 Enosia
Postitused: 19
Kasutajalt: UK
 |
I believe a black person can become a mathematical genius or a musical one. if he is raised in different conditions ( even in the same conditions)
plz enlighten
Mathematics is a Highly Logical Aspect of nature. Human Minds aren't Particularly designed for Logic. Human Driven aspects of society such as social acceptance makes the possibility that being "good" at math is not something that people take with pride. Rational Thinking is something that must be intrinsically driven, as many Humans are not logical, Much of Human civilization does not derive from logical thinking as many Humans survive just fine without it. Now Looking at Genetics in a generalist view can be used. As Genes are passed down, and with the factor that 95% of Humans have a chance to breed. Genes of which can be considered a detriment to advanced mental capacities, are passed down or Genes which can foster Extreme intellectualism can be diluted out of a particular strain of genetic line, to which the benefit no longer appears in the organisms offspring. Taking into consideration the genetic aspects of Sub-Saharan, or Mixed Blacks reveal that The number of Neurons within the differing Cranial Structures and the Differing Hormonal Influences and Brain Structuralism shows that Especially in Language the Black have difficulties. Now you are correct to say that a being can be conditioned to retain information, however there is a limit to the capacity in which the information and be stored and expressed. The IQ for a 25% Bred Black with White in america is from 80-85. The IQ of Sub-Saharan is around 70 and below. Now with these constraints and considering possible IQ deviation, Some Mixed Blacks can reach a level to which Mathematical Fluency is possible, however no Mixed Black can reach the Level of a IQ deviation that is possible with Europeans or Asians, to which if the deviation is Equal, the Whites and Asians will be considered more of a "genius" that the Mixed Black. Pure African Genetics do not Provide the necessary Probability that a intellectual Deviation will reach that of "Genius" capacity, as what is now Modern Standards of Intellect, developed in EU and East Asia, were not developed nor found necessary in the gene pool of Africans, as the Environment created a separate being fitted to their environment through Natural selection. A Pure Black, or Mixed Black, Can be Conditioned under A higher Civilization, yet the limitations still apply, Behavioral aspects of aggression and boredom with Intellectualism can lead to a failed attempt of Conditioning. Now If the conditioning succeeds then the comparison of the Black to the White or Asian Equivalent will be outperformed. It doesn't mean that Improvement is not possible but due to genetic and instilled behaviors, along with the possible social interactions that limit Intellectual growth, all make it unlikely for a Black Mathematical "Genius". And while Improvements can be made on the Very rare Blacks or Half Bred Blacks can be made to grow in mental function it cannot rival the Genetic Potential that the Europeans and Asian can achieve. Conditions can only pave a route to Improvement, Not guarantee it.
Separating in to paragraphs would help.
"Mathematics is a Highly Logical Aspect of nature. Human Minds aren't Particularly designed for Logic. Human Driven aspects of society such as social acceptance makes the possibility that being "good" at math is not something that people take with pride. Rational Thinking is something that must be intrinsically driven, as many Humans are not logical, Much of Human civilization does not derive from logical thinking as many Humans survive just fine without it."
Our brains generate emotion and are, to some extent, capable of logical processing. Both helped our ancestors survive, though logic is too expensive and slow to be useful in emergencies. So our brains are rigged to run on instinct when we feel threatened or have overwhelming desires. At such times, our logical abilities tend to shut down.
Humans are logical creatures, we always have been. If you disagree please provide a reputable source suggesting otherwise.
"Now Looking at Genetics in a generalist view can be used. As Genes are passed down, and with the factor that 95% of Humans have a chance to breed. Genes of which can be considered a detriment to advanced mental capacities, are passed down or Genes which can foster Extreme intellectualism can be diluted out of a particular strain of genetic line, to which the benefit no longer appears in the organisms offspring."
Intelligence is very complicated. First of all there is no clear definition of what intelligence actually is or entails however we can surmise that its numerous qualities such as short term/long term memory capacity and ability to think logically that come together to form what we know collectively as intelligence. You're correct about how genes that would not support an organism's survival may over numerous generations and through natural selection be bred out and clearly you're suggesting that this is the case for people originating from Africa.
However, to pose such a great claim you should at least be able to provide me a scientific study that delves in to the genome of the average african, that identifies these so called 'intelligence genes' that we may posses but they do not.
I think you'll find there is no such study to have made such conclusions because no intelligence genes have been pinpointed from what I've read.
"Taking into consideration the genetic aspects of Sub-Saharan, or Mixed Blacks reveal that The number of Neurons within the differing Cranial Structures and the Differing Hormonal Influences and Brain Structuralism shows that Especially in Language the Black have difficulties."
Again, these are serious claims. As far as I am concerned, this is just your opinion until you provide me with a scientific source backing up your outlandish claims. I've never known any scientific study to have proposed that our brains were different in the fashion you propose.
"Now you are correct to say that a being can be conditioned to retain information, however there is a limit to the capacity in which the information and be stored and expressed.The IQ for a 25% Bred Black with White in america is from 80-85. The IQ of Sub-Saharan is around 70 and below."
Firstly, you've provided no source for the rather specific '25% bred black with white' for which I would think a source necessary. However it is common knowledge that the IQ of african americans is below average as well as the IQ of the average citizen of a sub saharan country. Although, there are no scientific studies at all to suggest that this is because of innate genetic variations, I would challenge you to find one if you disagree.
Rather, the difference in IQ is due to a combination of environment factors. For example it is no coincidence that the countries with the lowest IQ are those with the lowest gdp.
"IQ and Global Inequality", the average IQ for sub-Saharan Africa was found to be 82, lower than the average in Western countries, but higher than Lynn and Vanhanen's estimate of 67. Wicherts at al. conclude that this difference is likely due to sub-Saharan Africa having limited access to modern advances in education, nutrition and health care.
Wicherts, Jelte M.; Dolana, Conor V.; van der Maas, Han L.J. "A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans". Intelligence. 38 (1): 1-20.
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
"Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions."
And it goes on to discuss race specifically:
" Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective. "
The idea that these are at all related to what goes on inside one's head has been entirely subjective.
And another source from wikipedia: "Earl B. Hunt agrees that racial categories are defined by social conventions, though he points out that they also correlate with clusters of both genetic traits and cultural traits. Hunt explains that, due to this, racial IQ differences are caused by these variables that correlate with race, and race itself is rarely a causal variable. Researchers who study racial disparities in test scores are studying the relationship between the scores and the many race-related factors which could potentially affect performance. These factors include health, wealth, biological differences, and education." Hunt, Earl (2010). Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7.
Now with these constraints and considering possible IQ deviation, Some Mixed Blacks can reach a level to which Mathematical Fluency is possible, however no Mixed Black can reach the Level of a IQ deviation that is possible with Europeans or Asians, to which if the deviation is Equal, the Whites and Asians will be considered more of a "genius" that the Mixed Black. Pure African Genetics do not Provide the necessary Probability that a intellectual Deviation will reach that of "Genius" capacity, as what is now Modern Standards of Intellect, developed in EU and East Asia, were not developed nor found necessary in the gene pool of Africans, as the Environment created a separate being fitted to their environment through Natural selection.
This seems like a baseless assertion.
A Pure Black, or Mixed Black, Can be Conditioned under A higher Civilization, yet the limitations still apply, Behavioral aspects of aggression and boredom with Intellectualism can lead to a failed attempt of Conditioning. Now If the conditioning succeeds then the comparison of the Black to the White or Asian Equivalent will be outperformed. It doesn't mean that Improvement is not possible but due to genetic and instilled behaviors, along with the possible social interactions that limit Intellectual growth, all make it unlikely for a Black Mathematical "Genius". And while Improvements can be made on the Very rare Blacks or Half Bred Blacks can be made to grow in mental function it cannot rival the Genetic Potential that the Europeans and Asian can achieve. Conditions can only pave a route to Improvement, Not guarantee it.
I've pretty much addressed this above.
The most notable feature of your arguments is the fact that you've provided ZERO supporting evidence.
If you really want to be able to convince anyone that you're right and we're wrong then you should start by supporting your assertions with evidence rather than just stating your opinions.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
Enosia
Postitused: 19
Kasutajalt: UK
|
Kirjutas Tundy, 03.09.2016 at 18:26
Kirjutas Enosia, 03.09.2016 at 16:39
A breed is a group of domestic animals or plants with homogeneous genotype and phenotype, created by humans through controlled breeding, in other words, through artificial selection.
If something is possible via artificial selection, then it is also possible via natural selection. It would just take much more time if it happens at all.
Kirjutas Enosia, 03.09.2016 at 16:39
humans show phenotypic and genotypic variation by natural selection have resulted in some alleles being more frequent in some groups that in others, and ancestry determines the distribution of some genes.
Behind the political correctness, it very much says that humans are different. While ancestry is not a good indicator of differences, it is the best thing we have.
Kirjutas Enosia, 03.09.2016 at 16:39
But because "race" is also a social construct, it's a much more complex issue than distribution of genotypes. The fact that we say that Obama is the first American black President illustrate the point pretty clearly. Genetics and allele frequencies don't matter much. The fact that most people think in terms of only 4 or 5 "races" is indicative of the strong influence of culture in the way some people perceive what is a human race. Humans have been traveling back and forth and mixing with the locals throughout human history https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140213142305.htm. We even mixed with archaic humans, like Neanderthals and Denisovans, when we found them in our path http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding."
