didn't have the chance to focus in one activity, and noone forbidden me or helped me to concentrate.

But yes, the gene pool is always a factor to take into account.

That's a positive stereotype

http://www.cherwell.org/files/1-3-Notorious-B-I-G.jpg

Is it? Africans are heat-adapted - taller and slimmer is a better body type in these circumstances, and so is more common. Caucasians, so the theroy holds, are cold-adapted, where shorter, more compact bodies and limbs come in handy to conserve rather than disipate heat.

It so happens that some physical activities are more easily performed by a taller, slimmer body type. Obviously it's not the whole story, culture and opportunities play a massive part, but it's part of the explanations of evolution and ethnic diversity.

That's my understanding of the situation, anyway - if there's new research explaining it differently, please point me to it :)

According to the Human Genome Project, there is less than a 200th of a billionth percent difference between the so called races. Scientifically speaking, there's MUCH more difference between a tall guy and a short one than black and white.
At least this project established one thing for good - that genetics does in fact influence an individual, unlike what the Blank Slate group are trying to sell us nowadays.

Is it? Africans are heat-adapted - taller and slimmer is a better body type in these circumstances, and so is more common. Caucasians, so the theroy holds, are cold-adapted, where shorter, more compact bodies and limbs come in handy to conserve rather than disipate heat.

So why are Nordics (and germanics in general) so tall? :confused:

Well, according to my tests, and my...therapist? the attention disorder is more a consequence of my upbringing, where my father and mother let me do whatever I wanted without further supervision, than to a genetical flaw. I had like 4 or 5 different activities during a week, from ballet, cello classes, to aikido, english classes, and wasted leisure time. I didn't have the chance to focus in one activity, and noone forbidden me or helped me to concentrate.

But yes, the gene pool is always a factor to take into account.
Really? Hmmm, I had an acquaintance who acquired an ADD genetically. I didn't know you could get it by nurture too.

Well, hold on, take a step back and look at it.

God, I'm sorry if I sound rude, Aelosia, hope you'll forgive me if I give offense :(

Here's a person who says they have an "attention problem", a "lack of focus and dedication", and has not "achieve[d] anything really big, out of having a successful professional career" - they don't think they're doing so well.

If an IQ test doesn't in fact measure intelligence, or if our understanding of what 'intelligence' really is is flawed, this makes sense, and can be explained. Maybe doing well or badly on an IQ test is not an indicator of intelligence, I mean to say.

Of course, your explanation - "Your attention deficit is no doubt some genetic malfunction... Certain genetic traits combine well, and when the right environment and mentality combines with them", and by implication, that by misfortune Aelosia doesn't possess benificially-combining traits - fits the data just as well. But without further data, we can't say for sure which explanation is the right one, can we?

None taken.

Once someone told me that I managed to do so well in the IQ tests because I loved to solve riddles and puzzles, and that the tests had similar problems that I could solve by association with the ones I had already seen elsewhere, thus gaining time to solve the innovative ones and gaining the upper hand in the overall. that could be an explanation, but then, if I have an edge to solve puzzles and be interested in them, isn't that alone a show of intelligence?, plus that the tests made when I was a little kid showed similar results, before I even took solving puzzles and riddles as a hobby.

Indeed, without further data, a "final" conclusion is out of reach for any of us.

The races are obsolete. I'm living proof of that. :)

No, admit it. You're a genetic experiment, LG-1138.

At least this project established one thing for good - that genetics does in fact influence an individual, unlike what the Blank Slate group are trying to sell us nowadays.
It's a very mixed bag. The current theories (in terms of education and language devlopment as that's my areas of study and interest) go for both. Neither side is able to claim that it and it alone holds the key to human devlopment.

Meaning nature only goes so far without enviroment, and enviroment can only do so much against nature.

Now finding the damned 50 yard mark to allow good devlopment is what's being currently argued. ;)

Regarding the IQ thing, I have measured 131, and yet my attention problem and my lack of focus and dedication have prevented me to achieve anything really big, out of having a successful professional career. Raw intelligence barely has anything to do with achievements.

maybe you have ADD, I have heard that a lot of really intelligent people do.

Is it? Africans are heat-adapted - taller and slimmer is a better body type in these circumstances, and so is more common. Caucasians, so the theroy holds, are cold-adapted, where shorter, more compact bodies and limbs come in handy to conserve rather than disipate heat.

It so happens that some physical activities are more easily performed by a taller, slimmer body type. Obviously it's not the whole story, culture and opportunities play a massive part, but it's part of the explanations of evolution and ethnic diversity.

That's my understanding of the situation, anyway - if there's new research explaining it differently, please point me to it :)

It doesn't depends on the body type, but in the nutrition. The same african could get fat and compact with a different diet from his early days. A genetic factor is present perhaps, but after all, upbringing and customs are at least the 50 percent of it.

For example, I have known several dutch people, and their usual type is tall and long, with elongated limbs, not short and compact. It is a fact that the height in the Netherlands is several centimeters higher than in most countries. Meanwhile, several sub saharian sub races present a short, compact build, as not all descend from zulu or masai heritage.

Again, any conclusion is not final, we have just the clash of different theories here.

It's a very mixed bag. The current theories (in terms of education and language devlopment as that's my areas of study and interest) go for both. Neither side is able to claim that it and it alone holds the key to human devlopment.

Meaning nature only goes so far without enviroment, and enviroment can only do so much against nature.

Now finding the damned 50 yard mark to allow good devlopment is what's being currently argued. ;)
Yes, I agree on this, it's definitely a combination of both. Luckily, people on the nature side of the debate recognise this (some do anyway). The other side refuses to even acknowledge the significance of genes in most cases. Which, to me, is utterly preposterous. What they should be doing is working out to what extent nature/nurture influence us, like you say.

IQ tests do what they are meant to; they measure a very specific type of intelligence, namely mathematical/cognitive intelligence. However, they are limited to that. It's not a flaw, just a limitation. If you want to measure intelligence as a whole, you need to measure more than just IQ.

Agreed - IQ tests are not the whole story of intelligence, was just seeking to highlight this in respect of My Nordland's post.

Interestingly, IQ tests may not even measure mathematical/cognitive intelligence very well - "Nunes... found that the same children (in Brazilian slums) who are doing the mathematics needed for running a successful street business cannot do the same types of mathematics problems presented in an abstract paper-and-pencil format". Similar findings for housewifes calculating shopping, and the guys who calculate handicaps for horse races (all at http://home.mn.rr.com/jdweb2/psych/Sternberg%20article.PDF, from p367 on, I think).

It suggests that actual skills do not always show up on IQ based tests, even those specifically geared to mathematics (obviously, many IQ tests are not geared purely to maths, and incorporate a range of intelligences, including verbal, visual-spatial, etc.)

So why are Nordics (and germanics in general) so tall? :confused:They are? In my experience, I'm tall for a German and medium sized for an American. My tall-genes come from my American side of the family, not my German side. I disagree with the common idea that Germanics are generally tall, since Germans are obviously not.

maybe you have ADD, I have heard that a lot of really intelligent people do.

Well, according to the test taken in my childhood, I had no ADD, it was discarded because I was able to focus if pressured and commanded to do so. People with ADD cannot concentrate easily all out of sudden. Of course, I could still have a variant of ADD, but that would need to be analyzed by an entirely brand new theory, and I am not a little girl anymore. :(

I can concentrate, but only if I want to, and usually I don't. For example, 9:28 am here and I have to deliver a news report in ten minutes, and here I am, writing this post.

Yes, I agree on this, it's definitely a combination of both. Luckily, people on the nature side of the debate recognise this (some do anyway). The other side refuses to even acknowledge the significance of genes in most cases. Which, to me, is utterly preposterous. What they should be doing is working out to what extent nature/nurture influence us, like you say.
It's more of a triad now, there's the Nature camp, the Nurture camp, and the both camp. The both has been gaining converts from the other two has medical technology keeps growing up.

There's always hardcores in any camp, but that's what keeps science and research fun and journals full of interesting articles. :D

(Yeah, I know, two years out of grad school and I can't wait to get back in and start poking around again. *sighs* I was born an academic)

They are? In my experience, I'm tall for a German and medium sized for an American. My tall-genes come from my American side of the family, not my German side. I disagree with the common idea that Germanics are generally tall, since Germans are obviously not.
Germans are average on the whole I suppose. Scandinavians, Dutch and Finns, though, are not. Very tall people. My question is what makes them so tall. Russians, similarly, tend to be tall. Again another cold-dwelling people.

Germans are average on the whole I suppose. Scandinavians, Dutch and Finns, though, are not. Very tall people. My question is what makes them so tall. Russians, similarly, tend to be tall. Again another cold-dwelling people.Lithuanians are tall, statistically proven, if I remember correctly. I don't know enough Scandinavians or Finns to tel, but I don't recall Dutch people being all that tall when I was there.

Well, according to the test taken in my childhood, I had no ADD, it was discarded because I was able to focus if pressured and commanded to do so. People with ADD cannot concentrate easily all out of sudden. Of course, I could still have a variant of ADD, but that would need to be analyzed by an entirely brand new theory, and I am not a little girl anymore. :(

I can concentrate, but only if I want to, and usually I don't. For example, 9:28 am here and I have to deliver a news report in ten minutes, and here I am, writing this post.

yeah. I get it.

Adult ADD (http://www.adultadd.com/index.jsp) you might want to look into it when you have time.

Lithuanians are tall, statistically proven, if I remember correctly. I don't know enough Scandinavians or Finns to tel, but I don't recall Dutch people being all that tall when I was there.
The Dutch average is the highest in Europe; 180 for males I believe. Scandinavians just trail barely behind...and from my time in Sweden, I can tell you that this is definitely true. I am 184, and I was only barely above the average there.

It's more of a triad now, there's the Nature camp, the Nurture camp, and the both camp. The both has been gaining converts from the other two has medical technology keeps growing up.

There's always hardcores in any camp, but that's what keeps science and research fun and journals full of interesting articles. :D

(Yeah, I know, two years out of grad school and I can't wait to get back in and start poking around again. *sighs* I was born an academic)
True. It's interesting to see what the radicals will come up with to support their theories. A lot of it is nonsense. Some is just fun. :)

So why are Nordics (and germanics in general) so tall? :confused:.

Because people wear clothes ;) Cold and heat adaptations only take you so far in determining body type. Nutrition, lifestyle, and sexual selection are other important factors. Height stems from all the factors interacting, the idea is that heat/cold adaptation is just another factor amongst many - like all the rest, it's not the be-all and end-all, but rather a shaping influence on selecting bodytypes.

Because people wear clothes ;) Cold and heat adaptations only take you so far in determining body type. Nutrition, lifestyle, and sexual selection are other important factors. Height stems from all the factors interacting, the idea is that heat/cold adaptation is just another factor amongst many - like all the rest, it's not the be-all and end-all, but rather a shaping influence on selecting bodytypes.
The Vikings and other ancient Germanics didn't dress too heavily though, did they? However, that is true, other factors always matter. I suppose being well-fed must've helped the ancient germanics and slavs considerably.

The Dutch average is the highest in Europe; 180 for males I believe. Scandinavians just trail barely behind...and from my time in Sweden, I can tell you that this is definitely true. I am 184, and I was only barely above the average there.The only statistics I managed to dig up were ones done by different groups. The Dutch did seem to be the tallest, but I do recall some news on Lithuanians replacing the reigning champion in average height of the EU countries when they joined.

The only statistics I managed to dig up were ones done by different groups. The Dutch did seem to be the tallest, but I do recall some news on Lithuanians replacing the reigning champion in average height of the EU countries when they joined.

The question of "race" is going to be moot after a while. Due to transport, there's more blending of previously isolated groups than before.

You may end up with even better combinations over time, if there are truly any genetic differences. And if there are any cultural differences that have a positive effect, those that carry on certain cultural norms may also see those positive effects.

There are negative effects to staying genetically isolated as well - the genetic diseases amongst the Ashkenazi Jews are due in large part to centuries of relative genetic isolation.

Certain cultural norms can also be detrimental.

The only statistics I managed to dig up were ones done by different groups. The Dutch did seem to be the tallest, but I do recall some news on Lithuanians replacing the reigning champion in average height of the EU countries when they joined.

Them damn commies -_-

Oh well, it's more than possible. Slavics and nordics are the tallest amongst whites, so it sounds reasonable to me.

1.- How often do you have trouble wrapping up the final details of a project, once the challenging parts have been done?

Often

2.- How often do you have difficulty getting things in order when you have to do a task that requires organization?

Rarely

3.- How often do you have problems remembering appointments or obligations?

Often

4.- When you have a task that requires a lot of thought, how often do you avoid or delay getting started?

Rarely

5.-How often do you fidget or squirm with your hands or your feet when you have to sit down for a long time?

Always

6.- How often do you feel overly active and compelled to do things, like you were driven by a motor?

Very Often

RESULTS
The responses you have provided indicate that your symptoms may be consistent with Adult ADD. Only your healthcare professional can make a definite diagnosis. If you have concerns or questions regarding ADD, please discuss your results with a physician and/or healthcare professional.

Well, alright. A visit to feed my therapist's family is in order. There is a point. I hope they have already developed a treatment for that.

The question of "race" is going to be moot after a while. Due to transport, there's more blending of previously isolated groups than before.

Provided that there is a predilection to marry out of one's race. It isn't always true that people find exotic looks alluring. Quite the opposite, what is usually considered attractive is the average look of the race (or society, rather) according to experts on the matter. People tend to prefer certain attributes over others, usually those that resemble their's more. So, while you may see a Spanish woman marrying a German man, it's less likely in cases where greater differences exist. Exceptions exist, but are nowhere near as common as we tend to think.

I myself only like white people sexually, and specifically male blondes. Other skin colours, as with women, simply do not draw me at all.

1.- How often do you have trouble wrapping up the final details of a project, once the challenging parts have been done?

