Biology of Race

False. That may be the case with SOCIAL sciences or arts, but not the case with hard sciences.

Nope, just you baby. Just you.

1 Like

Puff, that is just the nicest and gentlest way anyone can put it, lol.

4 Likes

She’s really just such a sweetheart. Way more understanding than myself lol

2 Likes

[quote=“anon71262119, post:1148, topic:228119, full:true”]

This is pretty funny when you think about it. If IQ is largely heritable, then as a parent, my effect on my kids is negligible… Think about that for a minute. Guess where my kids got their genes? [/quote]

Haha I think you know I mean from an environmental perspective.

Ideas and arguments stand and fall on their own merit. It doesn’t matter who it comes from. Also I think it’s quite naive to think a significant portion of science today isn’t politically tainted.

Secondly I do not consider white nationalism immoral, how can I? Plenty of other races - Japanese, Jews and Koreans for example have ethno-states yet I’m supposed to get into hysterics over the idea some people believe in the same concept with respect to white people?

Get back to me when you actually look into Wade’s work

Anyone have a Pushharder gold bar jpg handy?

I feel so stupid arguing with some of the things he said to me in 2012. Science really has become a religion

Question

What is the reason such an overwhelming percentage of life and world changing technology, knowledge, inventions, creature comfort, etc is coming a relatively small concentration of mankind? To wit, N European, E Asian, and Ashkenazi Jews.

Even if one determines there is no heritable component, why are these “ethnic groups?”
able to produce advancement after advancement in every field, while many ancient people groups still till the ground with sticks, never master a 2 story building, have no machinery, have never learned to dig a water well, have no written language, and on and on?

All strictly cultural environment, even when the advancements have been introduced to them centuries ago?

It is to do with how they are raised and taught to be as a human.

If someone can show a study where Jews have genetically larger brains enabling them to get higher IQ’s and get into higher paying fields of work I will change my view.

LOL, we’ve been over this before, hoss. Last time you told me “check out this reference then get back to me” - I read back to you exactly why your interpretation was flawed, explained what could be drawn from the study and what couldn’t; you ignored that response and pivoted to “you should read this book…”

Since you basically pretend that didn’t happen and said I have “brought nothing to this thread” - I kindly reminded you of the exchange - and then the accusation morphed into being a “one trick pony” who can only break down scientific studies but cannot form an argument (a vexing attack, to be honest, given that my breakdown of a scientific study contained my argument, but okay).

Now I’m supposed to go “look into” Wade’s work, even though an entire field of scientists (remember that thing you said above about “reading the opinions of people who study this stuff?”) did so and responded with an open letter containing this passage:

“Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, political institutions and economic development. We reject Wade’s implication that our findings substantiate his guesswork. They do not.”

I’m supposed to “look into” Wade’s work. OK, here are my findings: the scientists who actually performed the research read the book and concluded that it was an inappropriate application of their research.

Ah, yes, the liberal conspiracy! We, the educated University professors and researchers, are all paid brainwashed shills for the government, tools that it may use to bleed groupthink throughout the populace!

raj: the thought that you know anything at all about “academia” (besides the fact that people with fancy pieces of paper do all this book-learnin’ and publish things you can Google keywords from to “support” your position) is laughable.

Indeed they do. How does it look like your “ideas and arguments” are standing on their own merit? Judging by the reaction in this room, not very well, I’m afraid.

4 Likes

What are their main objections specifically? I can’t even find them.

It’s interesting how he Wade went from a long distinguished career to a heretic shortly after releasing this book

Wade replied: “I make no such statement. To the contrary, my book explicitly takes no position on the cause of racial differences in I.Q. results, given the difficulty of assessing the many factors other than genetics that heavily influence I.Q. scores. I find it hard to see how any reader of the book could have missed this point, and can only assume that the organizers of the biologists’ letter induced many signatories to condemn a book they had not read.”[11] Other scientists claimed that Wade had misrepresented their research.[12]

I’m sure you won’t watch it but for anyone else interested here’s an interview with the man

Edit : in the first 2 min he mentions how the left controls academia

Why hasn’t Africa developed even after over a century plus of having access to technology of the West?

There’s a couple of reasons for this.