;^) I never claimed we are limited to "4-5" races.
>Only physical differences
I excluded IQ tests, because comparing Africa to Europe would not be fair.
Nearly 50% of your personality is influenced by genes, is that not significant enough? and curiously this one is up:
Among traits found most strongly determined by heredity were leadership and, surprisingly, traditionalism or obedience to authority.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/02/science/major-personality-study-finds-that-traits-are-mostly-inherited.html
https://cepa.stanford.edu/seda/overview
"We know that the hereditary part of intelligence involves multiple genes, but we don't yet know enough to predict intelligence from the genome. All we can do is look at test results. Twin studies tell us that IQ is about 75% inherited and 25% environmental in adults, so really, the difference could be either, or a combination.
What's more, the correlation of IQ with environment increases in poor people and the children of immigrants from poor to rich countries tend to score higher on IQ tests than their parents. So there are environmental factors that account for some of the discrepancies we see between rich and poor countries — factors like prenatal nutrition, illness, and intellectual stimulation early in life.
In addition, we know that average IQ scores have been increasing over time in developed countries — the so-called Flynn Effect.
It is very difficult to design an IQ test that is valid across cultures, and even if one uses culturally neutral measures, someone who grows up watching Sesame Street likely develops different intellectual skills than someone who lives in a hut. One theory is that the child's brain has the ability to channel resources, developing one brain area at the expense of an adjacent one in the presence of stimulation.
It has also been found that personal expectation plays a large role in performance on aptitude tests. For example, girls underperform boys on tests of mathematical ability, because they have absorbed the belief that girls aren't good at math, but if they're given confidence-building exercises before the test, the discrepancy disappears. The same effect may be depressing the scores of black kids — and so may many environmental factors.
It's also true that the allocation of sub-intelligences, e.g., spatial vs. mathematical reasoning, doesn't seem to be constant between populations, and that IQ tests were designed to focus on the kind of ability that suits someone to a contemporary Western education and don't always seem to work very well with primitive people. For example, the San people have the lowest average IQ in the world, 60. But someone with an IQ of 60 in the west would be severely disabled, whereas one can carry on a perfectly reasonable conversation with the San."
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Tsiteeri: Tsiteeri: Kirjutas Enosia, 03.09.2016 at 18:55
But because "race" is also a social construct, it's a much more complex issue than distribution of genotypes. The fact that we say that Obama is the first American black President illustrate the point pretty clearly. Genetics and allele frequencies don't matter much. The fact that most people think in terms of only 4 or 5 "races" is indicative of the strong influence of culture in the way some people perceive what is a human race. Humans have been traveling back and forth and mixing with the locals throughout human history https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140213142305.htm. We even mixed with archaic humans, like Neanderthals and Denisovans, when we found them in our path http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding."
You are wrong is is not a social construct it is science. Obama is not Black, he is a Half breed. Genetics and Alleles define People and you as an individual, saying it doesn't, is like saying the Sky is pink. What is socially seen as race, is the reason for all the ignorant spouting between conflicting parties. Homo-sapiens Breeding with Neanderthals is the birth of The European Genetic Group. Africans do not have Neanderthal DNA, only the Mixed Mongrelized gene pool of The Blacks in North America, because in America, 85% of all the blacks there have at least 25% DNA from White People. The Humans back then are not the same as now, and due to Different mixing of Different Groups lead to Different Attributes to which is seen as race, actually a variation within the Human Species since race only encompasses physical characteristics, and not the other traits and unique properties which can make Humans classified as different Sub-Species. Thus Showing the True Extent of Human Difference.
"Lewontin's argument
In the 1972 study "The Apportionment of Human Diversity", Richard Lewontin performed a fixation index (FST) statistical analysis using 17 markers, including blood group proteins, from individuals across classically defined "races" (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and, Australian Aborigines). He found that the majority of the total genetic variation between humans (i.e., of the 0.1% of DNA that varies between individuals), 85.4%, is found within populations, 8.3% of the variation is found between populations within a "race", and only 6.3% was found to account for the racial classification. Numerous later studies have confirmed his findings. Based on this analysis, Lewontin concluded, "Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance."
This argument has been cited as evidence that racial categories are biologically meaningless, and that behavioral differences between groups cannot have any genetic underpinnings. One example is the "Statement on 'Race'" published by the American Anthropological Association in 1998, which rejected the existence of races as unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups."
First off we know that the Genetic Difference between An Englishman and a Sub-Saharan African is .23% So the variance between individuals is greater than Lewotin states.
When Discussing alleles and loci between the Races, Lewotin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles at an individual locus between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. You cant look at individual loci, you must look at different loci's at the same time because the differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations. This basically means that the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations.
Trying to look for differences in allele frequency in a single loci may make it difficult to identify a race in a genetic structure, if you look at enough loci the probability of miscalculation of a race reaches zero percent, and a definite race can be identified. A. W. F. Edwards even criticized Lewontin saying that Lewontin used his analysis to attack human classification in science for social reasons.
Also there are Gene Haplogroups that Certain races/ethnic groups have that makes them distinct, along with the reality that when it comes to race it is the frequency of these groups as well.
Here ill give you a photo of the principle component analysis separating groups of humans from different regions based on many genetic markers. As you can clearly see it is fairly easy for scientists to determine what ethnicity someone is from their genetics.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Tsiteeri: Tsiteeri:
Separating in to paragraphs would help.
"Mathematics is a Highly Logical Aspect of nature. Human Minds aren't Particularly designed for Logic. Human Driven aspects of society such as social acceptance makes the possibility that being "good" at math is not something that people take with pride. Rational Thinking is something that must be intrinsically driven, as many Humans are not logical, Much of Human civilization does not derive from logical thinking as many Humans survive just fine without it."
Our brains generate emotion and are, to some extent, capable of logical processing. Both helped our ancestors survive, though logic is too expensive and slow to be useful in emergencies. So our brains are rigged to run on instinct when we feel threatened or have overwhelming desires. At such times, our logical abilities tend to shut down.
Humans are logical creatures, we always have been. If you disagree please provide a reputable source suggesting otherwise.
"Now Looking at Genetics in a generalist view can be used. As Genes are passed down, and with the factor that 95% of Humans have a chance to breed. Genes of which can be considered a detriment to advanced mental capacities, are passed down or Genes which can foster Extreme intellectualism can be diluted out of a particular strain of genetic line, to which the benefit no longer appears in the organisms offspring."
Intelligence is very complicated. First of all there is no clear definition of what intelligence actually is or entails however we can surmise that its numerous qualities such as short term/long term memory capacity and ability to think logically that come together to form what we know collectively as intelligence. You're correct about how genes that would not support an organism's survival may over numerous generations and through natural selection be bred out and clearly you're suggesting that this is the case for people originating from Africa.
However, to pose such a great claim you should at least be able to provide me a scientific study that delves in to the genome of the average african, that identifies these so called 'intelligence genes' that we may posses but they do not.
I think you'll find there is no such study to have made such conclusions because no intelligence genes have been pinpointed from what I've read.
"Taking into consideration the genetic aspects of Sub-Saharan, or Mixed Blacks reveal that The number of Neurons within the differing Cranial Structures and the Differing Hormonal Influences and Brain Structuralism shows that Especially in Language the Black have difficulties."
Again, these are serious claims. As far as I am concerned, this is just your opinion until you provide me with a scientific source backing up your outlandish claims. I've never known any scientific study to have proposed that our brains were different in the fashion you propose.
"Now you are correct to say that a being can be conditioned to retain information, however there is a limit to the capacity in which the information and be stored and expressed.The IQ for a 25% Bred Black with White in america is from 80-85. The IQ of Sub-Saharan is around 70 and below."
Firstly, you've provided no source for the rather specific '25% bred black with white' for which I would think a source necessary. However it is common knowledge that the IQ of african americans is below average as well as the IQ of the average citizen of a sub saharan country. Although, there are no scientific studies at all to suggest that this is because of innate genetic variations, I would challenge you to find one if you disagree.
Rather, the difference in IQ is due to a combination of environment factors. For example it is no coincidence that the countries with the lowest IQ are those with the lowest gdp.
"IQ and Global Inequality", the average IQ for sub-Saharan Africa was found to be 82, lower than the average in Western countries, but higher than Lynn and Vanhanen's estimate of 67. Wicherts at al. conclude that this difference is likely due to sub-Saharan Africa having limited access to modern advances in education, nutrition and health care.
Wicherts, Jelte M.; Dolana, Conor V.; van der Maas, Han L.J. "A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans". Intelligence. 38 (1): 1-20.
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
"Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions."
And it goes on to discuss race specifically:
" Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective. "
The idea that these are at all related to what goes on inside one's head has been entirely subjective.