Often

2.- How often do you have difficulty getting things in order when you have to do a task that requires organization?

Rarely

3.- How often do you have problems remembering appointments or obligations?

Often

4.- When you have a task that requires a lot of thought, how often do you avoid or delay getting started?

Rarely

5.-How often do you fidget or squirm with your hands or your feet when you have to sit down for a long time?

Always

6.- How often do you feel overly active and compelled to do things, like you were driven by a motor?

Very Often

RESULTS
The responses you have provided indicate that your symptoms may be consistent with Adult ADD. Only your healthcare professional can make a definite diagnosis. If you have concerns or questions regarding ADD, please discuss your results with a physician and/or healthcare professional.

Well, alright. A visit to feed my therapist's family is in order. There is a point. I hope they have already developed a treatment for that.

Where did you get that?

Where did you get that?

Smunkee's link.

According to the Human Genome Project, there is less than a 200th of a billionth percent difference between the so called races. Scientifically speaking, there's MUCH more difference between a tall guy and a short one than black and white.

I'm sure My Nordland doesn't like the news, but thems the breaks.

BTW, HGP also noted that the famous book, The Bell Curve, which concluded that differences between racial IQs had to be somewhat genetic had no basis once the full map was out.

Race is a shatter shot that means... nothing. Sorry. Party's over.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/kron/archive/1998/02/23/race_part1.dtl&type=special
(Summary only, but not bad)

Monkeys are 99% genetically identical to humans. That 1 percent makes a huge difference althought it's a small number. When it comes to genetics, small numbers make huge differences.
As for the claims in this thread about there are more genetic variation within a race then between races:


Distribution of genetic variation within/between populations

Some scientists have argued there exists more variation within racial groups than between, and therefore human races have no taxonomic value. This opinion can be traced back to a 1972 paper by Richard Lewontin. Some researchers report the variation between racial groups (measured by Sewall Wright's population structure statistic FST) accounts for as little as 5-7% of human genetic variation. This argument was widely popularized after Lewontin's original publication.

However, most geneticists now recognize that low FST values do not invalidate the suggestion that there might be different human races because of technical limitations of FST (Edwards, 2003), see Lewontin's Fallacy.

Populations within continents are more closely related to one another than to populations on other continents. Genetic variation between races is highly structured (Risch, 2002). Thus, when one considers many points (i.e., genetic loci) of variation one can distinguish groups and allocate people into groups (Bamshad, 2004).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_views_on_race#Distribution_of_genetic_variation_within.2Fbetween_populations

Party still goes on for the un-ignorant people, Nervun ;)

I'm just trying to discover whether you NS-users believe in the innate superiority of certain racial groups and if so to what degree. Or if you, like me, believe that it's so much hot air and that there's very little in it.

Not at all. I think people who advocate such things are off their game:sniper:

From me to you, Ny Nordland

http://www.throwtheword.com/uploaded_images/nazi_flag_150-701540.gif
Umm...he is supporting an argument, not arguing that races are inferior/superior to one another. Since when does that make someone a Nazi?

*snip*

Might not want to do that, if I were you.

Woah, swastika ban-ness. Use this instead :p

http://images.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/10-03-03-nazi/deviloki_hitler.jpg

Of course, I should say, it's no wonder that many people are ignorant about this subject. Media was biased in this matter even before whole PC stupidness...


Snyderman and Rothman (1988), conducted a study of the news media (newspapers, news magazines, and broadcast TV news) and surveyed the opinions of journalists and science editors. (They separately surveyed intelligence experts, including scholars in the subfields of psychology, sociology, cognitive science, education, and genetics.) They concluded that media coverage of intelligence related topics was overall inaccurate and misleading. They attributed this partly to a tendency of the news media to emphasize controversy, and the difficulty of accurately reporting technical issues such as complex statistics. However, they conclude that these factors alone cannot account for their finding that the media has misreported the views of the scientific community, especially about the role of genetic and environmental factors in explaining individual and group differences in IQ. Among psychologists, sociologists, cognitive scientists, educators, and geneticists (in 1987), 53% thought that the black-white gap was partially genetic and 17% thought that it was entirely environmental. No poll option was provided to indicate "predominantly (but not entirely) environmental".

Journalists, science editors, and IQ experts were asked their "opinion of the source of the black-white difference in IQ

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Snyderman-rothman-opinion.PNG

They found that the media regularly presented the views of Stephen Jay Gould and Leon Kamin as representative of mainstream opinion among experts, whereas those who stress that individual and group differences may be partly genetic (e.g., Arthur Jensen) are characterized as a minority. According to Synderman and Rothman, their survey of expert opinion found that the opposite is actually true. The proportion of experts supporting these hypotheses today is unknown. Prominent critic Robert Sternberg defended the minority view as such in 1995, stating "science isn't done by majority rule."[3] Critic Reginald Wilson states in 1992 "Although we may believe that we live in an enlightened age, most of my colleagues [in psychology] believe indeed that there are substantial genetic components to the lower IQ scores that are on average earned by African-Americans and by Hispanics compared to whites and Asians. And that has been substantiated by surveys of them and of the leading experts in the field" (Mathews 1992).


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

Of course, I should say, it's no wonder that many people are ignorant about this subject. Media was biased in this matter even before whole PC stupidness...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28Media_portrayal%29
As I said, the Thought Police will ensure that no meaningful research can be made into the matter. Jensen, who is not a racist, received death threats for simply saying education cannot greatly increase IQ in response to a question by the Harvard Educational Review. Not a very free environment to speak in, now is it?

As I said, the Thought Police will ensure that no meaningful research can be made into the matter. Jensen, who is not a racist, received death threats for simply saying education cannot greatly increase IQ in response to a question by the Harvard Educational Review. Not a very free environment to speak in, now is it?
That implies IQ isn't a particularly good measure of intelligence, now is it?

Sadly, since the 70's investigators do not make the rules. We journalists do, so take it and resume it.

You can call us ignorant, but the point is that you do not realize the subtle nature of the agenda building and the agenda setting. The point is that race unity must be encouraged, not the race differences.

That implies IQ isn't a particularly good measure of intelligence, now is it?
Why the death threats though? The man was giving a response based on his findings. If IQ is insufficient, then use another, improved measure. What if it again found the same results? Genetic factors (and I do not mean only in terms of race) matter. The Blank Slate argument is idiotic. His response is accordingly not surprising.

Sadly, since the 70's investigators do not make the rules. We journalists do, so take it and resume it.

You can call us ignorant, but the point is that you do not realize the subtle nature of the agenda building and the agenda setting. The point is that race unity must be encouraged, not the race differences.
So people should be lied to? :confused: That there are no such differences, even if they are there? Better that people know what they are, and to what extent they influence human beings, than the media lies and covers it up.

You all make me scared!!!!!!
Why do you want to know if there's a superior race????

Sadly, since the 70's investigators do not make the rules. We journalists do, so take it and resume it.

You can call us ignorant, but the point is that you do not realize the subtle nature of the agenda building and the agenda setting. The point is that race unity must be encouraged, not the race differences.

I'll call majority of media ignorant and stupid. Americans were mislead by their media during Iraq war. Everytime I flipped to an American news channel, like fox, they were broadcasting war in Iraq as in part of war in terror, although Iraq didnt have anything to do with 9/11 or Al Queda. Maybe those journalist thought they were doing a good job by misleading (encouraging as you put it) American people to "patriotness", but we all know how Iraq turned out...

So people should be lied to? :confused: That there are no such differences, even if they are there? Better that people know what they are, and to what extent they influence human beings, than the media lies and covers it up.

Lied? Who is talking about lies?

You are pointing at a theory, the results of investigations that also have the results of investigations entirely opposed to them. We the media just like to give more space to the other side of the investigations than yours, giving support to the theory that we like more. That is not lying, that is just setting.

OF COURSE RACE DIFFENRENCES MUST BE ENCOURAGED!!!!!!!!!!!! You're crazy!!! You're really crazy!!!!!!
You all need to go to the hospital, there's no superior race!!! We must live together...

Lied? Who is talking about lies?

You are pointing at a theory, the results of investigations that also have the results of investigations entirely opposed to them. We the media just like to give more space to the other side of the investigations than yours, giving support to the theory that we like more. That is not lying, that is just setting.
So what ever happened to objective reporting for the sake of science and knowledge? That went out the window too?

So people should be lied to? :confused: That there are no such differences, even if they are there? Better that people know what they are, and to what extent they influence human beings, than the media lies and covers it up.
Genetic differences in intelligence may exist between races, but they are far too insignificant to have any impact whatsoever on daily life. Knowledge that some races are smarter than others, no matter by how small a margin, would do much more harm than good. The racists would believe they were vindicated.

Genetic differences in intelligence may exist between races, but they are far too insignificant to have any impact whatsoever on daily life. Knowledge that some races are smarter than others, no matter by how small a margin, would do much more harm than good. The racists would believe they were vindicated.
To be honest, I do not care what racists would think or not. Scientific research cannot be hindered just because of this. If we use policies -costly policies- that are based on false presumptions, as I said, what good are we doing? I am all for objective research into human nature and differences/similarities amongst us.

It is for a scientist to tell us how great differences in intelligence are, and to what they can be attributed. Not the media, nor anyone else.

Woah, swastika ban-ness. Use this instead :p

http://images.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/10-03-03-nazi/deviloki_hitler.jpg

So according to this pic, The PC police are the evil agents of evil empire while Nazis fight for freedom?

So according to this pic, The PC police are the evil agents of evil empire while Nazis fight for freedom?
Ah, but you see, Imperial stormtroopers have a similar coolness rating to pirate ninja Chuck Norrises.

So according to this pic, The PC police are the evil agents of evil empire while Nazis fight for freedom?
LOL

That's certainly one way of looking at it. :p

Genetic differences in intelligence may exist between races, but they are far too insignificant to have any impact whatsoever on daily life. Knowledge that some races are smarter than others, no matter by how small a margin, would do much more harm than good. The racists would believe they were vindicated.

Unless, you are a person graduated from a relevant field in a university, preferably with a PhD and a published study in a relevant matter, your opinion holds no value. If you are unqualified but want to contribute to discussion, use links which quotes professionals.

I'll call majority of media ignorant and stupid. Americans were mislead by their media during Iraq war. Everytime I flipped to an American news channel, like fox, they were broadcasting war in Iraq as in part of war in terror, although Iraq didnt have anything to do with 9/11 or Al Queda. Maybe those journalist thought they were doing a good job by misleading (encouraging as you put it) American people to "patriotness", but we all know how Iraq turned out...

Ignorant? the word ignorant is when you do not know something, not just when you know it and decide to not show it. Stupid? well, stupid is a extremely unobetive word.

Fox?, yes, they have the agenda to support the Bush's administration, and they try to do it as better as they can. Here we call them "Fush News". CNN also treat the american actions outside their borders with privilege.

You are supposed to support what you think it is the best. In theory, merely communicational theory, people will stop to listen or watch you if you pull an agenda that is contrary to their beliefs and will start watching another channel. And it happens, so, channels like Fush News have a public that wants to receive those news, as they broadcast them, or noone would watch them. What's wrong with giving a certain public exactly what they want?

The Chávez administration here, for example, from time to time manages to make something good by mistake. However, we don't remark that to the public, they could be mislead into thinking the goverment is working for their greater good, when it is not that way, so we prefer them to be mislead into thinking the goverment is a total mess. (After all, it is not like they are far off that mark). People actually want to hear about Chávez mistakes, not his achievements, so what's wrong with that?

The Chávez administration here, for example, from time to time manages to make something good by mistake. However, we don't remark that to the public, they could be mislead into thinking the goverment is working for their greater good, when it is not that way, so we prefer them to be mislead into thinking the goverment is a total mess. (After all, it is not like they are far off that mark). People actually want to hear about Chávez mistakes, not his achievements, so what's wrong with that?
Since when is reporting the whole truth something bad? There is a lot wrong with this. The media can report objectively. Why must it tell people what to think? It's like saying, we will tell you what you want to hear to get your cash.

Tell people the objective truth, then let them decide for themselves. Or are people that stupid that the omniscient media must control their every thought?

Unless, you are a person graduated from a relevant field in a university, preferably with a PhD and a published study in a relevant matter, your opinion holds no value. If you are unqualified but want to contribute to discussion, use links which quotes professionals.

Yes, only NBA players are allowed to play basketball, only professionally-trained concert pianists should play piano, and only experts are allowed to have an opinion.

This is the same concept that provides me work in Europe. A lot of European firms won't hire anyone to run software projects who isn't a PhD in CompSci.

Been to, and rescued, more than one failed software project there. Met many a PhD who couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag. And I have a degree in English Literature and a degree in Law.

Go figure.

Monkeys are 99% genetically identical to humans.
Off-hand, that doesnt sound right to me, perhaps you mean chimps?
Either way...
That 1 percent makes a huge difference althought it's a small number. When it comes to genetics, small numbers make huge differences.
It's not about numbers, it's about gene expression. The different arrangement of the genetic material of say chimps (to that of humans) adequately explains why chimps would be so different from humans even if the actual genes involved were 100% identical.

As for the claims in this thread about there are more genetic variation within a race then between races:

The text in your post doesnt actually refute such a position.

Yes, only NBA players are allowed to play basketball, only professionally-trained concert pianists should play piano, and only experts are allowed to have an opinion.

What he means, and I agree with, is that in such matters where considerable research and knowledge is required, an expert scientist's findings are of far greater weight than what people opine to be the case.

Since when is reporting the whole truth something bad? There is a lot wrong with this. The media can report objectively. Why must it tell people what to think? It's like saying, we will tell you what you want to hear to get your cash.

Tell people the objective truth, then let them decide for themselves. Or are people that stupid that the omniscient media must control their every thought?