"Firstly the slave trade destroyed states and made economic institutions more extractive, and the poverty of Africa then allowed it to be colonized by Europeans. "

“Secondly another problem African humans had a hard time outcompeting other living things in Africa, such as diseases (falciparum malaria and sleeping sickness, most notably) and giant beasts (such as elephants).
So in Darwinian terms, humanity not only evolved in Africa, but, unfortunately for the humans, co-evolved along with animals and germs, which gave humanity’s rivals a more than fighting chance. When humans arrived in the New World, in contrast, we killed and ate the local elephants (wooly mammoths) in short order because they didn’t understand how dangerous these two-legged creatures with pointy sticks were to them. In Africa, the elephants had seen us coming for millions of years and had time to evolve behavioral defenses against us.”

“Elephants one can eat an entire African village’s crop of food in a day, leaving it starving. So, as Reader notes, humans and elephants in Africa tended to form patchworks of habitation, with humans only living in areas where they could muster enough density of population to drive off the elephants and giraffes and predators.
But too high a density of population, such as in cities, made people sitting ducks for diseases borne by mosquitoes and tsetse flies.”

So, tropical Africans couldn’t learn to live in dense urban populations, with all the advanced trades made possible by the concentrations of city life.

The colour of the people in the situation doesn’t have anything to do with them not advancing, only the fact that they live in that place.

[quote=“hugh_gilly, post:1162, topic:228119, full:true”]

"Firstly the slave trade destroyed states and made economic institutions more extractive, and the poverty of Africa then allowed it to be colonized by Europeans. "[/quote]

Then why are the most developed portions of Africa where the Europeans heavily colonized such as South Africa and the most undeveloped areas the places that went largely untouched?

[quote=“hugh_gilly, post:1162, topic:228119, full:true”]
“Secondly another problem African humans had a hard time outcompeting other living things in Africa, such as diseases (falciparum malaria and sleeping sickness, most notably) and giant beasts (such as elephants).
So in Darwinian terms, humanity not only evolved in Africa, but, unfortunately for the humans, co-evolved along with animals and germs, which gave humanity’s rivals a more than fighting chance. When humans arrived in the New World, in contrast, we killed and ate the local elephants (wooly mammoths) in short order because they didn’t understand how dangerous these two-legged creatures with pointy sticks were to them. In Africa, the elephants had seen us coming for millions of years and had time to evolve behavioral defenses against us.”

“Elephants one can eat an entire African village’s crop of food in a day, leaving it starving. So, as Reader notes, humans and elephants in Africa tended to form patchworks of habitation, with humans only living in areas where they could muster enough density of population to drive off the elephants and giraffes and predators.
But too high a density of population, such as in cities, made people sitting ducks for diseases borne by mosquitoes and tsetse flies.”

So, tropical Africans couldn’t learn to live in dense urban populations, with all
the advanced trades made possible by the concentrations of city life.[/quote]

In 2017, they don’t even have basic development in many areas, it’s a failed continent. Even the cities are complete shit holes.

This needs to stop being said - skin color is a marker for certain genes and traits, no one is actually talking specifically about skin color

South Africa is most well developed as it is full of White people. I am half South African and have been there and it is full of White people. The White people bring in money from the outside.

I literally just said why it’s a failed continent.[quote=“therajraj, post:1163, topic:228119”]
This needs to stop being said - skin color is a marker for certain genes and traits, no one is actually talking specifically about skin color
[/quote]

I said that it is not the reason for why they are in the situation. Genes don’t have much to do with it other than sickle cell. Them being Black isn’t the reason they are in poverty. It’s just that they are Black and in poverty.

I said that it is not the reason for why they are in the situation. Genes don’t have much to do with it other than sickle cell. Them being Black isn’t the reason they are in poverty. It’s just that they are Black and in poverty.
[/quote]

You clearly haven’t read a single thing I wrote in this thread.

Still genuinely curious @therajraj

I gave you an answer. Just because there isn’t a specific name for a person of that ancestral makeup doesn’t invalidate the biological basis of race in the same way half pitbull / half poodle doesn’t invalidate the concept of breeds.

I’m not invalidating the concept of breeds. You would like to see the world start acting in a different way to different races based on attributes like IQ (for example). How do you plan to do that if you can’t even figure out what race people are?

1 Like

Again you are a repeat questions that have already been answered.

Most people are not uniquely mixed, you can clearly see major racial groups emerge.

Putting people akin to dogs is not the same thing as defining race (especially since you couldn’t define breeds either).

Most people may not be uniquely mixed, but quite a few are. If you want govts/people/etc to treat people differently based on race, and you can’t even put people in race buckets, you’re in for a rough road.