And another source from wikipedia: "Earl B. Hunt agrees that racial categories are defined by social conventions, though he points out that they also correlate with clusters of both genetic traits and cultural traits. Hunt explains that, due to this, racial IQ differences are caused by these variables that correlate with race, and race itself is rarely a causal variable. Researchers who study racial disparities in test scores are studying the relationship between the scores and the many race-related factors which could potentially affect performance. These factors include health, wealth, biological differences, and education." Hunt, Earl (2010). Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7.
Now with these constraints and considering possible IQ deviation, Some Mixed Blacks can reach a level to which Mathematical Fluency is possible, however no Mixed Black can reach the Level of a IQ deviation that is possible with Europeans or Asians, to which if the deviation is Equal, the Whites and Asians will be considered more of a "genius" that the Mixed Black. Pure African Genetics do not Provide the necessary Probability that a intellectual Deviation will reach that of "Genius" capacity, as what is now Modern Standards of Intellect, developed in EU and East Asia, were not developed nor found necessary in the gene pool of Africans, as the Environment created a separate being fitted to their environment through Natural selection.
This seems like a baseless assertion.
A Pure Black, or Mixed Black, Can be Conditioned under A higher Civilization, yet the limitations still apply, Behavioral aspects of aggression and boredom with Intellectualism can lead to a failed attempt of Conditioning. Now If the conditioning succeeds then the comparison of the Black to the White or Asian Equivalent will be outperformed. It doesn't mean that Improvement is not possible but due to genetic and instilled behaviors, along with the possible social interactions that limit Intellectual growth, all make it unlikely for a Black Mathematical "Genius". And while Improvements can be made on the Very rare Blacks or Half Bred Blacks can be made to grow in mental function it cannot rival the Genetic Potential that the Europeans and Asian can achieve. Conditions can only pave a route to Improvement, Not guarantee it.
I've pretty much addressed this above.
The most notable feature of your arguments is the fact that you've provided ZERO supporting evidence.
If you really want to be able to convince anyone that you're right and we're wrong then you should start by supporting your assertions with evidence rather than just stating your opinions.
/(Our brains generate emotion and are, to some extent, capable of logical processing. Both helped our ancestors survive, though logic is too expensive and slow to be useful in emergencies. So our brains are rigged to run on instinct when we feel threatened or have overwhelming desires. At such times, our logical abilities tend to shut down.
Humans are logical creatures, we always have been. If you disagree please provide a reputable source suggesting otherwise.)/
The Human Mind is Extremely Irrational proven by numerous Psychological phenomena, I'll list them for you, and even provide a little description.
1. Confirmation Bias: the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories, Primarily caused by Cognitive dissonance named by B.F skinner. Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it. (Thus Information tends to be flawed in many arguments and thus allows one to believe that they are correct. This Shows that unless it correlates with One belief, it will be denied. Hence its manifestation in the 14 types of Denial.)
2. Ingroup Bias: simply the tendency to favor one's own group, at the expense of people they don't know.
3. Gambler's Fallacy: is when an individual erroneously believes that the onset of a certain random event is less likely to happen following an event or a series of events.
4. Choice-supportive bias: is the tendency to retroactively ascribe positive attributes to an option one has selected. It is Basically a cognitive bias.
5. The neglect of probability: is the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty and is one simple way in which people regularly violate the normative rules for decision making.
6. Selection bias: the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed.
7. Status quo bias: an emotional bias; a preference for the current state of affairs.
8. Negativity Bias: Basically something very positive will generally have less of an impact on a person's behavior and cognition than something equally emotional but negative.
9. The bandwagon effect: a psychological phenomenon in which people do something primarily because other people are doing it, regardless of their own beliefs, which they may ignore or override.
10. Projection bias: the tendency to falsely project current preferences onto a future event.
If you want more "proof" read a psychology book, or use the internet. Here, a Basic Site listing Cognitive errors >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
There is also antonio damasio, and his study on how the human mind makes decisions on emotion rather than logic
(Intelligence is very complicated. First of all there is no clear definition of what intelligence actually is or entails however we can surmise that its numerous qualities such as short term/long term memory capacity and ability to think logically that come together to form what we know collectively as intelligence. You're correct about how genes that would not support an organism's survival may over numerous generations and through natural selection be bred out and clearly you're suggesting that this is the case for people originating from Africa.
However, to pose such a great claim you should at least be able to provide me a scientific study that delves in to the genome of the average african, that identifies these so called 'intelligence genes' that we may posses but they do not.
I think you'll find there is no such study to have made such conclusions because no intelligence genes have been pinpointed from what I've read.)
There is a definition, it is called English and its Dictionary>> Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills
No one said 'intelligence genes', that makes no sense first off, Secondly when i was discussing the passing of genes, i was talking about genes passed down that are inefficient, like those that produce down syndrome or autism or weaknesses. Now if you want facts, it is commonly know that for the out of Africa theory, it was harder to get food, gain shelter, make clothes and raise children and needed more family planning. To make a Larger and more efficient Brain takes time and energy during a person's development, thus the changes that occurred in EU and East Asia by slower rates of growth and lower levels of sex hormones. Apparent in both Whites and Asians, While blacks have higher sex hormone levels, 19% in testosterone as an example, than Whites or Asians, and smaller Brain mass and less neurons. Proven Science. So Especially in the geographic location of the EU and the environment it had 40,000 years ago which was near the end of the last Glacial period. These are Traits encoded into Genes that make the Unique peoples of earth different. Intelligence is not confined to a gene, but it is found in genetics, it is the product of Genetic sequences, it is not to say that these Traits cannot be suppressed with Environmental factors, like social influences for example. Thus the Average African genome and your Statement of "Intelligence gene" are void. The fact you brought such a thing up when it was not suggested shows your attempt at diverting the Argument, to support your Bias.
(Again, these are serious claims. As far as I am concerned, this is just your opinion until you provide me with a scientific source backing up your outlandish claims. I've never known any scientific study to have proposed that our brains were different in the fashion you propose.)
Here:
A review of the world literature on brain size and IQ by Rushton [Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior: a life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction] found that African-descended people (Blacks) average cranial capacities of 1267 cm3, European-descended people (Whites) 1347 cm3, and East Asian-descended people (East Asians) 1364 cm3. These brain size differences, containing millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of synapses, were hypothesized to underlie the race differences on IQ tests, in which Blacks average an IQ of 85, Whites 100, and East Asians 106. The race differences in brain size are correlated with 37 musculoskeletal variables shown in standard evolutionary textbooks to change systematically with increments in brain size. The 37 variables include cranial traits (such as jaw size and shape, tooth size and shape, muscle attachment sites, and orbital bone indentations), and postcranial traits (such as pelvic width, thighbone curvature, and knee joint surface area). Across the three populations, the "ecological correlations" [Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger] between brain size and the 37 morphological traits averaged a remarkable r = .94; ρ = .94. If the races did not differ in brain size, these correlations could not have been found. It must be concluded that the race differences in average brain size are securely established. As such, brain size-related variables provide the most likely biological mediators of the race differences in intelligence.
("Now you are correct to say that a being can be conditioned to retain information, however there is a limit to the capacity in which the information and be stored and expressed.The IQ for a 25% Bred Black with White in america is from 80-85. The IQ of Sub-Saharan is around 70 and below."
Firstly, you've provided no source for the rather specific '25% bred black with white' for which I would think a source necessary. However it is common knowledge that the IQ of african americans is below average as well as the IQ of the average citizen of a sub saharan country. Although, there are no scientific studies at all to suggest that this is because of innate genetic variations, I would challenge you to find one if you disagree.
Rather, the difference in IQ is due to a combination of environment factors. For example it is no coincidence that the countries with the lowest IQ are those with the lowest gdp.
"IQ and Global Inequality", the average IQ for sub-Saharan Africa was found to be 82, lower than the average in Western countries, but higher than Lynn and Vanhanen's estimate of 67. Wicherts at al. conclude that this difference is likely due to sub-Saharan Africa having limited access to modern advances in education, nutrition and health care.
Wicherts, Jelte M.; Dolana, Conor V.; van der Maas, Han L.J. "A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans". Intelligence. 38 (1): 1-20.
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
"Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions."
And it goes on to discuss race specifically:
" Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective. "
The idea that these are at all related to what goes on inside one's head has been entirely subjective.
And another source from wikipedia: "Earl B. Hunt agrees that racial categories are defined by social conventions, though he points out that they also correlate with clusters of both genetic traits and cultural traits. Hunt explains that, due to this, racial IQ differences are caused by these variables that correlate with race, and race itself is rarely a causal variable. Researchers who study racial disparities in test scores are studying the relationship between the scores and the many race-related factors which could potentially affect performance. These factors include health, wealth, biological differences, and education." Hunt, Earl (2010). Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7.)
"On average, the scientists found, people who identified as African-American had genes that were only 73.2 percent African. European genes accounted for 24 percent of their DNA, while .8 percent came from Native Americans." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/science/23andme-genetic-ethnicity-study.html?_r=0
My mistake 24%
The Nations obviously with the lowest GDP have the lowest IQ because they do not have the IQ or capacity to grow. It does correlate, along with the fact, that Japan's GDP is greater than England's and they have a Higher IQ. Where is your sense?