News channels tells as many people as it can as close to what they want to hear as they can, so they can get a large audience, high ratings, and make money. They don't exist to keep us informed about current affairs, they exist to make money, like almost every other business.

So what ever happened to objective reporting for the sake of science and knowledge? That went out the window too?

The what??

That went out the window years ago. Welcoe to the New Age of Journalism and the New World Order. People that struggle for those "ethic" values are either swallowed by the mainstream or placed aside. It is just funny that even the public do not pay heed to them anymore.

Want to make an experiment with that? Take these forums. People here do not want to read objetive points of view or comments. They want, they crave to read things related with their own points of view. Or at least find people with their own points of view so they can try to drill them into the minds of those who do not share their optic. So, struggle is in order.

The public now want sided news, they want to hear the broadcasters displaying a similar point of view of their own. Yet, the media maintain the diversity. If you don't want to hear neocon and Fush News, you can always find the liberal media to oppose it.ç so everything is good, and the free speech is still respected. Noone wants neutrality of the information, they want partial reports and political oriented facts.

What he means, and I agree with, is that in such matters where considerable research and knowledge is required, an expert scientist's findings are of far greater weight than what people opine to be the case.

And we're not allowed to use logic to draw any conclusions from evidence in links to studies. We're supposed to only repeat the conclusions of the researchers, and stop thinking for ourselves.

The what??

That went out the window years ago. Welcoe to the New Age of Journalism and the New World Order. People that struggle for those "ethic" values are either swallowed by the mainstream or placed aside. It is just funny that even the public do not pay heed to them anymore.

Want to make an experiment with that? Take these forums. People here do not want to read objetive points of view or comments. They want, they crave to read things related with their own points of view. Or at least find people with their own points of view so they can try to drill them into the minds of those who do not share their optic. So, struggle is in order.

The public now want sided news, they want to hear the broadcasters displaying a similar point of view of their own. Yet, the media maintain the diversity. If you don't want to hear neocon and Fush News, you can always find the liberal media to oppose it.ç so everything is good, and the free speech is still respected. Noone wants neutrality of the information, they want partial reports and political oriented facts.
Then what NN said is more or less correct...very little trust can be put in the hands of the media.

Unless, you are a person graduated from a relevant field in a university, preferably with a PhD and a published study in a relevant matter, your opinion holds no value. If you are unqualified but want to contribute to discussion, use links which quotes professionals.
Links that quote professionals? Look at Mr Wikipedia... :p
Most race-intelligence studies done seem to have mostly involved IQ testing. Europa Maxima's quote seems to have implied (about not being able to increase IQ by education- why wouldn't you be able to increase your intelligence???) that IQ testing is unrelated to intelligence, and there is controversy over whether it is. IQ testing, and the belief that some races are more intelligent than others, has already been used in the past for a racist agenda.
The founding fathers of the testing industry saw testing as one way of achieving the eugenicist aims. Goddard's belief in the innateness and inalterability of intelligence levels, for example, was so firm that he argued for the reconstruction of society along the lines dictated by IQ scores:

If mental level plays anything like the role it seems to, and if in each human being it is the fixed quantity that many believe it is, then it is no useless speculation that tries to see what would happen if society were organized so as to recognize and make use of the doctrine of mental levels… It is quite possible to restate practically all of our social problems in terms of mental level… Testing intelligence is no longer an experiment or of doubted value. It is fast becoming an exact science… Greater efficiency, we are always working for. Can these new facts be used to increase our efficiency? No question! We only await the Human Engineer who will undertake the work.10

As a result of his views on intelligence and society, Goddard lobbied for restrictive immigration laws. Upon his “discovery” that all immigrants, except those from Northern Europe, were of “surprisingly low intelligence;” such tight immigration laws were enacted in the 1920s.11 According to Harvard professor Steven Jay Gould in his acclaimed book The Mismeasure of Man, these tests were also influential in legitimizing forced sterilization of allegedly “defective” individuals in some states.12
http://www.audiblox2000.com/dyslexia_dyslexic/dyslexia014.htm

And we're not allowed to use logic to draw any conclusions from evidence in links to studies. We're supposed to only repeat the conclusions of the researchers, and stop thinking for ourselves.
You may try and use logic, but unless you can concretely disprove their findings, it is only an opinion in the end. Science must be dealt with using science, not opinion. If genetic differences exist between races, and they do so independently of human opinion, then that is a fact. No amount of wishing it away will make it disappear. Unless you buy into the theory that perception is reality, which I find to be highly questionable indeed.

Since when is reporting the whole truth something bad? There is a lot wrong with this. The media can report objectively. Why must it tell people what to think? It's like saying, we will tell you what you want to hear to get your cash.

Tell people the objective truth, then let them decide for themselves. Or are people that stupid that the omniscient media must control their every thought?

People...Stupid? No way, they want to pay for what they want, and they want tha kind of news. they have already decided by themselves what they want to hear, so the media gives it to them.

Media omniscient? yeah right, we would like...

We impose our beliefs in people? No, sorry, but the public impose their views on us. We just report what we know they want to hear so they can give us their money. We do not tell them what to hear, they tell us what to say.

Yes, only NBA players are allowed to play basketball, only professionally-trained concert pianists should play piano, and only experts are allowed to have an opinion.

This is the same concept that provides me work in Europe. A lot of European firms won't hire anyone to run software projects who isn't a PhD in CompSci.

Been to, and rescued, more than one failed software project there. Met many a PhD who couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag. And I have a degree in English Literature and a degree in Law.

Go figure.

You can play basketball without being a NBA player but when you make a statement about something controversial as if you are the final authority, without having any relevant qualification, you are only suffering from visions of grandeur and hence your opinion holds no value.

Links that quote professionals? Look at Mr Wikipedia... :p
Most race-intelligence studies done seem to have mostly involved IQ testing. Europa Maxima's quote seems to have implied (about not being able to increase IQ by education- why wouldn't you be able to increase your intelligence???) that IQ testing is unrelated to intelligence, and there is controversy over whether it is. IQ testing, and the belief that some races are more intelligent than others, has already been used in the past for a racist agenda.

http://www.audiblox2000.com/dyslexia_dyslexic/dyslexia014.htm
Incorrect. I said you can increase your IQ (or rather intelligence in general), but not to the extent believed by the adherents of the blank slate theory. Education has its limits. Intelligence is largely determined genetically. That is what I said.

You can play basketball without being a NBA player but when you make a statement about something controversial as if you are the final authority, without having any relevant qualification, you are only suffering from visions of grandeur and hence your opinion holds no value.
Using your own rules, I'll need to see a link to a PhD saying that before I'll believe it.

People...Stupid? No way, they want to pay for what they want, and they want tha kind of news. they have already decided by themselves what they want to hear, so the media gives it to them.

Media omniscient? yeah right, we would like...

We impose our beliefs in people? No, sorry, but the public impose their views on us. We just report what we know they want to hear so they can give us their money. We do not tell them what to hear, they tell us what to say.
Anyone who pays to hear what they want to hear is an ignorant and blind fool. Not the kind of person I am. I want objective news based on cold facts as far as possible, and opinions delivered in a neutral territory, not twisted to convey an image the media would like to present. So unless the media can provide it, its worth to me is negligible.

Off-hand, that doesnt sound right to me, perhaps you mean chimps?
Either way...

It's not about numbers, it's about gene expression. The different arrangement of the genetic material of say chimps (to that of humans) adequately explains why chimps would be so different from humans even if the actual genes involved were 100% identical.


The text in your post doesnt actually refute such a position.

Genetic meterial are always same. Same structure, only bases differ A, T, G, S...U in RnA...
When we say difference, we always mean different arrangement.....And yeah, I meant chimps....

Anyone who pays to hear what they want to hear is an ignorant and blind fool. Not the kind of person I am. I want objective news based on cold facts as far as possible, and opinions delivered in a neutral territory, not twisted to convey an image the media would like to present. So unless the media can provide it, its worth to me is negligible.

Then the word is a mass of ignorants and blind fools, remember that we are talking about masses here, do not expect high grade of curiosity, information, education and culture. We are mass media, not specialized sources of information. "Media for the masses", and the masses want a massage, not a message.

Quite nice your position, I suggest you to find work in a media so you can find what you want, or go and check into specialized publications and broadcasts.

Wow, you have such an idealized view. Sadly you are living on a dream. what news do you watch, BBC? DW?

Using your own rules, I'll need to see a link to a PhD saying that before I'll believe it.

Funny :) ...I guess you got only silly little comments to add...
We dont have final authorities about the value of people's opinions, but science has procedures for a hyposthesis to become valuable....

Funny :) ...I guess you got only silly little comments to add...
We dont have final authorities about the value of people's opinions, but science has procedures for a hyposthesis to become valuable....

No, I'm just pointing out the ludicrous nature of your criteria.

Then the word is a mass of ignorants and blind fools, remember that we are talking about masses here, do not expect high grade of curiosity, information, education and culture. We are mass media, not specialized sources of information. "Media for the masses", and the masses want a massage, not a message.
I never have been and never will be part of the masses, the flock of human imbeciles feeding off the herd-poison offered to them by the "mass-media".

Quite nice your position, I suggest you to find work in a media so you can find what you want, or go and check into specialized publications and broadcasts.
I already do that. I plan on becoming an economist, and as such have an interest in hard, raw facts, and not conjured opinions disguised as reality. The problem with specialised publications (and authors, like Arthur Jensen) is that the mass media gives them such a bad name and lowers their credibility needlessly. This vexes me to no end. Luckily, as an economist I'll have access to a greater wealth of knowledge than most have available to them.

Wow, you have such an idealized view. Sadly you are living on a dream. what news do you watch, BBC? DW?
Euronews, and sometimes the BBC. Euronews at least delivers the facts without delving too much in emotional appeals and such nonsense.

Then the word is a mass of ignorants and blind fools, remember that we are talking about masses here, do not expect high grade of curiosity, information, education and culture. We are mass media, not specialized sources of information. "Media for the masses", and the masses want a massage, not a message.

Quite nice your position, I suggest you to find work in a media so you can find what you want, or go and check into specialized publications and broadcasts.

Wow, you have such an idealized view. Sadly you are living on a dream. what news do you watch, BBC? DW?

People watch the news, then they complain about them. The fact that they watch it doesnt mean they are content but simply means they havent got much choice. But everything is cyclic. It might be just me but I notice the media here changing to my side ;)

No, I'm just pointing out the ludicrous nature of your criteria.

Read my answer again. I'm not wasting more time with you...

No, I'm just pointing out the ludicrous nature of your criteria.
Do you dispute what I said though? Namely, that when dealing with matters of science or raw fact in general, that an expert scientist is far better disposed to provide valid facts than the media or any other self-made expert?

People watch the news, then they complain about them. The fact that they watch it doesnt mean they are content but simply means they havent got much choice. But everything is cyclic. It might be just me but I notice the media here changing to my side ;)Not might. It is just you ;)

Do you dispute what I said though? Namely, that when dealing with matters of science or raw fact in general, that an expert scientist is far better disposed to provide valid facts than the media or any other self-made expert?

It's never worked that way on software projects for me.

If I can obtain the facts, there's nothing to prevent me from using logic and statistics from interpreting the data.

Experts have been found to be wrong, or biased, as well.

They are as human as anyone else.

It's best to see the data for yourself, rather than blindly trust the word of a single scientist.

And, for a link on why this is true:

http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html

From a PhD.

Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When I was at Cornell, I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this--it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.

I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person--to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know the the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control.

She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happened.

Genetic meterial are always same. Same structure, only bases differ A, T, G, S...U in RnA...
When we say difference, we always mean different arrangement.....And yeah, I meant chimps....
Genetic material and genes are not synomonous terms.

Are you really not understanding my point (because I'll happily clarify), or are you just engaging in a bit of classic NS Gamesmanship?

Only from a scientific perspective, the racial ethnicities that make up humankind do indeed have advantages of one over another.

For example, those of African ethnicity usually never get sunburn and are often more physically fit naturally thanks to the environment Africa was at the time. And also, Caucasians, who have paler skin and whose ancestors often come from the continent of Europe, are more suited to the cold thanks to the environment Europe has.

But beyond certain advantages in different types of environments, nothing else.

(Note: I am not a racist.)

Not might. It is just you ;)

Perhaps...This is from 2005...Although it's not about media directly, opinions of the next generation might be because of a change in it. It's still good news though...


Norwegian teens xenophobic?
26/09/2005 22:48 - (SA)

Oslo - The number of Norwegian teenagers who are sceptical about foreigners and say they feel immigrants threaten Norway's national identity has nearly doubled in the past six years, according to a poll published on Monday.

Forty percent of Norwegian high-school students agreed with the statement that immigrants "pose a serious threat to our national distinctive character", according to the poll, which was taken in connection with a countrywide school vote ahead of Norway's general election on September 12.

That is nearly double the number of immigrant-skeptical youths found in a similar poll from 1999, according to Norwegian daily Aftenposten, which published the study.

Knud Knudsen, a sociology professor at the Stavanger University in western Norway, said: "This must be seen in connection with the terror acts in recent years in London, Madrid and the United States, where immigration has been linked to acts of terror and terror threats."

Boys are more xenophobic

According to the study, which was conducted by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD) of about 5 000 students between the ages of 16 and 19, Norwegian boys are more xenophobic than girls.

The poll showed a full 50% of boys agreed or partly agreed with the statement that immigrants posed a threat, while only a third of the girls did.

Knudsen said the fact that the high-school students polled also gave record support this year to the far-right and immigrant-hostile Progress Party (FRP), landing it with 24.9% of the vote, should be seen in connection with the changing attitudes towards immigrants.

"At the school election, we saw FRP doing well among the young people, and that may explain some of it," he said.

Adults not as negative as the teens

In Norway's general election, which was won by a leftist coalition, FRP scored 22.1% of the votes, up 7.4 percentage points from the 2001 elections.