Income doesn't affect the genetic aspect of how The IQ gap remains
Btw IQ is inherited and is determined by 75% due to genes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html (Ironically this disproves your earlier challenge)
This also proves your errors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ ("Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores; however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects")
Take a Psychology course and maybe you wont challenge fact that can easily be found and proven.
All your sources prove my point, rather than yours. While Sub-Saharan Africans may not have access to proper education, even if they are educated, the IQ gap between the blacks in comparison to Asians and White with equal education remains, as evidenced in the USA. Where Blacks that have higher concentrations of White genes score better those those with less. Thus showing a genetic correlation. Blacks maintain a standard deviation of IQ from whites of 10 points, no matter the income.
(This seems like a baseless assertion.)
Of course, ignorance in Basic genetics and biology along with no knowledge of the bell curve, of which i'll provide, would make you say so. However As stated before, IQ deviation if maxed in a Black group and Maxed in an Asian or White, the IQ Gap Remains, hence my earlier statement, to which you bore no argument. Ignorance on the subject, does not make it wrong, nor allows you the right to dismiss, if you are not educated on said subjects.
 
(I've pretty much addressed this above.)
Same
(The most notable feature of your arguments is the fact that you've provided ZERO supporting evidence.
If you really want to be able to convince anyone that you're right and we're wrong then you should start by supporting your assertions with evidence rather than just stating your opinions.)
When I speak, it is based on retained research on knowledge, when one learns and understands aspects of reality, it become encoded in the mind and is preserved as memory. Evidence are for those unaware and only befits to shame the ignorant. If you do not know information, you should not make baseless assertions. When someones states that another person view is that of an opinion, it makes the other being seem as if they are suggesting that they possess a greater amount of intelligence thus is makes you seem pretentious. Opinions are based belief/emotion and not fact, it is illogical thus has no place in this forum, in terms from my perspective. Opinion has no argumentative basis and has no place in a debate or here in a forum where people can have their questions answered. Refrain from attempting Ad Hominem here. Also do not presume to have the arrogance to dictate the intelligence of others. It may surprise you that many who Speak are educated.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
Enosia
Postitused: 19
Kasutajalt: UK
|
Tsiteeri:
(The most notable feature of your arguments is the fact that you've provided ZERO supporting evidence.
If you really want to be able to convince anyone that you're right and we're wrong then you should start by supporting your assertions with evidence rather than just stating your opinions.)
When I speak, it is based on retained research on knowledge, when one learns and understands aspects of reality, it become encoded in the mind and is preserved as memory. Evidence are for those unaware and only befits to shame the ignorant. If you do not know information, you should not make baseless assertions. When someones states that another person view is that of an opinion, it makes the other being seem as if they are suggesting that they possess a greater amount of intelligence thus is makes you seem pretentious. Opinions are based belief/emotion and not fact, it is illogical thus has no place in this forum, in terms from my perspective. Opinion has no argumentative basis and has no place in a debate or here in a forum where people can have their questions answered. Refrain from attempting Ad Hominem here. Also do not presume to have the arrogance to dictate the intelligence of others. It may surprise you that many who Speak are educated.
First of all, I need to address this.
You might have this retained knowledge that I don't but simply regurgitating it won't do it for me. I need source material and to see the scientific studies from where your knowledge came BECAUSE if I didn't see such studies, then surely, you would be able to make up whatever facts you wanted and be able to call it truth?
"Evidence are for those unaware and only befits to shame the ignorant."
This is funny because you claimed I made an ad hominem response.
But you're correct in the sense that I am very very unaware of some of your 'knowledge' such as how "the number of Neurons within the differing Cranial Structures and the Differing Hormonal Influences and Brain Structuralism shows that Especially in Language the Black have difficulties" that is why I want evidence.
I don't find it particularly shameful.
What I would find shameful is making up lies to support an argument so please provide evidence.
Also, I noticed many graphs in your response, I would very much like to see the source material from where those graphs came.
"When someones states that another person view is that of an opinion, it makes the other being seem as if they are suggesting that they possess a greater amount of intelligence thus is makes you seem pretentious."
As far as I am concerned it IS an opinion until you provide evidence suggesting it is FACT. Much of what I say is also opinion, however I have sprinkled in sources to back up my claims. It's how arguments work.
I've never heard of some of the things you've said before, I can't simply assume it is fact.
I was in no way suggesting I possessed greater knowledge. I don't know where you got that from. Why else do you think I'm debating? Quite honestly I don't mind all too much which way this goes. To elaborate, if you happen to provide enough of a convincing argument, I won't find it very hard to accept that blacks are inferior intellectually and that race's are not just a social construct but a scientifically accurate way to demarcate different peoples.
"Opinions are based belief/emotion and not fact, it is illogical thus has no place in this forum, in terms from my perspective."
Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
If you simply state something like "first off we know that the Genetic Difference between An Englishman and a Sub-Saharan African is .23%" without providing evidence that this has been proved to be fact, then it remains an opinion by definition.
"It may surprise you that many who Speak are educated."
I know that you must know your stuff, that's why I'm bothering to put in the effort. All that I ask, is that you take some time to find evidence that supports the claims you make that you consider to be cold hard fact.
I'm gonna start looking through your argument in detail now, it will take a while.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
Enosia
Postitused: 19
Kasutajalt: UK
|
Tsiteeri:
First off we know that the Genetic Difference between An Englishman and a Sub-Saharan African is .23% So the variance between individuals is greater than Lewotin states.
When Discussing alleles and loci between the Races, Lewotin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles at an individual locus between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. You cant look at individual loci, you must look at different loci's at the same time because the differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations. This basically means that the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations.
Trying to look for differences in allele frequency in a single loci may make it difficult to identify a race in a genetic structure, if you look at enough loci the probability of miscalculation of a race reaches zero percent, and a definite race can be identified. A. W. F. Edwards even criticized Lewontin saying that Lewontin used his analysis to attack human classification in science for social reasons.
Also there are Gene Haplogroups that Certain races/ethnic groups have that makes them distinct, along with the reality that when it comes to race it is the frequency of these groups as well.
Here ill give you a photo of the principle component analysis separating groups of humans from different regions based on many genetic markers. As you can clearly see it is fairly easy for scientists to determine what ethnicity someone is from their genetics.
***First off we know that the Genetic Difference between An Englishman and a Sub-Saharan African is .23% So the variance between individuals is greater than Lewotin states. ***
I searched for evidence that confirms what you've suggested, I've found none. It would be helpful if you provided a source to this.
*** When Discussing alleles and loci between the Races, Lewotin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles at an individual locus between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. You cant look at individual loci, you must look at different loci's at the same time because the differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations. This basically means that the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations.***
This is very interesting! You have become very technical all of a sudden. It would have been helpful if you provided the source of where you acquired this knowledge however it's ok. I found out where you got it from. I provided you with "Lewontin's argument", what you have responded with is more or less word for word "Edwards' critique".
I'm not sure from where you got it from but I got it from Wikipedia. Here is the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
As you might be able to see from following the link, or perhaps you already knew this, there is already a counter argument, in fact there are many. Below I will list the most crucial. I think these arguments from leading minds effectively makes it clear that race is a social construct and has no real biological significance.
"Philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther have argued that while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs, as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. From this sociological perspective, Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct."
I would especially highlight this point "nor does it mean that races are not social constructs, as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists". The people who study people and populations for a living have made it clear that race IS a social construct.
"Legal scholar Dorothy Roberts argues, "Edwards did not refute Lewontin's claim: that there is more genetic variation within populations than between them, especially when it comes to races. Lewontin did not ignore biology to support his social ideology. To the contrary, he argued that there is no biological support for the ideological project of race." "The genetic differences that exist among populations are characterized by gradual changes across geographic regions, not sharp, categorical distinctions. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences. There is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another. The clinal, gradually changing nature of geographic genetic difference is complicated further by the migration and mixing that human groups have engaged in since prehistoric times. Race [however defined] collapses infinite diversity into a few discrete categories that in reality cannot be demarcated genetically.""
I would highlight the point "there is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another".
Similarly, biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century—the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation."
This is from a biological anthropologist. I would highlight the point "Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups." And as Mark's states Lewontin proves this is not the case and Edwards' critique (which you provided) fails to disprove him.
"The view that while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist this does not lend biological validity to racial groups was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin. "
You provided a picture in your argument, firstly I would like the source, secondly the statement above should make it abundantly clear that although there are undeniable biological traits that are possessed by different populations of humans based on geographic location this ultimately does not lend any merit to the concept of 'race'.
"In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations", Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never". However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis."
Also from wiki in case you don't know, but I'm sure you do because you used it in your prior argument "A locus (plural loci), in genetics, is the specific location or position of a gene's DNA sequence, on a chromosome. Each chromosome carries many genes; humans' estimated 'haploid' protein coding genes are 20,000-25,000, on the 23 different chromosomes."
I believe Witherspoon's analysis should also make it clear that the people in 'geographically intermediate' locations are 'admixed populations'. If that is the case then how could you possibly think it possible to place people in to the discrete categories that make up separate 'races'.
"Witherspoon et al. concludes that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes", and warns that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."