While there appears to be a slight increase in skepticism towards immigrants in Norwegian society as a whole in recent years, it doesn't appear the adult population is as negative towards people of different origin.

Out of about 1 000 adults who were asked the same question as the high-school students, only 26% said they agreed with the statement about immigrants posing a threat, while 33% said they completely disagreed, according to the study.


http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1806705,00.html

It's never worked that way on software projects for me.

If I can obtain the facts, there's nothing to prevent me from using logic and statistics from interpreting the data.

Experts have been found to be wrong, or biased, as well.

They are as human as anyone else.

It's best to see the data for yourself, rather than blindly trust the word of a single scientist.

And, for a link on why this is true:

http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html

From a PhD.
Look, I agree that scientists are likewise fallible to the rest of humanity. However, in the case of highly esteemed, credible, thorough scientists, such as Arthur Jensen, who have a huge amount of knowledge in their respective field, I will place a larger amount of trust than I would in someone with far less knowledge on the matter.

Jensen didn't even say much on the matter. He was asked to research something, and give an answer to a question. So he did. Yet he was blasted left, right and centre (literally, in political terms) for simply stating his findings. What is the point of being a scientist if you get death threats for carrying out your work?

I never have been and never will be part of the masses, the flock of human imbeciles feeding off the herd-poison offered to them by the "mass-media".

Sadly you are. Welcome to the word when you are a number. Even a number of those that refuse to be a number. You are part of the mainstream that refuses to be called mainstream.

I already do that. I plan on becoming an economist, and as such have an interest in hard, raw facts, and not conjured opinions disguised as reality. The problem with specialised publications (and authors, like Arthur Jensen) is that the mass media gives them such a bad name and lowers their credibility needlessly. This vexes me to no end.

Conjured realities disguised as opinions is a less stranded definition. People who is really interested in Arthur Jensen's words will resort to Arthur Jensen's books, what do you expect of the rest? Why he should need credibillity if the masses are all idiots in any case? Why are you vexed because he has a low credibility amongst idiots?


Euronews, and sometimes the BBC. Euronews at least delivers the facts without delving too much in emotional appeals and such nonsense.

I knew it from the beginning, I was just waiting for you to say it. From my part, at least I apprecciate honesty when you recognize that you are a bigot, like Fush News. Euronews also holds an agenda, sorry, that is as mainstream as the rest of the world. They are just more identified with your point of view so you, and people like you, watch it and defend it as objetive, thus giving them your money, (or the money for advertisement, or whatever they want from rating). You are being manipulated without knowing.

BBC even makes it a bit more obvious than Euronews, they hide content in words and not in fulll phrases, I know several BBC press reporters and even an editor. By being "unemotional" you are not defending ethics, you are just broadcasting that way because you want "unemotional people" to watch them and say, "This is good, the news unemotional like I like them".

Sorry, your individuality was killed decades ago and has no escape, stop struggling or you'll get depressed and bitter with the time. Roll with it.

Genetic material and genes are not synomonous terms.

Are you really not understanding my point (because I'll happily clarify), or are you just engaging in a bit of classic NS Gamesmanship?

Ok clarify it then. I'm talking with high school biology and 1st year university chemisty....

Look, I agree that scientists are likewise fallible to the rest of humanity. However, in the case of highly esteemed, credible, thorough scientists, such as Arthur Jensen, who have a huge amount of knowledge in their respective field, I will place a larger amount of trust than I would in someone with far less knowledge on the matter.

Jensen didn't even say much on the matter. He was asked to research something, and give an answer to a question. So he did. Yet he was blasted left, right and centre (literally, in political terms) for simply stating his findings. What is the point of being a scientist if you get death threats for carrying out your work?

I'm not arguing that the people who blasted him are credible. I'm just saying I would prefer to see his data for myself, and draw my own conclusions, and then see how it compares to what he came up with.

As for the people who blasted him, they probably never looked at his research or data, and are kneejerking.

People watch the news, then they complain about them. The fact that they watch it doesnt mean they are content but simply means they havent got much choice. But everything is cyclic. It might be just me but I notice the media here changing to my side ;)

No choice?

Do you know how many information services and news oriented public and private services are available for you to chooose out there? If you complain, then you are truly an idiot. You have every choice you may like to receive your news.

Sadly you are. Welcome to the word when you are a number. Even a number of those that refuse to be a number. You are part of the mainstream that refuses to be called mainstream.
Do you think this makes any difference to me? I'd rather be in a minority "mainstream" that still clings to reality, than one which rejects it comfortably for sobering lies.

Conjured realities disguised as opinions is a less stranded definition. People who is really interested in Arthur Jensen's words will resort to Arthur Jensen's books, what do you expect of the rest? Why he should need credibillity if the masses are all idiots in any case? Why are you vexed because he has a low credibility amongst idiots?
I am vexed because people are idiots. I thought more of them, and in the past little of philosophers such as Schopenhauer who derided the simple minded fools. Now it's the reverse.

I knew it from the beginning, I was just waiting for you to say it. From my part, at least I apprecciate honesty when you recognize that you are a bigot, like Fush News. Euronews also holds an agenda, sorry, that is as mainstream as the rest of the world. They are just more identified with your point of view so you, and people like you, watch it and defend it as objetive, thus giving them your money, (or the money for advertisement, or whatever they want from rating). You are being manipulated without knowing.
Umm...I never said that Euronews is entirely objective. Just more so than most other news stations. Hence my preference for them.

BBC even makes it a bit more obvious than Euronews, they hide content in words and not in fulll phrases, I know several BBC press reporters and even an editor. By being "unemotional" you are not defending ethics, you are just broadcasting that way because you want "unemotional people" to watch them and say, "This is good, the news unemotional like I like them".
For me, the role of the media is to communicate raw information and objectively report people's opinions. All else is useless. I am not changing this position.

Sorry, your individuality was killed decades ago and has no escape, stop struggling or you'll get depressed and bitter with the time. Roll with it.
Actually, I'm not going to. I'll stick to objective reality for now.

No choice?

Do you know how many information services and news oriented public and private services are available for you to chooose out there? If you complain, then you are truly an idiot. You have every choice you may like to receive your news.

Yes there are small independent ones. But they dont have the manpower to be comprehensive as big ones I'm criticisizing....Most people dont care about news source anyways, they just open the tv and watch one of the most popular. You are truly an idiot if you dont recognize this...

No choice?

Do you know how many information services and news oriented public and private services are available for you to chooose out there? If you complain, then you are truly an idiot. You have every choice you may like to receive your news.

Ny Nordland doesn't want to see the data, or see multiple sources. He's already stated that he wants a PhD to tell him how to think, and what conclusions to draw.

I'm not arguing that the people who blasted him are credible. I'm just saying I would prefer to see his data for myself, and draw my own conclusions, and then see how it compares to what he came up with.
I can agree on this.

As for the people who blasted him, they probably never looked at his research or data, and are kneejerking.
Indeed. Or they tried to undermine it on weak bases. Still, the media helped hide broader scientific opinion and likewise undermined Jensen. It's similar to what happened to Hayek, and Friedman and so on. Before their work was even understood, a bunch of others were out there weakening its credibility without real counter-arguments. Result? Even though they are hailed amongst fellow academics, few know of their work's merit.

Ny Nordland doesn't want to see the data, or see multiple sources. He's already stated that he wants a PhD to tell him how to think, and what conclusions to draw.

That's not what I said. Dont talk in my name with your misunderstandings. If you are so desperate to talk in other's name, that doesnt say much about the quality of your life....Get lost now...

Ok clarify it then. I'm talking with high school biology and 1st year university chemisty....
Genes refers to actual sections of DNA that 'code' for particular proteins (or polypeptide chains that then join with other chains to form a functioning protein). The arrangements of A,C,T and G within a gene are the gene. However these genes (these arrangments of coding bases) are then arranged in a certain way and this arrangement is crucial to gene expression (aka the actual phenotypical traits expressed).
We know that the genes of chimps, however similar they may be to our own, are very differently arranged - in fact chimps and humans do not even have the same number of chromosomes. Even if chimps shared 100% of human genes, this very different arrangment of the genes within the chimp genome would result in a very different creature.

We know that the genes of chimps, however similar they may be to our own, are very differently arranged - in fact chimps and humans do not even have the same number of chromosomes. Even if chimps shared 100% of human genes, this very different arrangment of the genes within the chimp genome would result in a very different creature.

Here's what is funny - for a while, all scientists believed that people had more chromosomes than chimps.

Until someone actually looked at the pictures, and counted them for himself.

Everyone else took the word of experts in the field.

http://eee.uci.edu/clients/bjbecker/PlaguesandPeople/lecture19.html

When and how did the discovery take place? Here's a first hand account from biologist, Maj Hultén, who was then an undergraduate student in Stockholm:

I was walking in the culvert linking the Institute to the Animal House, carrying my mouse cages. It was late at night the day before Christmas Eve, on December 23, 1955, when I suddenly heard the clapping (and echoing) sound of clogs behind me, and a heavy hand landed on my left shoulder. I got mighty afraid, but recognizing it to be the diminutive Chinese visiting scientist, Joe-Hin Tjio, I wondered what on earth this was all about. "I can see that you are equally kind to everybody around here. Would you like to come to my room? I have got something interesting to show you", he stuttered. "Yes, please", I found myself answering.

Peering down the microscope, situated on the bench to the right in Tjio's office cum lab, I was amazed to see the human chromosomes well spread out and separated from each other, and when Tjio demanded: "Count", I did so. My first comment was "You have lost two", but then in metaphase after metaphase there could be no doubt, the chromosome number was 46. It was a cliché to say that I can remember it as if it was yesterday, the stinging smell of the acetic orcein (making Tjio's broad thumbs bright red also when squashing the cells) blending together with that of Turkish coffee made by Tjio.

from "Numbers, bands and recombination of human chromosomes: Historical anecdotes from a Swedish student," by M. A. Hultén, in Cytogenetic and Genome Research 96: 14-19 (2002), pp. 15-16.

I'm just trying to discover whether you NS-users believe in the innate superiority of certain racial groups and if so to what degree. Or if you, like me, believe that it's so much hot air and that there's very little in it.

You should have made the poll multiple choice. We do need more research to say decisively whether some racial groups are better than others at some things, but perhaps some are. How many Japanese have placed in the top ten in the Boston Marathon compared with the number of Kenyans? Some research finds Ashkenazi Jews score better on tests. Who knows, there may be something racial to it. We won't know until more research is done and because of Political Correctness, it's a bitch to get such research done.

Do you think this makes any difference to me? I'd rather be in a minority "mainstream" that still clings to reality, than one which rejects it comfortably for sobering lies.

Again, the media do not lie. And there is no such thing as objetive reality. And that "mainstream" is not a minority. Of course it does not make any difference to you, you are deluded.


I am vexed because people are idiots. I thought more of them, and in the past little of philosophers such as Schopenhauer who derided the simple minded fools. Now it's the reverse.

So you judge yourself superior than others because you had better access to education? In any case, do you judge yourself to be so above the rest of the world? At least leave them be comfortable if the prefer commodity to knowledge, after all, what they do to their lives do not affect you. You consider yourself superior, and even criticize those below your status?

Umm...I never said that Euronews is entirely objective. Just more so than most other news stations. Hence my preference for them.

Under what criteria do you judge "objectivity"? NS Gamemastery?, YOUR logic?, your tastes for broadcast style? YOUR values? or validity of sources, the only "serious" criteria available?. Because if that is the point, Fush News also have credible sources, as credible as Euronews.

Last time I met an Euronews team, they were asking us the local reporters what had happened so they could report it, and then published something along the lines..."From where we were standing we could see..". Sorry, from that deluxe hotel's window you weren't able to see that, you are stealing a story, and giving it twists that the original didn't have.

There you have your objetivity. No more than any other station.

Actually, I'm not going to. I'll stick to objective reality for now.

Objective reality is fantasy. Enjoy your Never Ending Story.

Genes refers to actual sections of DNA that 'code' for particular proteins (or polypeptide chains that then join with other chains to form a functioning protein). The arrangements of A,C,T and G within a gene are the gene. However these genes (these arrangments of coding bases) are then arranged in a certain way and this arrangement is crucial to gene expression (aka the actual phenotypical traits expressed).
We know that the genes of chimps, however similar they may be to our own, are very differently arranged - in fact chimps and humans do not even have the same number of chromosomes. Even if chimps shared 100% of human genes, this very different arrangment of the genes within the chimp genome would result in a very different creature.



Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

If the genome of the chimps are 96% similar to us, then the arrangement of genes should be 96% same as us.
I guess I should have used genome in my original post. And 99% was also wrong. Still, the amazing similarity exist and hence my point stands...

Again, the media do not lie. And there is no such thing as objetive reality. And that "mainstream" is not a minority. Of course it does not make any difference to you, you are deluded.
So....if an apple falls to the ground due to gravity, this is not objective reality? Heh, could've fooled me...


So you judge yourself superior than others because you had better access to education? In any case, do you judge yourself to be so above the rest of the world? At least leave them be comfortable if the prefer commodity to knowledge, after all, what they do to their lives do not affect you. You consider yourself superior, and even criticize those below your status?

Yeah, I do consider myself superior. If they wanna be comfortable in ignorance, I have no problem. I simply refuse though to lower myself to that level.


Under what criteria do you judge "objectivity"? NS Gamemastery?, YOUR logic?, your tastes for broadcast style? YOUR values? or validity of sources, the only "serious" criteria available?. Because if that is the point, Fush News also have credible sources, as credible as Euronews.
Is the Majority of "Fush News's" sources credible though? I judge them on their overall content.


Objective reality is fantasy. Enjoy your Never Ending Story.
Enjoy partaking in and spreading mass ignorance...

Yes there are small independent ones. But they dont have the manpower to be comprehensive as big ones I'm criticisizing....Most people dont care about news source anyways, they just open the tv and watch one of the most popular. You are truly an idiot if you dont recognize this...