I hope you're still paying attention because that last paragraph was without a doubt the most important of this whole argument. It speaks for itself I don't think I need to point anything out. Like I said previously this is all from the same Wikipedia page. If you would like to delve further in to this then I would suggest going to the Wikipedia page and looking in to the many scientific papers and books that are referenced.
You know, I have actually convinced myself. If these are the views of people who are leading the fields which deals with such issues, I find it hard to believe there is any information you can provide to prove them otherwise.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Kirjutas Enosia, 03.09.2016 at 20:07
Kirjutas Tundy, 03.09.2016 at 18:26
Kirjutas Enosia, 03.09.2016 at 16:39
A breed is a group of domestic animals or plants with homogeneous genotype and phenotype, created by humans through controlled breeding, in other words, through artificial selection.
If something is possible via artificial selection, then it is also possible via natural selection. It would just take much more time if it happens at all.
Kirjutas Enosia, 03.09.2016 at 16:39
humans show phenotypic and genotypic variation by natural selection have resulted in some alleles being more frequent in some groups that in others, and ancestry determines the distribution of some genes.
Behind the political correctness, it very much says that humans are different. While ancestry is not a good indicator of differences, it is the best thing we have.
Kirjutas Enosia, 03.09.2016 at 16:39
But because "race" is also a social construct, it's a much more complex issue than distribution of genotypes. The fact that we say that Obama is the first American black President illustrate the point pretty clearly. Genetics and allele frequencies don't matter much. The fact that most people think in terms of only 4 or 5 "races" is indicative of the strong influence of culture in the way some people perceive what is a human race. Humans have been traveling back and forth and mixing with the locals throughout human history https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140213142305.htm. We even mixed with archaic humans, like Neanderthals and Denisovans, when we found them in our path http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding."
;^) I never claimed we are limited to "4-5" races.
>Only physical differences
I excluded IQ tests, because comparing Africa to Europe would not be fair.
Nearly 50% of your personality is influenced by genes, is that not significant enough? and curiously this one is up:
Among traits found most strongly determined by heredity were leadership and, surprisingly, traditionalism or obedience to authority.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/02/science/major-personality-study-finds-that-traits-are-mostly-inherited.html
https://cepa.stanford.edu/seda/overview
"We know that the hereditary part of intelligence involves multiple genes, but we don't yet know enough to predict intelligence from the genome. All we can do is look at test results. Twin studies tell us that IQ is about 75% inherited and 25% environmental in adults, so really, the difference could be either, or a combination.
What's more, the correlation of IQ with environment increases in poor people and the children of immigrants from poor to rich countries tend to score higher on IQ tests than their parents. So there are environmental factors that account for some of the discrepancies we see between rich and poor countries — factors like prenatal nutrition, illness, and intellectual stimulation early in life.
In addition, we know that average IQ scores have been increasing over time in developed countries — the so-called Flynn Effect.
It is very difficult to design an IQ test that is valid across cultures, and even if one uses culturally neutral measures, someone who grows up watching Sesame Street likely develops different intellectual skills than someone who lives in a hut. One theory is that the child's brain has the ability to channel resources, developing one brain area at the expense of an adjacent one in the presence of stimulation.
It has also been found that personal expectation plays a large role in performance on aptitude tests. For example, girls underperform boys on tests of mathematical ability, because they have absorbed the belief that girls aren't good at math, but if they're given confidence-building exercises before the test, the discrepancy disappears. The same effect may be depressing the scores of black kids — and so may many environmental factors.
It's also true that the allocation of sub-intelligences, e.g., spatial vs. mathematical reasoning, doesn't seem to be constant between populations, and that IQ tests were designed to focus on the kind of ability that suits someone to a contemporary Western education and don't always seem to work very well with primitive people. For example, the San people have the lowest average IQ in the world, 60. But someone with an IQ of 60 in the west would be severely disabled, whereas one can carry on a perfectly reasonable conversation with the San."
Regarding Twin studies and Genetic/Environmental Impacts on the Intelligence Manifestation.
Intelligence is a Poly-genetic Trait (74 genes), yet this itself serves to prove its influence. Incorrect, we do have the means in contemporary times to be able to identify the probability of the extent an individuals intelligence can manifest from within the genome. Obviously It is both environmental and genetic influences that dictate the intensity of the IQ/Intelligence that be formed in an individual, Environments affect genes and its ability to cultivate or suppress genetic expression. Same logic on how a certain diet or environment can trigger the cancer genes in an individual and lead to Suffering or death.
Now we shall explain in detail the correlations and reality of Environment and Genetics.
Let us say that their are two identical Twins. Both of which have a Genetic sequence that allows for a manifestation of High Intellectual Capacity. Now in order for the Genes to express themselves, it relies on Various factors. The probability of its manifestation regardless of environmental Stimuli, The Probability that a specific Environment or factor is needed to reinforce the genetic trait in order for it to manifest, or the Probability that a specific Environment or factor is needed to suppress the Genetic expression thus inhibiting its ability to manifest. Biological influences such as stress, Hormone, Exposure to toxins before birth, Injury and even exposure to toxic substances along with Diet can affect The genetic manifestation of Intelligence. Socio-cultural Influences also play a large role, in the context that the culture of the individual will deter motivation to pursue intellectualism, and social pressures may make them uninterested or may even degrade the intellectual potential of the individual. There is soon to be a DNA test to gauge and predict a child's future performance in the academic field. There are Even Upcoming MRI exams to Analyze the Brain and its structures to gauge Intellect, due to the Neuron and Brain Structure variability.
Nations, Race, Genetics and IQ
In Reference to the statement above, The environment play a role in genetic manifestation. However the extent of the intelligence that can be achieved in a certain group is one to take into consideration. While yes the GDP of Nigeria is low and the Quality of Education is Pitiful, Nigerian Immigrants to America perform far greater than their Nigerian homeland Counterparts and even gain a boost in IQ, However due to the genetic differences between the race, the best of a Nigerian cannot match the best of a Swede or Japanese Counterpart. IQ doesn't Gauge Intelligence alone, It also gauges intellectual potential for Growth, the higher the score the more room for growth in intelligence that individual can gain. As Example if a Educated Nigerian reaches 100 -105 IQ, when compared to an Asian with 120 -125 IQ the room for growth for the Asian will have an exponential curve, In essence if the Nigerian grows to reach 105-110 IQ then the Asian's growth will Reach 130-135 IQ Thus Creating a Larger Gap. The Flynn Effect is not isolated to Just Developing Nations, it occurs the same in developed nations. Hence the title of his TED Talk "Why our IQ levels are higher than our grandparents". As time progresses More factors become available to Improve Mental capacity. However Socio-Cultural Influences Also can stagnate the Flynn effect growth (As evidenced in his 2009 Study in the UK). This Proves Flynn's Point that the Environment Affects the Expression and Improvement of IQ across Populations.
IQ tests are Valid, if it wasn't it would not be called a test. Yes it is well understood the effect environment has on Genetic manifestation.
Male/Female Differences
it is really only Confidence and Competition, Has nothing to do with blacks. Avoid Ethnic pandering Thank you.
http://web.stanford.edu/~niederle/NV.JEP.pdf
IQ test are for Our Society, Not the Society for the primitive, Obviously they would Have difficulties. As for the 60 scale, in Western Society, yes we look at that score of 60 as disabled, for it is designed For Westerners. If a San Individual has that score, it is Retrofitted for them, and the Intellectual potential of that group is then taken into account.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Why are both presidents of the Russian Federation and United States of America black (skin colour) , and not white like the majority of population?
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
Enosia
Postitused: 19
Kasutajalt: UK
|
Tsiteeri:
/(Our brains generate emotion and are, to some extent, capable of logical processing. Both helped our ancestors survive, though logic is too expensive and slow to be useful in emergencies. So our brains are rigged to run on instinct when we feel threatened or have overwhelming desires. At such times, our logical abilities tend to shut down.
Humans are logical creatures, we always have been. If you disagree please provide a reputable source suggesting otherwise.)/
The Human Mind is Extremely Irrational proven by numerous Psychological phenomena, I'll list them for you, and even provide a little description.
1. Confirmation Bias: the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories, Primarily caused by Cognitive dissonance named by B.F skinner. Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it. (Thus Information tends to be flawed in many arguments and thus allows one to believe that they are correct. This Shows that unless it correlates with One belief, it will be denied. Hence its manifestation in the 14 types of Denial.)
2. Ingroup Bias: simply the tendency to favor one's own group, at the expense of people they don't know.
3. Gambler's Fallacy: is when an individual erroneously believes that the onset of a certain random event is less likely to happen following an event or a series of events.
4. Choice-supportive bias: is the tendency to retroactively ascribe positive attributes to an option one has selected. It is Basically a cognitive bias.
5. The neglect of probability: is the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty and is one simple way in which people regularly violate the normative rules for decision making.
6. Selection bias: the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed.
7. Status quo bias: an emotional bias; a preference for the current state of affairs.
8. Negativity Bias: Basically something very positive will generally have less of an impact on a person's behavior and cognition than something equally emotional but negative.
9. The bandwagon effect: a psychological phenomenon in which people do something primarily because other people are doing it, regardless of their own beliefs, which they may ignore or override.
10. Projection bias: the tendency to falsely project current preferences onto a future event.
If you want more "proof" read a psychology book, or use the internet. Here, a Basic Site listing Cognitive errors >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
There is also antonio damasio, and his study on how the human mind makes decisions on emotion rather than logic
(Intelligence is very complicated. First of all there is no clear definition of what intelligence actually is or entails however we can surmise that its numerous qualities such as short term/long term memory capacity and ability to think logically that come together to form what we know collectively as intelligence. You're correct about how genes that would not support an organism's survival may over numerous generations and through natural selection be bred out and clearly you're suggesting that this is the case for people originating from Africa.
However, to pose such a great claim you should at least be able to provide me a scientific study that delves in to the genome of the average african, that identifies these so called 'intelligence genes' that we may posses but they do not.
I think you'll find there is no such study to have made such conclusions because no intelligence genes have been pinpointed from what I've read.)
There is a definition, it is called English and its Dictionary>> Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills
No one said 'intelligence genes', that makes no sense first off, Secondly when i was discussing the passing of genes, i was talking about genes passed down that are inefficient, like those that produce down syndrome or autism or weaknesses. Now if you want facts, it is commonly know that for the out of Africa theory, it was harder to get food, gain shelter, make clothes and raise children and needed more family planning. To make a Larger and more efficient Brain takes time and energy during a person's development, thus the changes that occurred in EU and East Asia by slower rates of growth and lower levels of sex hormones. Apparent in both Whites and Asians, While blacks have higher sex hormone levels, 19% in testosterone as an example, than Whites or Asians, and smaller Brain mass and less neurons. Proven Science. So Especially in the geographic location of the EU and the environment it had 40,000 years ago which was near the end of the last Glacial period. These are Traits encoded into Genes that make the Unique peoples of earth different. Intelligence is not confined to a gene, but it is found in genetics, it is the product of Genetic sequences, it is not to say that these Traits cannot be suppressed with Environmental factors, like social influences for example. Thus the Average African genome and your Statement of "Intelligence gene" are void. The fact you brought such a thing up when it was not suggested shows your attempt at diverting the Argument, to support your Bias.
(Again, these are serious claims. As far as I am concerned, this is just your opinion until you provide me with a scientific source backing up your outlandish claims. I've never known any scientific study to have proposed that our brains were different in the fashion you propose.)
Here:
A review of the world literature on brain size and IQ by Rushton [Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior: a life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction] found that African-descended people (Blacks) average cranial capacities of 1267 cm3, European-descended people (Whites) 1347 cm3, and East Asian-descended people (East Asians) 1364 cm3. These brain size differences, containing millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of synapses, were hypothesized to underlie the race differences on IQ tests, in which Blacks average an IQ of 85, Whites 100, and East Asians 106. The race differences in brain size are correlated with 37 musculoskeletal variables shown in standard evolutionary textbooks to change systematically with increments in brain size. The 37 variables include cranial traits (such as jaw size and shape, tooth size and shape, muscle attachment sites, and orbital bone indentations), and postcranial traits (such as pelvic width, thighbone curvature, and knee joint surface area). Across the three populations, the "ecological correlations" [Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger] between brain size and the 37 morphological traits averaged a remarkable r = .94; ρ = .94. If the races did not differ in brain size, these correlations could not have been found. It must be concluded that the race differences in average brain size are securely established. As such, brain size-related variables provide the most likely biological mediators of the race differences in intelligence.
("Now you are correct to say that a being can be conditioned to retain information, however there is a limit to the capacity in which the information and be stored and expressed.The IQ for a 25% Bred Black with White in america is from 80-85. The IQ of Sub-Saharan is around 70 and below."
Firstly, you've provided no source for the rather specific '25% bred black with white' for which I would think a source necessary. However it is common knowledge that the IQ of african americans is below average as well as the IQ of the average citizen of a sub saharan country. Although, there are no scientific studies at all to suggest that this is because of innate genetic variations, I would challenge you to find one if you disagree.
Rather, the difference in IQ is due to a combination of environment factors. For example it is no coincidence that the countries with the lowest IQ are those with the lowest gdp.
"IQ and Global Inequality", the average IQ for sub-Saharan Africa was found to be 82, lower than the average in Western countries, but higher than Lynn and Vanhanen's estimate of 67. Wicherts at al. conclude that this difference is likely due to sub-Saharan Africa having limited access to modern advances in education, nutrition and health care.
Wicherts, Jelte M.; Dolana, Conor V.; van der Maas, Han L.J. "A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans". Intelligence. 38 (1): 1-20.
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
"Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions."
And it goes on to discuss race specifically:
" Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective. "
The idea that these are at all related to what goes on inside one's head has been entirely subjective.
And another source from wikipedia: "Earl B. Hunt agrees that racial categories are defined by social conventions, though he points out that they also correlate with clusters of both genetic traits and cultural traits. Hunt explains that, due to this, racial IQ differences are caused by these variables that correlate with race, and race itself is rarely a causal variable. Researchers who study racial disparities in test scores are studying the relationship between the scores and the many race-related factors which could potentially affect performance. These factors include health, wealth, biological differences, and education." Hunt, Earl (2010). Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7.)
"On average, the scientists found, people who identified as African-American had genes that were only 73.2 percent African. European genes accounted for 24 percent of their DNA, while .8 percent came from Native Americans." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/science/23andme-genetic-ethnicity-study.html?_r=0
My mistake 24%
The Nations obviously with the lowest GDP have the lowest IQ because they do not have the IQ or capacity to grow. It does correlate, along with the fact, that Japan's GDP is greater than England's and they have a Higher IQ. Where is your sense?
Income doesn't affect the genetic aspect of how The IQ gap remains
Btw IQ is inherited and is determined by 75% due to genes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html
(Ironically this disproves your earlier challenge)
This also proves your errors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ ("Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores; however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects")
Take a Psychology course and maybe you wont challenge fact that can easily be found and proven.
All your sources prove my point, rather than yours. While Sub-Saharan Africans may not have access to proper education, even if they are educated, the IQ gap between the blacks in comparison to Asians and White with equal education remains, as evidenced in the USA. Where Blacks that have higher concentrations of White genes score better those those with less. Thus showing a genetic correlation. Blacks maintain a standard deviation of IQ from whites of 10 points, no matter the income.
(This seems like a baseless assertion.)
Of course, ignorance in Basic genetics and biology along with no knowledge of the bell curve, of which i'll provide, would make you say so. However As stated before, IQ deviation if maxed in a Black group and Maxed in an Asian or White, the IQ Gap Remains, hence my earlier statement, to which you bore no argument. Ignorance on the subject, does not make it wrong, nor allows you the right to dismiss, if you are not educated on said subjects.
(I've pretty much addressed this above.)
Same
I accept your assessment of the irrationality of the human mind, but I still think we act mostly logical, let's leave that at that.
*** There is a definition, it is called English and its Dictionary>> Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills***
You're correct, if you write 'define intelligence' on the google search bar, what you stated is exactly what comes up. However, if you delve slightly further in to what intelligence is, you might have known that the definition of intelligence is still a controversial topic debated among psychologists. A quick google search of the topic will yield numerous results.
***No one said 'intelligence genes', that makes no sense first off, Secondly when i was discussing the passing of genes, i was talking about genes passed down that are inefficient, like those that produce down syndrome or autism or weaknesses.***
This is what you said "Now Looking at Genetics in a generalist view can be used. As Genes are passed down, and with the factor that 95% of Humans have a chance to breed. Genes of which can be considered a detriment to advanced mental capacities, are passed down or Genes which can foster Extreme intellectualism can be diluted out of a particular strain of genetic line, to which the benefit no longer appears in the organisms offspring."
Firstly I must have misinterpreted this part "Genes of which can be considered a detriment to advanced mental capacities", it would have helped if you specifically mentioned mental disorder. Secondly however "genes which can foster Extreme intellectualism" suggested to me 'intelligence genes' you can hardly blame me for that.
***Now if you want facts, it is commonly know that for the out of Africa theory, it was harder to get food, gain shelter, make clothes and raise children and needed more family planning. To make a Larger and more efficient Brain takes time and energy during a person's development, thus the changes that occurred in EU and East Asia by slower rates of growth and lower levels of sex hormones. Apparent in both Whites and Asians, While blacks have higher sex hormone levels, 19% in testosterone as an example, than Whites or Asians, and smaller Brain mass and less neurons. Proven Science.***
Well this knowledge can't be too common as I am unaware. It would be helpful if you referenced a source of some sort. Also there are some unclear details such as why exactly it was harder to survive outside of Africa. The only thing I can think of is climate and native fauna. In that regard if anything Africa was a more challenging place to survive especially considering the more manageable climate of Europe. Not to mention the fact that some locations of Africa have a climate not too dissimilar to western Europe, such as locations in South Africa. You say 'proven science' and yet you don't provide a source. As per my previous post on the issue of race, I find it difficult to accept what you're proposing about sex hormone levels considering the use of the term 'race' to be invalid.