Those are called "Community Media", and are not mass media. Sadly you will have to take my statement in that, because I am a graduate in Social Communication, and Magister in Foreign Affairs Journalism. I'll work my doctorate and PhD soon.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

If the genome of the chimps are 96% similar to us, then the arrangement of genes should be 96% same as us.
I guess I should have used genome in my original post. And 99% was also wrong. Still, the amazing similarity exist and hence my point stands...
As I understand it, your original point was that very small genetic differences can have very large practical impact.

I don't think anybody can argue with that point, since there are serious diseases which are the result of single point mutations! Yes, small genetic changes can make big differences.

However, when it comes to "racial" genetic differences you need to keep something in mind: a tall black man most likely has more in common with a tall white man than he does with a short black man, at the genetic level. This is because there are more genes involved in determining height than there are in determining racial differences.

You also need to remember that only a small percentage of the human genome codes for genes! The rest of the genome is sometimes refered to as "junk" DNA (though I think that's a misleading term), and it is the "junk" DNA which is most often used to trace people's heritage. Why? Well, because changes to DNA in these regions are not likely to impact survivability, so more changes can accumulate and be passed on randomly. Isolated populations will tend to share these changes. The very reason these changes are easy to track is BECAUSE they have so little impact on survivability, which kind of makes it seem silly to then turn around and use supposed "racial differences" as evidence that one race is superior to another.

Another thing is that scientists quite often use something called mitochondrial DNA when they are tracing lineage. The mitochondria are organelles within your cells that actually have their own DNA. This is not the same DNA as is found in the nucleus of your cells. You inherit your mitochondrial DNA from your mother, and it is usually passed on pretty much intact. This means that your genetic heritage can be traced back through your mother and her mother and so on.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

If the genome of the chimps are 96% similar to us, then the arrangement of genes should be 96% same as us.
I guess I should have used genome in my original post. And 99% was also wrong. Still, the amazing similarity exist and hence my point stands...
Should it be? Well it's not - and actually the article doesnt state that it is. Even if it did many people consider that 'genome' refers to 'the total complement of genes' (ie the genes not the arrangment of genes).

Those are called "Community Media", and are not mass media. Sadly you will have to take my statement in that, because I am a graduate in Social Communication, and Magister in Foreign Affairs Journalism. I'll work my doctorate and PhD soon.

Then if most or all of mass media is biased, as suggested by Snyderman and Rothman and many others, people dont have much choice, do they? And this makes your last 2 posts answering me truly idiotic.
Are you Venezuellan btw or just stationed there?

As I understand it, your original point was that very small genetic differences can have very large practical impact.

I don't think anybody can argue with that point, since there are serious diseases which are the result of single point mutations! Yes, small genetic changes can make big differences.

However, when it comes to "racial" genetic differences you need to keep something in mind: a tall black man most likely has more in common with a tall white man than he does with a short black man, at the genetic level. This is because there are more genes involved in determining height than there are in determining racial differences.

You also need to remember that only a small percentage of the human genome codes for genes! The rest of the genome is sometimes refered to as "junk" DNA (though I think that's a misleading term), and it is the "junk" DNA which is most often used to trace people's heritage. Why? Well, because changes to DNA in these regions are not likely to impact survivability, so more changes can accumulate and be passed on randomly. Isolated populations will tend to share these changes. The very reason these changes are easy to track is BECAUSE they have so little impact on survivability, which kind of makes it seem silly to then turn around and use supposed "racial differences" as evidence that one race is superior to another.

Another thing is that scientists quite often use something called mitochondrial DNA when they are tracing lineage. The mitochondria are organelles within your cells that actually have their own DNA. This is not the same DNA as is found in the nucleus of your cells. You inherit your mitochondrial DNA from your mother, and it is usually passed on pretty much intact. This means that your genetic heritage can be traced back through your mother and her mother and so on.


If you are going to display ignorance, at least do so after reading the posts in the thread. I posted what debunks your tall black man, white man claim...

Should it be? Well it's not - and actually the article doesnt state that it is. Even if it did many people consider that 'genome' refers to 'the total complement of genes' (ie the genes not the arrangment of genes).

It says scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species. If they sequenced the genome, I think it's a very reasonable assumption to think scientists also considered about the arrangement of genes when making the "96%" statement...

So....if an apple falls to the ground due to gravity, this is not objective reality? Heh, could've fooled me...

Of course, so most facts reported by the news, that are results of the interaction of social groups, are as simple as an apple falling to the ground. Have you ever heard of the complexity of the social disciplines? Plus. Did you see the apple fall? It was red, that apple? It fell slowly or fast? It was an ugly or a beautiful tree? Perception is still an open issue.

Yeah, I do consider myself superior. If they wanna be comfortable in ignorance, I have no problem. I simply refuse though to lower myself to that level.

You said you were vexed and pissed at the fact that the masses were idiots. Change of mind or a lack of consistency in your statements due to the desire of gaining the upper hand over every aspect of a byzantine argument?

Is the Majority of "Fush News's" sources credible though? I judge them on their overall content.

No less than the Euronews sources. Or the BBC, CNN, DW, EFE, Reuters, AP, API, AFP, DPA sources. And they do not "spread lies", they just give twists to give some contents more importance than others. That is not lying.

Enjoy partaking in and spreading mass ignorance...

I do not partake in such a disgusting plate. I love to gloom in profit from it, although.

If you are going to display ignorance, at least do so after reading the posts in the thread.
:eek:

I posted what debunks your tall black man, white man claim...
You did? Can you direct me to a post number?

It says scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species. If they sequenced the genome, I think it's a very reasonable assumption to think scientists also considered about the arrangement of genes when making the "96%" statement...
What scientists consider and what mainstream-mass-media journalists relay are not necessarily the same thing.
The genome was sequenced, if you read the entire article it states that the DNA is 96% similar, it says nothing about the arrangment of the genes, and certainly scientists have considered the arrangment of genes within the genome - that explains why it is common knowledge that humans and chimps do not have the same number of chromosomes...

:eek:


You did? Can you direct me to a post number?

I'm not sure which page but I got the quote...


Distribution of genetic variation within/between populations

Some scientists have argued there exists more variation within racial groups than between, and therefore human races have no taxonomic value. This opinion can be traced back to a 1972 paper by Richard Lewontin. Some researchers report the variation between racial groups (measured by Sewall Wright's population structure statistic FST) accounts for as little as 5-7% of human genetic variation. This argument was widely popularized after Lewontin's original publication.

However, most geneticists now recognize that low FST values do not invalidate the suggestion that there might be different human races because of technical limitations of FST (Edwards, 2003), see Lewontin's Fallacy.

Populations within continents are more closely related to one another than to populations on other continents. Genetic variation between races is highly structured (Risch, 2002). Thus, when one considers many points (i.e., genetic loci) of variation one can distinguish groups and allocate people into groups (Bamshad, 2004).

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

If populations within continents are more closely related to one another than to populations on other continents, chances are that tall black man is genetically more similar to that short black man than to tall white man...

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530
http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf


I see, NN, so you believe certain racial groups are superior to others. But you are too much of a politically correct slithering coward to actually just say it.

For ex: If these research were to be proved, a white mother who wants a child artificially might not prefer a black man's sperm, because it would dumb down the baby.
There, a usage for this type of research, other than your hypothesis...

Oh, so a use for racist research is... helping racist women build a better genetically-designed ubermensch!

If you are going to display ignorance, at least do so after reading the posts in the thread. I posted what debunks your tall black man, white man claim...
Um, no, you didn't. Perhaps something I posted was unclear to you. What would you like me to clarify for you?

Then if most or all of mass media is biased, as suggested by Snyderman and Rothman and many others, people dont have much choice, do they? And this makes your last 2 posts answering me truly idiotic.
Are you Venezuellan btw or just stationed there?

I am Venezuelan. Spanish-Venezuelan.

All medias are biased when we entered the Age of Diversity, as it is called now. Yet the public is as biased as the media, if not worse. the Age of Diversity allows the public to pick from a huge variety of media, one that presents a similar point of view than their own. Also, each day that passes the communication community confirms that there is no such thing as "objective reality" when we speak about human perception and human-related news. You cannot rationalize adjetives, for example. It is implied in the language and in the very nature of the human being.

So, the change of mind in the last times regarding mass media is that it is impossible to achieve true objectivity regarding information, so there is no point in trying to. That developed more politically oriented mass media, like Fox News, that is the perfect example.

The point is that you still have the choice. You have the remote control, you can switch channel whenever you want to. All channels are biased, indeed, but because it is impossible to deliver unbiased news, and you can still choose from an ample spectrum of broadcasters with quite different views in most affairs, just pressing a button. You will always find a channel that you like, that have something in common with you. For Europa Maxima, it is Euronews, for me, it is the community media, for republicans, it is Fox News. Liberals can just stick to reading the New York Times. Everyone has a choice.

Of course, so most facts reported by the news, that are results of the interaction of social groups, are as simple as an apple falling to the ground. Have you ever heard of the complexity of the social disciplines? Plus. Did you see the apple fall? It was red, that apple? It fell slowly or fast? It was an ugly or a beautiful tree? Perception is still an open issue.
That does not deter me from approaching objective reality as close as I possibly can.

You said you were vexed and pissed at the fact that the masses were idiots. Change of mind or a lack of consistency in your statements due to the desire of gaining the upper hand over every aspect of a byzantine argument?
No, not a change of mind. Merely a corollary stemming from the realisation of the mass idiocy.

No less than the Euronews sources. Or the BBC, CNN, DW, EFE, Reuters, AP, API, AFP, DPA sources. And they do not "spread lies", they just give twists to give some contents more importance than others. That is not lying.
Hence I am not avert to cross-referencing my sources. An imperfect technique, albeit the only one available to me relative to the mass media.

I do not partake in such a disgusting plate. I love to gloom in profit from it, although.
I find the whole affair abominable, but if it makes you happy, whatever. Que sera, sera.

I see, NN, so you believe certain racial groups are superior to others. But you are too much of a politically correct slithering coward to actually just say it.

You know I told you I'm not going to waste my time answering to you. But I just want to say you sound too much like Santa Barbara/Trostia....

I'm not sure which page but I got the quote...


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

If populations within continents are more closely related to one another than to populations on other continents, chances are that tall black man is genetically more similar to that short black man than to tall white man...
Why would you think that a short black man in Papua New Guinea is likely to be more related and thus more genetically similar to a tall black Algerian man than that Algerian is to a tall white person from Malta?

I'm not sure which page but I got the quote...


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

If populations within continents are more closely related to one another than to populations on other continents, chances are that tall black man is genetically more similar to that short black man than to tall white man...


Just to be clear, that entails a different definition of 'race', doesn't it? I can be racist against hispanics, scandinavians, slavs, but they're all on the same continent, from the same genetic stock (presumably). Arabs, indians, mongolians, chinese, all different races, but the same continent.

And what about cross continent migration? Native Americans, Induit, Japanese, Aoni, or polynesians, mauri of New Zealand (apologies for spelling, I've probably screwed at least 1 one by now!). You would have the same continent-race spread over different continents.

After all that, you need to be a lot more nuanced than simply saying there are racial differences between people - if indeed there are.

It says scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species. If they sequenced the genome, I think it's a very reasonable assumption to think scientists also considered about the arrangement of genes when making the "96%" statement...
The 96% figure refers to the base-pair level, not the gene level. This is a very important distinction. To give you a sense of this, human males and females are approximately 98.4% related if you look only at the base-pairs. However, if you look at the genes you will find that human males and females are about 99.7% similar.

Between humans and chimps there are something like 50-150 million base-pair difference which are spread out all over the chromosomes, and over many, many genes. Between individual human beings, genetic differences are confined to a much smaller range of places.

To revisit my example, all of the base-pair differences between human males and females are restricted to one chromosome and about 80 genes, while the differences between humans and chimps are spread across all the chromosomes (and a whole lot more genes!).

You know I told you I'm not going to waste my time answering to you.

So, why are you?

I think you're trying too hard at this "I'm not going to comment" commentary. And failing.

But I just want to say you sound too much like Santa Barbara/Trostia....

That's because I am. I could say who you sound like... but we already know, mein herr.

Just to be clear, that entails a different definition of 'race', doesn't it?

Not in NN's opinion. NN views blacks and other non-whites in the same way as he views apes and other non-humans.

I am Venezuelan. Spanish-Venezuelan.

All medias are biased when we entered the Age of Diversity, as it is called now. Yet the public is as biased as the media, if not worse. the Age of Diversity allows the public to pick from a huge variety of media, one that presents a similar point of view than their own. Also, each day that passes the communication community confirms that there is no such thing as "objective reality" when we speak about human perception and human-related news. You cannot rationalize adjetives, for example. It is implied in the language and in the very nature of the human being.

So, the change of mind in the last times regarding mass media is that it is impossible to achieve true objectivity regarding information, so there is no point in trying to. That developed more politically oriented mass media, like Fox News, that is the perfect example.

The point is that you still have the choice. You have the remote control, you can switch channel whenever you want to. All channels are biased, indeed, but because it is impossible to deliver unbiased news, and you can still choose from an ample spectrum of broadcasters with quite different views in most affairs, just pressing a button. You will always find a channel that you like, that have something in common with you. For Europa Maxima, it is Euronews, for me, it is the community media, for republicans, it is Fox News. Liberals can just stick to reading the New York Times. Everyone has a choice.

Republicans and liberals? I think you mean American Republicans and "liberals". Your USA-centrism is as amusing as the "age of diversity". Until you learn about Norwegian media, your opinions about the abundance of choices can only be classified as silly.
As for you being Venezuellan, that explains a lot...

but because it is impossible to deliver unbiased news.