***So Especially in the geographic location of the EU and the environment it had 40,000 years ago which was near the end of the last Glacial period. These are Traits encoded into Genes that make the Unique peoples of earth different. Intelligence is not confined to a gene, but it is found in genetics, it is the product of Genetic sequences, it is not to say that these Traits cannot be suppressed with Environmental factors, like social influences for example. Thus the Average African genome and your Statement of "Intelligence gene" are void. The fact you brought such a thing up when it was not suggested shows your attempt at diverting the Argument, to support your Bias. ***
My point was that there is no single or set of 'intelligence genes' :/ :/
I had thought you suggested it. You were unclear.
*** Here:
A review of the world literature on brain size and IQ by Rushton [Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior: a life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction] found that African-descended people (Blacks) average cranial capacities of 1267 cm3, European-descended people (Whites) 1347 cm3, and East Asian-descended people (East Asians) 1364 cm3. These brain size differences, containing millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of synapses, were hypothesized to underlie the race differences on IQ tests, in which Blacks average an IQ of 85, Whites 100, and East Asians 106. The race differences in brain size are correlated with 37 musculoskeletal variables shown in standard evolutionary textbooks to change systematically with increments in brain size. The 37 variables include cranial traits (such as jaw size and shape, tooth size and shape, muscle attachment sites, and orbital bone indentations), and postcranial traits (such as pelvic width, thighbone curvature, and knee joint surface area). Across the three populations, the "ecological correlations" [Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger] between brain size and the 37 morphological traits averaged a remarkable r = .94; ρ = .94. If the races did not differ in brain size, these correlations could not have been found. It must be concluded that the race differences in average brain size are securely established. As such, brain size-related variables provide the most likely biological mediators of the race differences in intelligence.***
Finally, some evidence, I had thought until I delved further in to what you had provided. Turns out the author of that paper, J .Phillipe Rushton is a highly controversial figure. This is within the public eye because of his purported racist tendency's but also amongst the field he was researching/writing about. Also it's worth noting that he is a psychologist rather than an anthropologist and the way he demarcates people in to 3 racial groups does not fit with the conclusions of modern anthropologists as per my previous post. Rushton's work has previously come under attack by the scientific community too due to the quality of research, refer to the information below:
For example:
Graves, J. L. (2002). "What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory".Anthropological Theory. 2 (2): 131-154.doi:10.1177/1469962002002002627. ISSN 1463-4996.
Brace, C. Loring (March 1996). "Review: Racialism and Racist Agendas". American Anthropologist, New Series. 98 (1): 176-7.doi:10.1525/aa.1996.98.1.02a00250. JSTOR 682972.
Francisco Gil-White, Resurrecting Racism, Chapter 10
Anderson, Judith L. (1991). "Rushton's racial comparisons: An ecological critique of theory and method.". Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne. 32 (1): 51-62.doi:10.1037/h0078956. ISSN 1878-7304.
Douglas Wahlsten (2001) Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior
Leslie, Charles (2002). New Horizons in Medical Anthropology. New York: Routledge. p. 17. ISBN 0-415-27793-0.
Kuznar, Lawrence (1997). Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. p. 104. ISBN 0-7619-9114-X.
And you accuse me of bias.
I can provide more information of why Rushton's research is unreliable and should be viewed with suspicion if you request it.
*** Btw IQ is inherited and is determined by 75% due to genes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html
(Ironically this disproves your earlier challenge)***
My 'earlier challenge' was that no specific 'intelligence genes' have been discovered, that was by no means to suggest that there is not a genetic component to intelligence. The article provided is of a relatively recent study, it was very interesting.
*** The Nations obviously with the lowest GDP have the lowest IQ because they do not have the IQ or capacity to grow. It does correlate, along with the fact, that Japan's GDP is greater than England's and they have a Higher IQ. Where is your sense?***
Interesting. So where I suggested that a lack of GDP results in low IQ, you are suggesting the exact converse, that a low IQ results causes low GDP. However, I believe you are mistaken. I believe that there are numerous alternative explanations as to why Africa as a continent has historically been poorer than the rest of the world, it also provides explanations for why the native people of other continents also did not advance as fast that those of Eurasia.
I would suggest you read this: https://www.edge.org/conversation/jared_diamond-why-did-human-history-unfold-differently-on-different-continents-for-the
It is a very interesting and comprehensive analysis in to why the peoples of different continents advanced as they did, it covers numerous issues and is pretty long. We should leave it at that for this particular issue, otherwise this could end up becoming more time consuming than it already is.
*** This also proves your errors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ ("Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores; however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects")
Take a Psychology course and maybe you wont challenge fact that can easily be found and proven.***
"Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores; however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects"
But… this does prove my point???
"however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects"
***All your sources prove my point, rather than yours. While Sub-Saharan Africans may not have access to proper education, even if they are educated, the IQ gap between the blacks in comparison to Asians and White with equal education remains, as evidenced in the USA. Where Blacks that have higher concentrations of White genes score better those those with less. Thus showing a genetic correlation. Blacks maintain a standard deviation of IQ from whites of 10 points, no matter the income.***
The USA is one case study that is overused. Also, I find the methodology of such studies questionable. Another country with a high immigrant population is the UK and I found a comprehensive analysis as to how the IQ gap between blacks and whites is rapidly closing. This analysis does not simply look at all Africans as 'black' but separates them by country of origin.
Here is the link:
http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/
***(This seems like a baseless assertion.)
Of course, ignorance in Basic genetics and biology along with no knowledge of the bell curve, of which i'll provide, would make you say so. However As stated before, IQ deviation if maxed in a Black group and Maxed in an Asian or White, the IQ Gap Remains, hence my earlier statement, to which you bore no argument. Ignorance on the subject, does not make it wrong, nor allows you the right to dismiss, if you are not educated on said subjects.***
Ad hominem responses just waste time, I would ask you to refrain from it and I'll try to do so too, if I already have. Refer to the link I provided prior.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Tsiteeri: Tsiteeri:
***First off we know that the Genetic Difference between An Englishman and a Sub-Saharan African is .23% So the variance between individuals is greater than Lewotin states. ***
I searched for evidence that confirms what you've suggested, I've found none. It would be helpful if you provided a source to this.
*** When Discussing alleles and loci between the Races, Lewotin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles at an individual locus between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. You cant look at individual loci, you must look at different loci's at the same time because the differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations. This basically means that the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations.***
This is very interesting! You have become very technical all of a sudden. It would have been helpful if you provided the source of where you acquired this knowledge however it's ok. I found out where you got it from. I provided you with "Lewontin's argument", what you have responded with is more or less word for word "Edwards' critique".
I'm not sure from where you got it from but I got it from Wikipedia. Here is the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
As you might be able to see from following the link, or perhaps you already knew this, there is already a counter argument, in fact there are many. Below I will list the most crucial. I think these arguments from leading minds effectively makes it clear that race is a social construct and has no real biological significance.
"Philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther have argued that while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs, as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. From this sociological perspective, Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct."
I would especially highlight this point "nor does it mean that races are not social constructs, as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists". The people who study people and populations for a living have made it clear that race IS a social construct.
"Legal scholar Dorothy Roberts argues, "Edwards did not refute Lewontin's claim: that there is more genetic variation within populations than between them, especially when it comes to races. Lewontin did not ignore biology to support his social ideology. To the contrary, he argued that there is no biological support for the ideological project of race." "The genetic differences that exist among populations are characterized by gradual changes across geographic regions, not sharp, categorical distinctions. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences. There is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another. The clinal, gradually changing nature of geographic genetic difference is complicated further by the migration and mixing that human groups have engaged in since prehistoric times. Race [however defined] collapses infinite diversity into a few discrete categories that in reality cannot be demarcated genetically.""
I would highlight the point "there is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another".
Similarly, biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century—the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation."
This is from a biological anthropologist. I would highlight the point "Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups." And as Mark's states Lewontin proves this is not the case and Edwards' critique (which you provided) fails to disprove him.
"The view that while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist this does not lend biological validity to racial groups was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin. "
You provided a picture in your argument, firstly I would like the source, secondly the statement above should make it abundantly clear that although there are undeniable biological traits that are possessed by different populations of humans based on geographic location this ultimately does not lend any merit to the concept of 'race'.
"In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations", Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never". However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis."
Also from wiki in case you don't know, but I'm sure you do because you used it in your prior argument "A locus (plural loci), in genetics, is the specific location or position of a gene's DNA sequence, on a chromosome. Each chromosome carries many genes; humans' estimated 'haploid' protein coding genes are 20,000-25,000, on the 23 different chromosomes."
I believe Witherspoon's analysis should also make it clear that the people in 'geographically intermediate' locations are 'admixed populations'. If that is the case then how could you possibly think it possible to place people in to the discrete categories that make up separate 'races'.
"Witherspoon et al. concludes that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes", and warns that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."
I hope you're still paying attention because that last paragraph was without a doubt the most important of this whole argument. It speaks for itself I don't think I need to point anything out. Like I said previously this is all from the same Wikipedia page. If you would like to delve further in to this then I would suggest going to the Wikipedia page and looking in to the many scientific papers and books that are referenced.
You know, I have actually convinced myself. If these are the views of people who are leading the fields which deals with such issues, I find it hard to believe there is any information you can provide to prove them otherwise.