? I think it's possible to try to deliver more- or less- biased news, though? You can still strive for objectivity - perfection is impossible in any human endeavour, but you still aim to get better and better, closer and closer to an ideal.

What I'd agree with, and get annoyed with, is that it's not _profitable_ to try to deliver unbiased news.

So, why are you?

I think you're trying too hard at this "I'm not going to comment" commentary. And failing.



That's because I am. I could say who you sound like... but we already know, mein herr.

Ahhh....another nick....LOL...
Even when I didnt know you are Trostia, I still did find answering you a waste of my time. And I did the same when you were Trostia. And same when you were Santa Barbara. Ahh the sense of Déja vu once more...

That does not deter me from approaching objective reality as close as I possibly can.

You are trying to approach an impossible. It has been tried before to no avail. Yours is an outdated approach, althoug not entirely abandoned. In my opinion is useless, because the more yo try to approach to "objective news" the more you find yourself apart from them, but good luck nevertheless.

Hence I am not avert to cross-referencing my sources. An imperfect technique, albeit the only one available to me relative to the mass media.

The best thing anyone with a desire of knowledge can do. It is usually what we do in the media. For example, before displaying Mr. jensen's work, you find several investigations pointing to other directions. What do you do then?

Ahhh....another nick....LOL...
Even when I didnt know you are Trostia, I still did find answering you a waste of my time. And I did the same when you were Trostia. And same when you were Santa Barbara. Ahh the sense of Déja vu once more...

Waste of your time or not, that never stopped you from doing it. Because you crave and need the attention.

And at least it's not a waste for anyone else... it's good that people know just what kind of person you are.

Any more non-response responses, or non-commentary comments?

That's because I am. I could say who you sound like... but we already know, mein herr.
I was going to comment on your posts, but since you've revealed your identity, there is no such need anymore. S'amuse bien flaming NN...

You are trying to approach an impossible. It has been tried before to no avail. Yours is an outdated approach, althoug not entirely abandoned. In my opinion is useless, because the more yo try to approach to "objective news" the more you find yourself apart from them, but good luck nevertheless.
Well, I'll take upon myself the Don Quixotian role of chasing those windmills then...extreme positions do not matter to me if they are not backed by hard fact. I'd rather be right and endure hardships than be in the wrong.

The best thing anyone with a desire of knowledge can do. It is usually what we do in the media. For example, before displaying Mr. jensen's work, you find several investigations pointing to other directions. What do you do then?
Usually check who is investigating and commenting on his works and what their particular motivations are. And also what the community in which he is involved (the scientific one) thinks of his work. I've come to find that the scientific community silences itself when it is afraid of a media reaction. In the end, I am forced to go with the story I believe approaches the truth the most. Unfortunately the only way of adopting any position nowadays...

Why would you think that a short black man in Papua New Guinea is likely to be more related and thus more genetically similar to a tall black Algerian man than that Algerian is to a tall white person from Malta?

I dont think that. Scientists do. However, under their logic, that black man should be considered african, not asian...

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

If populations within continents are more closely related to one another than to populations on other continents, chances are that tall black man is genetically more similar to that short black man than to tall white man...Did you even bother reading it? Why should a tall black man be more similar to a short black man than to a tall white man if both the tall black man and tall white man happen to live on the same continent?

And listen to what the article also has to say:
However, most geneticists now recognize that low FST values do not invalidate the suggestion that there might be different human races because of technical limitations of FST (Edwards, 2003), see Lewontin's Fallacy.This states that the fact that there is little variation between "races" as compared to individuals within those "races" doesn't invalidate the "race" concept, not that there is more variation between "races" than individuals of those.

Note the difference between "populations" and "races". Unless you're suffering from that ignorance that you're accusing everyone else that disagrees with you of.

I dont think that. Scientists do.
Not all of them, certainly in the field of human biodiversity, not most of them.

However, under their logic, that black man should be considered african, not asian...
:confused:

Just to be clear, that entails a different definition of 'race', doesn't it? I can be racist against hispanics, scandinavians, slavs, but they're all on the same continent, from the same genetic stock (presumably). Arabs, indians, mongolians, chinese, all different races, but the same continent.

And what about cross continent migration? Native Americans, Induit, Japanese, Aoni, or polynesians, mauri of New Zealand (apologies for spelling, I've probably screwed at least 1 one by now!). You would have the same continent-race spread over different continents.

After all that, you need to be a lot more nuanced than simply saying there are racial differences between people - if indeed there are.

I guess, where they are going with this continent thing is a more PC way of saying differences between black-white-asian. Like a white in USA isnt considered under American continents but under European continent...
These PC approaches is neccessary for some scientist since some loose their jobs and/or funding for this "racist" research...

And listen to what the article also has to say:
This states that the fact that there is little variation between "races" as compared to individuals within those "races" doesn't invalidate the "race" concept, not that there is more variation between "races" than individuals of those.
I thought this would have been self-evident. I am surprised the scientific community took so long to ascertain this.

i thought i saw a klansman on my way home today, but it turned out just to be a guy wearing a bathrobe and a white hat. looked like one from the distance though. and he was mexican, so i think that took out all chances of him really being one

I thought this would have been self-evident. I am surprised the scientific community took so long to ascertain this.There's other things that invalidate the race concept, primarily the failed application thereof in the field of botany. ;)

Did you even bother reading it? Why should a tall black man be more similar to a short black man than to a tall white man if both the tall black man and tall white man happen to live on the same continent?


Yes, I red it. Did you? Stop and think before you say stupid things. That continent thing compares ancestry of peoples, not their current residence. An african moving to Europe doesnt become more close to Europeans genetically, simply because he changed continents.


Do self-identified races have biological validity?

Opinions vary. Recent research indicates that self-described race is a near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States. Using 326 genetic markers, Tang et al. (2005) identified 4 genetic clusters among 3,636 individuals sampled from 15 locations in the United States, and were able to correctly assign individuals to groups that correspond with their self-described race (white, African American, East Asian, or Hispanic) for all but 5 individuals (an error rate of 0.14%). They conclude that ancient ancestry, which correlates tightly with self-described race, and not current residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the US population. Others claim self-identified races do not correspond to biology. The "difficulty with the biosocial approach is that in the everyday world, racial and ethnic relations are immediately social rather than biological... Biologically diverse Italian immigrants from different regions of Italy gained a sence of being Italian American (even Italian) in the United States." (Racial and Ethnic Relations, page 32)

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


And listen to what the article also has to say:
This states that the fact that there is little variation between "races" as compared to individuals within those "races" doesn't invalidate the "race" concept, not that there is more variation between "races" than individuals of those.

Note the difference between "populations" and "races". Unless you're suffering from that ignorance that you're accusing everyone else that disagrees with you of.

That's basic reasoning that your post seems to lack greatly. What race mostly inhabits Africa? What race mostly inhabits Europe? What race mostly inhabits Asia?

i thought i saw a klansman on my way home today, but it turned out just to be a guy wearing a bathrobe and a white hat. looked like one from the distance though. and he was mexican, so i think that took out all chances of him really being oneBut maybe all the klansmen are Mexican, black, Jewish, or catholic, and only wear the hoods to cover it up...

I guess, where they are going with this continent thing is a more PC way of saying differences between black-white-asian. Like a white in USA isnt considered under American continents but under European continent...
These PC approaches is neccessary for some scientist since some loose their jobs and/or funding for this "racist" research...

It's also neccessary for accuracy - hispanic - germanic - nordic - slavic are all considered races in the popular sense, but are they all 'white'? Is it accurate to think of them as different groups in the scientific sense? Why, or why not? Are there parallels in other big groups like 'black' and 'asian' (semetic?)?

Republicans and liberals? I think you mean American Republicans and "liberals". Your USA-centrism is as amusing as the "age of diversity". Until you learn about Norwegian media, your opinions about the abundance of choices can only be classified as silly.
As for you being Venezuellan, that explains a lot...

Republicans and liberals? I think you mean American Republicans and "liberals". Your USA-centrism is as amusing as the "age of diversity". Until you learn about Norwegian media, your opinions about the abundance of choices can only be classified as silly.
As for you being Venezuellan, that explains a lot...

Because, like it or not, (and I have already said I don't like it), in these forums you need to resort to USA examples so people can understand you, as sadly it is the most internationally served news. I could use the examples that I have here, but I don't think the words "emeverrista", "adeco", "copeyano", "oficialista", "opositor" have any meaning to someone out my own country. You are escaping by using logical fallacies from the core of the argument. The US-centrism of mine is not at the stake here, even if that would exist. What is the point of explaining something people cannot understand?

I met a team of norwegian journalists once. They did a nice piece of work on one of Caracas' public hospitals. One of the best news teams I have ever met.

What was that last part regarding "you being venezuelan", that explains a lot? The use of some racist stereotype or what?

It's also neccessary for accuracy - hispanic - germanic - nordic - slavic are all considered races in the popular sense, but are they all 'white'? Is it accurate to think of them as different groups in the scientific sense? Why, or why not? Are there parallels in other big groups like 'black' and 'asian' (semetic?)?

With all due respect, I dont think you know much about the "popular sense". Hispanic means spanish speaking, which might be white, black, brown or green. Nordics are germanic already. Basically, all native Europeans, excluding Samis, are white....

What race mostly inhabits Africa? What race mostly inhabits Europe? What race mostly inhabits Asia?

Ooh, ooh, I know the answers!

1. Non-Whites
2. Whites
3. Non-Whites

Did I get them all right?

What was that last part regarding "you being venezuelan", that explains a lot? The use of some racist stereotype or what?

Yes, I think so. NN at one time tried to make like Jocabia was Jewish. He has an underlying paranoia that the evil non-whites are out to get him, so if you're not white, chances are NN is afraid of you and your genetic material. ;)

Usually check who is investigating and commenting on his works and what their particular motivations are. And also what the community in which he is involved (the scientific one) thinks of his work. I've come to find that the scientific community silences itself when it is afraid of a media reaction. In the end, I am forced to go with the story I believe approaches the truth the most. Unfortunately the only way of adopting any position nowadays...

And...guess what? Most of the investigators that contradict Jensen have an excellent standing in the scientific community, so you can point out at their jobs!

"The story I believe approaches the truth the most". That is my point. What if I believe the other side, the side of those against Jensen's studies approaches the truth the most?

That's basic reasoning that your post seems to lack greatly. What race mostly inhabits Africa? What race mostly inhabits Europe? What race mostly inhabits Asia?You're trying to pin this on races when in fact we're looking at semi-isolated populations. The genetic variations between people living in Africa and people living in Europe are going to be greater, just like the genetic variability of people living in Europe are going to be more similar. However, this is pretty much regardless of "race" since it takes into account mainly the interbreeding between the populations. While recent immigrants to Europe will most likely have a greater diversity than local inhabitants, there is not likely to be much difference between an African American and a typical Caucasian American due to the fact that their ancestors have been members of a common gene pool for generations.

In case you missed that, read this post again.

And...guess what? Most of the investigators that contradict Jensen have an excellent standing in the scientific community, so you can point out at their jobs!
Except that their counter-arguments are not based on science, but rather on the desirability of publishing Jensen's findings. Hardly a counter-argument if you ask me...before people even examined what he found, he was insulted, harassed and ostracised. Sort of the Catholic Church treated that "vile heretic", Gallileo.

"The story I believe approaches the truth the most". That is my point. What if I believe the other side, the side of those against Jensen's studies approaches the truth the most?
That is your right. I never said the opposite. However, I will call on you to prove your point, and if you fail to convince me, I will remain faithful to my ideologies. I am a reasonable person, so I give things a fair chance. And, like I said, as far as possible I avoid clinging to falsities simply because reaching the truth is hard.

With all due respect, I dont think you know much about the "popular sense". Hispanic means spanish speaking, which might be white, black, brown or green. Nordics are germanic already. Basically, all native Europeans, excluding Samis, are white....

Hispanic is a term of late use, with no meaning really outside the United States of America, where it means actually "people of Latin American ascendance". Check the inmigration services of the USA, I made my thesis about the use of that word in contrapart of "Latino".

Your use of that word "hispanic", alongside with the use of the term "Americans" for citizens of the USA, which most inhabitants of the rest of the continent seem to neglect, including me, gives you a stronger sense of USA-centrism than just referring to the New York Times and Fox News as examples of politically oriented media.

You're trying to pin this on races when in fact we're looking at semi-isolated populations. The genetic variations between people living in Africa and people living in Europe are going to be greater, just like the genetic variability of people living in Europe are going to be more similar. However, this is pretty much regardless of "race" since it takes into account mainly the interbreeding between the populations. While recent immigrants to Europe will most likely have a greater diversity than local inhabitants, there is not likely to be much difference between an African American and a typical Caucasian American due to the fact that their ancestors have been members of a common gene pool for generations.

That is true. Afro-americans are said to be at least 20% white on average. So it's not really correct anymore to consider them pure blacks, to use the term. They are mixed race, to an extent.

There's other things that invalidate the race concept, primarily the failed application thereof in the field of botany. ;)
What of the successful application in the field of animals though? A persian cat and a siamese cat are both two different breeds -or races- of cat, even though they are still essentially both cats.

I personally am not racist in the positive meaning of the word, or even the negative meaning. I do, however, believe that if there are differences between human groupings that manifest in genetic terms, it is worth exploring these differences, and not silencing researchers who are merely studying the matter.

You're trying to pin this on races when in fact we're looking at semi-isolated populations. The genetic variations between people living in Africa and people living in Europe are going to be greater, just like the genetic variability of people living in Europe are going to be more similar. However, this is pretty much regardless of "race" since it takes into account mainly the interbreeding between the populations. While recent immigrants to Europe will most likely have a greater diversity than local inhabitants, there is not likely to be much difference between an African American and a typical Caucasian American due to the fact that their ancestors have been members of a common gene pool for generations.

In case you missed that, read this post again.

As usual, you are bringing up an already debunked point. Have you failed to understand my quote again which says "ancient ancestry (continent of origin), which correlates tightly with self-described race, and not current residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the US population". I added the (...) part to original quote...
As I said, think before you say silly things.

Except that their counter-arguments are not based on science, but rather on the desirability of publishing Jensen's findings. Hardly a counter-argument if you ask me...before people even examined what he found, he was insulted, harassed and ostracised. Sort of the Catholic Church treated that "vile heretic", Gallileo.

Things like motivations or desirability are impossible to prove, that is the kind of things that find unapplicable the word "truth". They are scientists, they are as known and respected as Jensen, and they have studies entirely contradicting Jensen's work. that is all someone need to write a counter argument. Your talk about desires, motivations, and wishes is entirely non obejtvie, and you have no sources for that slandering. I think too much for an "objective" fan, don't you think?

You have pulled out of your ass a speech about their motivations without any source and published it in the internet. Shame on you, objectivity will be mad at you. I was arguing and conceding points here until you, that have been "Quixotic" in your defense of objectivity, come out and talk about "desirabilities" of third parties without any point rather that pure and raw speculation on your part. You have debated yourself right now.

Hispanic is a term of late use, with no meaning really outside the United States of America, where it means actually "people of Latin American ascendance". Check the inmigration services of the USA, I made my thesis about the use of that word in contrapart of "Latino".

Your use of that word "hispanic", alongside with the use of the term "Americans" for citizens of the USA, which most inhabitants of the rest of the continent seem to neglect, including me, gives you a stronger sense of USA-centrism than just referring to the New York Times and Fox News as examples of politically oriented media.

Hispanic is a spanish word which means spanish speaking and that's the meaning we get. I'm not interested what meaning Americans attach to that word.
The current adjective for USA citizens is American, as defined by most, maybe all dictionaries. Let me know when they change it. And there is no continent as America. There are North America and South America, which are together Americas. The adjective for people in these continents shouldnt be Americans therefore but Americasians, if we follow your silly logic.

Hispanic is a spanish word which means spanish speaking and that's the meaning we get. I'm not interested what meaning Americans attach to that word.
The current adjective for USA citizens is American, as defined by most, maybe all dictionaries. Let me know when they change it. And there is no continent as America. There are North America and South America, which are together Americas. The adjective for people in these continents shouldnt be Americans therefore but Americasians, if we follow your silly logic.

Hispanic is not a spanish word. The only similar word is "Hispanoamérica" that comprises those countries that once were under colonial dominion of the Spanish Empire during the Siglo de Oro. Stop trying to move in the ignorance quicksand you have gotten yourself into. You are going to say to me, a spanish, that hispanic is a spanish word? I am sure you do know more spanish than me.

By american dictionaries. You keep the USA-centrism right there...I cannot remember anyone but the most USAized people around here called them "Americanos"

Things like motivations or desirability are impossible to prove, that is the kind of things that find unapplicable the word "truth". They are scientists, they are as known and respected as Jensen, and they have studies entirely contradicting Jensen's work. that is all someone need to write a counter argument. Your talk about desires, motivations, and wishes is entirely non obejtvie, and you have no sources for that slandering. I think too much for an "objective" fan, don't you think?

You have pulled out of your ass a speech about their motivations without any source and published it in the internet. Shame on you, objectivity will be mad at you. I was arguing and conceding points here until you, that have been "Quixotic" in your defense of objectivity, come out and talk about "desirabilities" of third parties without any point rather that pure and raw speculation on your part. You have debated yourself right now.
Or, you have misunderstood me. Have you read a lot of the work launched against Jensen? It does not directly invalidate his claims. It often focuses on things irrelevant to the main thrust of his work. Am I simply to regard such research as meritorious? No. Not unless it is of the right kind to actually challenge his conclusions. Jensen, as well, made a good job of defending his work against criticism. Also, you yourself brought up the desirability issue. Some scientists agreed with Jensen's work, but thought it were better kept secret. To me, that is an invalid reason to discredit his work.

Read my posts better in future.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread and NS for today. Have fun.

I'm just trying to discover whether you NS-users believe in the innate superiority of certain racial groups and if so to what degree. Or if you, like me, believe that it's so much hot air and that there's very little in it.

There is much more variation within a race than between races in things like IQ scores. At any rate, I think generalisations about one race being "superior" to another are based on shoddy logic at best and most certainly have an agenda.

Monkeys are 99% genetically identical to humans. That 1 percent makes a huge difference althought it's a small number. When it comes to genetics, small numbers make huge differences.
Didn't even bother reading, didja?

Skin color has 6 seperate genes (you have all 6, meaning, genetically speaking, you're Black BTW).

Height is controlled by 100s. Yes, there IS more difference between individuals than between the so called races.

As for the claims in this thread about there are more genetic variation within a race then between races:
And as for using a Wiki article that doesn't even ANSWER the Human Genom Project reseach...

Any case:
Today, scientists are faced with this situation in genomics, where existing biological models or paradigms of 'racial' and 'ethnic' categorizations cannot accommodate the uniqueness of the individual and universality of humankind that is evident in new knowledge emerging from human genome sequence variation research and molecular anthropological research. The paradigms of human identity based on 'races' as biological constructs are being questioned in light of the preponderance of data on human genome sequence variation　-Charmaine D M Royal & Georgia M Dunston

Variation at the population level
The average proportion of nucleotide differences between a randomly chosen pair of humans (i.e., average nucleotide diversity, or ) is consistently estimated to lie between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 1,500 (refs. 9,10). This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees11, 12, reflecting the recent origin of our species from a small founding population13. The value for Homo sapiens can be put into perspective by considering that humans differ from chimpanzees at only 1 in 100 nucleotides, on average14, 15. Because there are approximately three billion nucleotide base pairs in the haploid human genome, each pair of humans differs, on average, by two to three million base pairs.

Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'16, 17. Approximately 85−90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10−15% of variation is found between them18, 19, 20 (Table 1). In other words, 90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only 10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans. The proportion of total genetic variation ascribed to differences between continental populations, called FST, is consistent, regardless of the type of autosomal loci examined (Table 1). FST varies, however, depending on how the human population is divided. If four Old World populations (European, African, East Asian and Indian subcontinent) are examined instead of three, FST (estimated for 100 Alu element insertion polymorphisms) decreases from 14% to 10% (ref. 21). These estimates of FST and tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations. -Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding

Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types. - Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding

Royal, C. D. M., & Dunston, G. M. (2004). Changing the paradigm from 'race' to human genome variation. Nature Genetics, 36(11s), S5-S7.

Jorde, L. B., & Wooding, S. P. (2004). Genetic variation, classification and 'race'. Nature Genetics, 36(11s), S28-S33.

Party still goes on for the un-ignorant people, Nervun ;)
Too bad you're with the ignorant group then, ne?

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530
http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

Ha. That same study has been repeated torn apart right in front of you as fundamentally flawed in not showing that other arbitrary designations would not show the same distinctions or that the results show more regularity in results among a particular race than any other randomly selected group. It's flawed. We know it's flawed. You know it's flawed. So you slink away until you think everyone forgot or no one is watching and trot it out again and try to make it fly.

No one is fulling for this ridiculous argument. Try using a study that hasn't already being proven to be flawed.

I dont think that. Scientists do. However, under their logic, that black man should be considered african, not asian...


Same old tired arguments. It must be summer again. It's a fallacy. Scientists don't think any such thing. SOME scientists think it. The MAJORITY of scientists can do basic math and recognize that you find more genetic similarity by grouping in more meaningful ways than you do among races. It's even been quoted to you from your own study. One has to wonder if you actually read the things you cite.

I don't think it means what you think it means, as per The Princess Bride.

As usual, you are bringing up an already debunked point. Have you failed to understand my quote again which says "ancient ancestry (continent of origin), which correlates tightly with self-described race, and not current residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the US population". I added the (...) part to original quote...
As I said, think before you say silly things.

Ha. The irony of you complaining that people bring up already debunked points. Your own study points out that there are more sensical groupings than race for genetic analysis. It's a basic mathematical expression and race doesn't even come close to passing muster.

Well, according to the test taken in my childhood, I had no ADD, it was discarded because I was able to focus if pressured and commanded to do so. People with ADD cannot concentrate easily all out of sudden. Of course, I could still have a variant of ADD, but that would need to be analyzed by an entirely brand new theory, and I am not a little girl anymore. :(

I can concentrate, but only if I want to, and usually I don't. For example, 9:28 am here and I have to deliver a news report in ten minutes, and here I am, writing this post.

Maybe you just need some self discipline.. and get your priorities straight.

Didn't even bother reading, didja?

Skin color has 6 seperate genes (you have all 6, meaning, genetically speaking, you're Black BTW).

Height is controlled by 100s. Yes, there IS more difference between individuals than between the so called races.


And as for using a Wiki article that doesn't even ANSWER the Human Genom Project reseach...

Any case:
Today, scientists are faced with this situation in genomics, where existing biological models or paradigms of 'racial' and 'ethnic' categorizations cannot accommodate the uniqueness of the individual and universality of humankind that is evident in new knowledge emerging from human genome sequence variation research and molecular anthropological research. The paradigms of human identity based on 'races' as biological constructs are being questioned in light of the preponderance of data on human genome sequence variation　-Charmaine D M Royal & Georgia M Dunston

Variation at the population level
The average proportion of nucleotide differences between a randomly chosen pair of humans (i.e., average nucleotide diversity, or ) is consistently estimated to lie between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 1,500 (refs. 9,10). This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees11, 12, reflecting the recent origin of our species from a small founding population13. The value for Homo sapiens can be put into perspective by considering that humans differ from chimpanzees at only 1 in 100 nucleotides, on average14, 15. Because there are approximately three billion nucleotide base pairs in the haploid human genome, each pair of humans differs, on average, by two to three million base pairs.

Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'16, 17. Approximately 85−90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10−15% of variation is found between them18, 19, 20 (Table 1). In other words, 90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only 10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans. The proportion of total genetic variation ascribed to differences between continental populations, called FST, is consistent, regardless of the type of autosomal loci examined (Table 1). FST varies, however, depending on how the human population is divided. If four Old World populations (European, African, East Asian and Indian subcontinent) are examined instead of three, FST (estimated for 100 Alu element insertion polymorphisms) decreases from 14% to 10% (ref. 21). These estimates of FST and tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations. -Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding

Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types. - Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding

Royal, C. D. M., & Dunston, G. M. (2004). Changing the paradigm from 'race' to human genome variation. Nature Genetics, 36(11s), S5-S7.

Jorde, L. B., & Wooding, S. P. (2004). Genetic variation, classification and 'race'. Nature Genetics, 36(11s), S28-S33.


Too bad you're with the ignorant group then, ne?

LOL...Thx for proving my points very well. Can I get the links please so I can use these in other debates?

Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'16, 17. Approximately 85−90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10−15% of variation is found between them18, 19, 20

This is what the wiki article said. A person in one continent is much more likely to be genetically closer to another person in the same continent then a person in another continent. And:

Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types. - Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding

Basically, what this says is that race is NOT biologically meaningless, it is just that it doesnt have clear boundries. I never was arguing for clear boundries. I know there is a spectrum. From total blacks in africa, you go to brown mid east people, then there are whites, but first darker whites in south europe and then lighter whites in north.
The fact that I'm right gives me enough satisfaction that I wont carry on "you are ignorant....no you are ignorant" games. As I said, please supply the links. You have my thanks...

Same old tired arguments. It must be summer again. It's a fallacy. Scientists don't think any such thing. SOME scientists think it. The MAJORITY of scientists can do basic math and recognize that you find more genetic similarity by grouping in more meaningful ways than you do among races. It's even been quoted to you from your own study. One has to wonder if you actually read the things you cite.

I don't think it means what you think it means, as per The Princess Bride.

Typical Jocabia post. Rephraising "No you are debunked!" in many different ways but without any content. Refer to my reply to Nervun. Your personal opinions about what majority of scientists think holds no value, especially considering that the results of Genome Project are clear.

Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types. - Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P WoodingIn other words: Turks are European because they have interbred with the people in the Balkans for centuries.

Ha. The irony of you complaining that people bring up already debunked points. Your own study points out that there are more sensical groupings than race for genetic analysis. It's a basic mathematical expression and race doesn't even come close to passing muster.

Really? Go and read it again...

Didn't even bother reading, didja?

Skin color has 6 seperate genes (you have all 6, meaning, genetically speaking, you're Black BTW).

Height is controlled by 100s. Yes, there IS more difference between individuals than between the so called races.

Yeah, I was kinda bummed that I went to the trouble of explaining this and it seems to have been totally ignored. :(

It also bears repeating that traits such as intelligence and memory vary more between individuals of any given "race" than they do between racial groupings.

In other words: Turks are European because they have interbred with the people in the Balkans for centuries.

Are Mexicans European as well because they interbred with the Spanish? While I'm sure there is some very slim Genetically European minority in Turkey, the majority of that minority is probably culturally Non-European, leaving the actual numbers of Europeans a HUGELY slim minority...

LOL...Thx for proving my points very well. Can I get the links please so I can use these in other debates?
You don't even bother reading... no, no, I know you don't, because each one answered your point, then went on to say that, yes, it is meaningless.

And it's called a bibliography... gee... I guess your university didn't teach ya about that, did they.

Do REAL source research, who knows, you MAY just learn something, though I doubt it.

Yeah, I was kinda bummed that I went to the trouble of explaining this and it seems to have been totally ignored. :(

It also bears repeating that traits such as intelligence and memory vary more between individuals of any given "race" than they do between racial groupings.
Oh I've come to the conclustion that he selectively reads so don't feel bad.

Are Mexicans European as well because they interbred with the Spanish? Well, yes. "Racially", they are both North American and European.
While I'm sure there is some very slim Genetically European minority in Turkey, the majority of that minority is probably culturally Non-European, leaving the actual numbers of Europeans a HUGELY slim minority...Pity that "culture" has no relevance to "race". You're basically admitting that you have no arguments other than social constructs to prove your "race" point in this case. Admit their Europeans or give up your silly notions.

Good day :)

You don't even bother reading... no, no, I know you don't, because each one answered your point, then went on to say that, yes, it is meaningless.

And it's called a bibliography... gee... I guess your university didn't teach ya about that, did they.

Do REAL source research, who knows, you MAY just learn something, though I doubt it.

The only part where your silly claims were supported was an opinion, not the data. The data is clear and I quoted them in red. The fact that you gave this ad-hominem answer, rather then a real argument also proves that you dont have any scientific backing....

Well, yes. "Racially", they are both North American and European.


This is why we disagree as we see things differently. To me, you cant be both racially native american and european. Get it? :p
You are either mixed or native American in this case, since native american genes are more dominant (white genes are the most reccessive among all humans). Even then, the european admixture should be small in Mexican genes, as the Europeans were rulers or soldiers or few settlers white native americans were there in large numbers as some of them were far more advanced then the ones in USA or Canada.


Pity that "culture" has no relevance to "race". You're basically admitting that you have no arguments other than social constructs to prove your "race" point in this case. Admit their Europeans or give up your silly notions.

Good day :)

Turks ruled Greece for centuries, yet the greeks say interbreeding was minimal due to religious differences. Apply that to all balkans and see my point in the last post.

I'm just trying to discover whether you NS-users believe in the innate superiority of certain racial groups and if so to what degree. Or if you, like me, believe that it's so much hot air and that there's very little in it.


There is no hot air,some people do think they are better,point is since some think they are, they have to learn the tricks.

take that

I'm just trying to discover whether you NS-users believe in the innate superiority of certain racial groups and if so to what degree. Or if you, like me, believe that it's so much hot air and that there's very little in it.

I think the ongoing arguments with Ny Nordland go a long way to showing that it is just so much hot air. It is obvious that none of his claims of proof stand up to challenge. In addition, his constant confusion of race with culture also shows that even he does not have a firm grasp of even his own concept of "race."

It has been my experience that the same people who are racist towards people of different skin tones, will be equally prejudiced against others for other claimed reasons if they live in a racially homogeneous society. My conclusion is that racism is just a convenient excuse for those who feel the need to feel superior to someone and to demonstrate that superiority by claiming social privileges over them -- even if it's just the privilege of talking bad about the other people. Arbitrary declarations, like saying that one skin color or religion or sexual orientation is better than another, is an easy way for people who are not actually superior to anyone in any way to still say, "Well, I'm better than that person over there because I'm white/religious/straight/whatever."

Take all the swarthy people out of Europe, and trust me, people like Ny Nordland will find another group to target, even among the palest of the blonds.

There is no hot air,some people do think they are better,point is since some think they are, they have to learn the tricks.

take that

Just because they think they are better, that doesn't mean they are better. And claiming that it is race that makes them better than others means that they don't have to learn any tricks -- I suppose you mean the trick of actually being better. Since they are born whatever color they think is best, they are inherently better by birth -- according to them, that is. No trick -- or skill or ability or effort -- required.

Of course, others -- like me ;) -- can see very clearly that they are not better and that's why we dismiss racism as hot air. It's like a little kid running into a roomful of adults and claiming to be the king of the world, forgetting for a moment that the adults are not interested in his make-believe play.

Turks ruled Greece for centuries, yet the greeks say interbreeding was minimal due to religious differences. Apply that to all balkans and see my point in the last post.
Turks= Muslim Greeks
Greeks= Orthodox Christian Turks

Don't tell the nationalists..

Turks= Muslim Greeks
Greeks= Orthodox Christian Turks

Don't tell the nationalists..
Well Sydney is full of Turks and Greeks. Melbourne is even more so. The fact is, while each group is phenotypically distinct, the line is blurred at the centre. lots of Turks are indistinguishable from greeks, and lots of greeks are indistinguishable from turks. Only a small number are definitely one or the other.

Turks= Muslim Greeks
Greeks= Orthodox Christian Turks

Don't tell the nationalists..
Erm, no, not at all. The two cultures differ in a number of ways. Especially given that the Greeks have different bloodlines, and were heavily influenced by Western European culture in the early 19th century (for instance, French culture). Some Turks look like Southern Europeans, so they could pass off as Greeks. Until they open their mouths. Then you realise they are not.

Greeks did not intermingle much at all with Turks under the Ottoman Empire. However, they did with the Francs, Venetians and various Eastern Europeans that neighboured them. Hence no modern Greek is genetically identical (excluding natural evolutionary differentiation) to an ancient Greek.

This is why we disagree as we see things differently. To me, you cant be both racially native american and european. Get it? :p
You are either mixed or native American in this case, since native american genes are more dominant (white genes are the most reccessive among all humans).
Such a statement proves beyond any doubt I might have attempted to hold, that you really dont have a clue when it comes to genetics. If you did you would know your statement above doesnt actually make sense.

Even then, the european admixture should be small in Mexican genes, as the Europeans were rulers or soldiers or few settlers white native americans were there in large numbers as some of them were far more advanced then the ones in USA or Canada.
And apparently history isnt a strong point either....

Turks ruled Greece for centuries, yet the greeks say interbreeding was minimal due to religious differences. Apply that to all balkans and see my point in the last post.
Whatever people say, the fact remains that humans are remarkably homogenous, the only viable reason given the cline-distribution of human homogenity and diversity, is that this is due to our exceptional propensity to readily exchange genes between populations.

Such a statement proves beyond any doubt I might have attempted to hold, that you really dont have a clue when it comes to genetics. If you did you would know your statement above doesnt actually make sense.

And apparently history isnt a strong point either....


Whatever people say, the fact remains that humans are remarkably homogenous, the only viable reason given the cline-distribution of human homogenity and diversity, is that this is due to our exceptional propensity to readily exchange genes between populations.

Since you stated that I'm wrong and didnt/couldnt explain it, I guess you dont expect an answer....

Typical Jocabia post. Rephraising "No you are debunked!" in many different ways but without any content. Refer to my reply to Nervun. Your personal opinions about what majority of scientists think holds no value, especially considering that the results of Genome Project are clear.
I don't have to keep debunking the same flawed studies. Make a new argument and you'll hear a new argument. Since math isn't your strong suit it's sort of pointless to explain the mathematical flaws in your argument. I tried doing it for three weeks last summer. It ended with people begging me to stop embarrassing you. That time you were using the exact same arguments and evidence. What's changed? Nothing. So it's no less debunked than last summer.

The only part where your silly claims were supported was an opinion, not the data. The data is clear and I quoted them in red. The fact that you gave this ad-hominem answer, rather then a real argument also proves that you dont have any scientific backing....

He gave this answer because you haven't addressed his arguments. You keep claiming people won't make arguments but when people make them you ignore them. Why do you think everyone calls you a troll and not Europa Maxima who is usually arguing the same side? Because he actually keeps on addressing arguments instead of ignoring everything that he doesn't understand. We all understood Nervun's post. Just admit this is all over your head. We won't hold it against you.

Now going back to your arguments. Here is a scholarly article addressing the argument you're trying to make but don't understand.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'16, 17. [b]Approximately 85−90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10−15% of variation is found between them18, 19, 20 (Table 1). In other words, 90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only 10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans.[b] The proportion of total genetic variation ascribed to differences between continental populations, called FST, is consistent, regardless of the type of autosomal loci examined (Table 1). FST varies, however, depending on how the human population is divided. If four Old World populations (European, African, East Asian and Indian subcontinent) are examined instead of three, FST (estimated for 100 Alu element insertion polymorphisms) decreases from 14% to 10% (ref. 21). These estimates of FST and tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.

Now you keep quoting this, but what you're missing is that they are pointing out that of the .1 of variation that humans experience only 10% of that variation is unique to a race while 90% of all genetic variation can be found with a 'racially' homogenous group. In other words the variation between .01% genetic variation exists dividing races a smaller fraction than one would or could see if you divided groups by something equally 'meaningful' like hair color or foot size.

Since you stated that I'm wrong and didnt/couldnt explain it, I guess you dont expect an answer....
With regards to the first statement that I had replied to, there is nothing to explain, anymore than there is a sensible response to 'gobbly bobbly wobblemot', because it doesnt make sense. With regards to the second and third statements, my own concluding statement addresses both of these, perhaps it went over your head somewhat? Let me know what you dont comprehend and I'll happily clarify for you.

He gave this answer because you haven't addressed his arguments. You keep claiming people won't make arguments but when people make them you ignore them. Why do you think everyone calls you a troll and not Europa Maxima who is usually arguing the same side? Because he actually keeps on addressing arguments instead of ignoring everything that he doesn't understand. We all understood Nervun's post. Just admit this is all over your head. We won't hold it against you.

Now going back to your arguments. Here is a scholarly article addressing the argument you're trying to make but don't understand.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'16, 17. [b]Approximately 85−90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10−15% of variation is found between them18, 19, 20 (Table 1). In other words, 90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only 10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans.[b] The proportion of total genetic variation ascribed to differences between continental populations, called FST, is consistent, regardless of the type of autosomal loci examined (Table 1). FST varies, however, depending on how the human population is divided. If four Old World populations (European, African, East Asian and Indian subcontinent) are examined instead of three, FST (estimated for 100 Alu element insertion polymorphisms) decreases from 14% to 10% (ref. 21). These estimates of FST and tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.

Now you keep quoting this, but what you're missing is that they are pointing out that of the .1 of variation that humans experience only 10% of that variation is unique to a race while 90% of all genetic variation can be found with a 'racially' homogenous group. In other words the variation between .01% genetic variation exists dividing races a smaller fraction than one would or could see if you divided groups by something equally 'meaningful' like hair color or foot size.

Shit. I cant believe I was so wrong. I was going under the assuption that since 90% of genetic variation occurs within a continent, I was thinking that that population should share these variations and the different combinations and sequences of these variations were making the actual difference between individuals. Hence the wiki quote:

Populations within continents are more closely related to one another than to populations on other continents. Genetic variation between races is highly structured (Risch, 2002). Thus, when one considers many points (i.e., genetic loci) of variation one can distinguish groups and allocate people into groups (Bamshad, 2004).

I was also assuming the commentry of the scientist were due to PCness, not the actual data. But now, I googled some and I know I was wrong in my assumptions as well as some basic information about genetics. So much for high school biology. I was thinking genetic variation as "different genes", but thinking about it now I think it should have been clear. I guess I was either too stupid to understand or too biased that I saw what I wanted to see or lacking the base information or comination of these or all of above or some other reason I cant think of.
Anyway, since this is already huge, I'll make another post to address Nervun's original points.


I don't have to keep debunking the same flawed studies. Make a new argument and you'll hear a new argument. Since math isn't your strong suit it's sort of pointless to explain the mathematical flaws in your argument. I tried doing it for three weeks last summer. It ended with people begging me to stop embarrassing you. That time you were using the exact same arguments and evidence. What's changed? Nothing. So it's no less debunked than last summer.

Hmm...Those people that "begged" you. Remember they were only 3 persons and they were supporting you right from the start. Not a very objective folk, is it? Besides I posted the last post, you didnt/couldnt answer that.
And what about that I am using the exact same arguments and evidence? Exact same arguments as what? As in this thread or my 2 recent threads?

Jocabia, you have to admit you lost your perspective on some matters as you can not remember them correctly. The debate we had on that thread was about the decline of white population in numbers. That has nothing to do with these latest threads with regards to usage of sources. I proved whites were in a declining thrend (i.e: they will start absolute decline in numbers within 1 or 2 decades if not now) That assertion was based on population projections on Europe and Canada and USA. If you think those projections are from "flawed studies", I attribute it to your bad memory. You couldnt say anything on Europe and Canada, so you concentrated on USA, not understanding the fact that even if USA whites remained stable in numbers, that wouldnt cover the losses in Europe or Canada. But that wasnt even the case. USA Cencus Bureau was predicting absolute decline for whites in USA, starting in the 2040's.

So you came up with your own "equations", claiming you debunked the projections of US Cencus. I think that is a perfect example of visions of grandeur as you arent qualified enough ( ;) ) in population dynamics to assert that. This is more evident as I debunked your own "equations". At first I told you simply adding the number of babies wasnt the whole picture. The timing of birth was also important. You didnt understand and called it a result of population aging, not a cause. Well, it is both and I gave more examples and then you kinda understood but you were still incorrect. You thought you were taking that effect into consideration when you added up baby numbers with regard to different age groups. But all you did was that, just addition. You didnt analyse the effects of having babies at an older age to the next generation (your calculations were based on one generation of fertile women having babies). The child bearing age for 1st baby in USA is now in record highs and that's an important factor as to why the rate of fertile women is reducing with regards to overall population. Rising longevity is another cause but it isnt just that.

Shortly you havent debunked me. I find your claims about this amusing and the excuse "I didnt want to emberass you" even funnier. I also attribute your claims about my math, again to your bad memory. Oh and even if you could have debunked me, you should know, you are nowhere close to debunking US Cencus, especially considering how you shifted positions on the effects of rise in age of child bearing. Again, especially considering, you had claimed you know all about these population calculations as to the point of debunking US Cencus, BEFORE your shift.

One other final proof about how you cant remember things correctly and how you lost perspective is simply timing. I joined on these forums at 09-04-2006. Whatever we talked, we talked within 5 months. We didnt talk these last year as you remembered incorrectly.

Finally....You've made these rediculous claims about debunking me several times now. If you are this desperate for victory, in future, you can use the one above, after your first quote.

Turks= Muslim Greeks
Greeks= Orthodox Christian Turks

Don't tell the nationalists..

Wrong. Greeks are Eastern Christians, in racial terms. Turks are derived from Seljuq provenence, which is mesopotamian in precedent to Greek.