My Mistake, it is Paleo-Africans that contain the .23%
You are right to say that in the sense of Human Sociological interpretation, the race can be called a social construct, as its basic suggestion is unable to demarcate Humans.
(I would highlight the point "there is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another".)
Yes we already discussed Alleles and their Frequencies and the correlation it has with Differing groups.
(I believe Witherspoon's analysis should also make it clear that the people in 'geographically intermediate' locations are 'admixed populations'. If that is the case then how could you possibly think it possible to place people in to the discrete categories that make up separate 'races'.)
Hence why within races we have ethnic groups and mixed Ethnic Groups (Known as admixtures), which within themselves are part of the larger Category of race. Race cannot show completely show the unique properties of Differences, due to the fact that The Human Genetic Structure and its history are complex. Thus the Concept of a "pure" Ethnic Group in "Intermediate areas" do not exist. Only in isolated pockets can "Pure" isolated ethnic groups can be found. Of course bearing the history of our common ancestor, can a link to other groups be found, but a distinction remains (Aboriginals are a nice Example). This is common sense.
("Witherspoon et al. concludes that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes", and warns that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.")
This furthers and supports my earlier point.....
Anyway, as we discussed. Individual alleles on Loci do not indicate difference. However only when seen in large numbers do results correlate. Of course within groups their are differences, it is called ethnicity. For your support that "race" is hogwash, Lack of considering this is worrisome. it is known that Africa bears the greatest amount of Genetic Diversity. However, There is an error, Between Groups the Gap is clear, and within groups they are small. A complete contradiction. This is clearly shown here.
This Abuse of Science is beginning to be troubling, it seems that Perception and semantics plays large role in Steering "opinion"
This Furthers my point that Admixtures are Ethnic Groups to which Genetic Mixing in the past occurred, in small numbers.
In essence, while race as the social concept it is seen as cannot demarcate Humans, In-depth genetic studies can.
(You know, I have actually convinced myself. If these are the views of people who are leading the fields which deals with such issues, I find it hard to believe there is any information you can provide to prove them otherwise.)
We are in 2016 going on to 2017. Ten years is quite the time for new research to develop.
(You provided a picture in your argument, firstly I would like the source, secondly the statement above should make it abundantly clear that although there are undeniable biological traits that are possessed by different populations of humans based on geographic location this ultimately does not lend any merit to the concept of 'race'.)
Race is just basic classification of Distinctions, what else would you call it. I like the term variants of the Human Species. Basic Science already suggests (as per evidence of Australian aborigines) If the Human Pockets were isolated for another lets say 20,000 years. Interbreeding would not be possible due to natural evolution creating distinct species. It is like finches. Back then they could in theory interbreed and make hybrids at one point. But taking the Galapagos as an example, genetic isolation leads to genetic evolution and thus distinct species. However immoral, the same can be done with Humans if tested long enough. Yet we both know that isn't a possibility as a test due to the thousands of years it would take.
You seem obsessed with "Sources" Listen mate, No one can remember years of research and each individual, book, document, or site. This is why common sense is applied and ACTIVE research outside ones comfort zone and confirmation Bias is a necessity. In the Age of information, if you cannot find Information.....I do not know what to say.
Note*- Graphs are sources. If you do not consider it one. Well then I do not know what to say. Most Racial Studies are done at universities or Laboratories.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
Enosia
Postitused: 19
Kasutajalt: UK
|
Tsiteeri:
My Mistake, it is Paleo-Africans that contain the .23%
You are right to say that in the sense of Human Sociological interpretation, the race can be called a social construct, as its basic suggestion is unable to demarcate Humans.
(I would highlight the point "there is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another".)
Yes we already discussed Alleles and their Frequencies and the correlation it has with Differing groups.
(I believe Witherspoon's analysis should also make it clear that the people in 'geographically intermediate' locations are 'admixed populations'. If that is the case then how could you possibly think it possible to place people in to the discrete categories that make up separate 'races'.)
Hence why within races we have ethnic groups and mixed Ethnic Groups (Known as admixtures), which within themselves are part of the larger Category of race. Race cannot show completely show the unique properties of Differences, due to the fact that The Human Genetic Structure and its history are complex. Thus the Concept of a "pure" Ethnic Group in "Intermediate areas" do not exist. Only in isolated pockets can "Pure" isolated ethnic groups can be found. Of course bearing the history of our common ancestor, can a link to other groups be found, but a distinction remains (Aboriginals are a nice Example). This is common sense.
("Witherspoon et al. concludes that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes", and warns that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.")
This furthers and supports my earlier point.....
Anyway, as we discussed. Individual alleles on Loci do not indicate difference. However only when seen in large numbers do results correlate. Of course within groups their are differences, it is called ethnicity. For your support that "race" is hogwash, Lack of considering this is worrisome. it is known that Africa bears the greatest amount of Genetic Diversity. However, There is an error, Between Groups the Gap is clear, and within groups they are small. A complete contradiction. This is clearly shown here.
This Abuse of Science is beginning to be troubling, it seems that Perception and semantics plays large role in Steering "opinion"
This Furthers my point that Admixtures are Ethnic Groups to which Genetic Mixing in the past occurred, in small numbers.
In essence, while race as the social concept it is seen as cannot demarcate Humans, In-depth genetic studies can.
(You know, I have actually convinced myself. If these are the views of people who are leading the fields which deals with such issues, I find it hard to believe there is any information you can provide to prove them otherwise.)
We are in 2016 going on to 2017. Ten years is quite the time for new research to develop.
(You provided a picture in your argument, firstly I would like the source, secondly the statement above should make it abundantly clear that although there are undeniable biological traits that are possessed by different populations of humans based on geographic location this ultimately does not lend any merit to the concept of 'race'.)
Race is just basic classification of Distinctions, what else would you call it. I like the term variants of the Human Species. Basic Science already suggests (as per evidence of Australian aborigines) If the Human Pockets were isolated for another lets say 20,000 years. Interbreeding would not be possible due to natural evolution creating distinct species. It is like finches. Back then they could in theory interbreed and make hybrids at one point. But taking the Galapagos as an example, genetic isolation leads to genetic evolution and thus distinct species. However immoral, the same can be done with Humans if tested long enough. Yet we both know that isn't a possibility as a test due to the thousands of years it would take.
You seem obsessed with "Sources" Listen mate, No one can remember years of research and each individual, book, document, or site. This is why common sense is applied and ACTIVE research outside ones comfort zone and confirmation Bias is a necessity. In the Age of information, if you cannot find Information.....I do not know what to say.
Note*- Graphs are sources. If you do not consider it one. Well then I do not know what to say. Most Racial Studies are done at universities or Laboratories.
***You seem obsessed with "Sources" Listen mate, No one can remember years of research and each individual, book, document, or site. This is why common sense is applied and ACTIVE research outside ones comfort zone and confirmation Bias is a necessity.***
Yes because sources are important, because simply regurgitating what we think we know wastes time and may lead to inaccuracies. Not to mention, sources would give your argument far more credibility otherwise like I said before it's difficult to separate fact from fiction without prior knowledge.
***In the Age of information, if you cannot find Information.....I do not know what to say. ***
I agree, I agree completely 
***Note*- Graphs are sources. If you do not consider it one. Well then I do not know what to say. Most Racial Studies are done at universities or Laboratories.***
I would consider where the graphs came from, the source.
Yes anthropological studies would be done at universities and once complete such studies are published and can often be found on the interwebs.
In any case, I've presented the arguments I believe to be true to the best of my ability and have more or less achieved my goal, which was to learn more about this. Continuing we will probably just keep on going in circles. I feel as if you ignore mainstream science in favour of more obscure information that could be considered outdated, like that study you provided me about different brain sizes. I also think you interpret things erroneously. You previously mentioned something about manipulating semantics and I feel like that's exactly what you're doing. And finally your lack of outside sources, such as articles or published scientific works (accepted by mainstream science) makes your arguments insubstantial.
Feel free to criticize my conduct too.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
You spend too much time on matter that really does not matterč
----
No such thing as a good girl, you are just not the right guy.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Tsiteeri: Kirjutas Enosia, 04.09.2016 at 17:43
My Mistake, it is Paleo-Africans that contain the .23%
You are right to say that in the sense of Human Sociological interpretation, the race can be called a social construct, as its basic suggestion is unable to demarcate Humans.
(I would highlight the point "there is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another".)
Yes we already discussed Alleles and their Frequencies and the correlation it has with Differing groups.
(I believe Witherspoon's analysis should also make it clear that the people in 'geographically intermediate' locations are 'admixed populations'. If that is the case then how could you possibly think it possible to place people in to the discrete categories that make up separate 'races'.)
Hence why within races we have ethnic groups and mixed Ethnic Groups (Known as admixtures), which within themselves are part of the larger Category of race. Race cannot show completely show the unique properties of Differences, due to the fact that The Human Genetic Structure and its history are complex. Thus the Concept of a "pure" Ethnic Group in "Intermediate areas" do not exist. Only in isolated pockets can "Pure" isolated ethnic groups can be found. Of course bearing the history of our common ancestor, can a link to other groups be found, but a distinction remains (Aboriginals are a nice Example). This is common sense.
("Witherspoon et al. concludes that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes", and warns that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.")
This furthers and supports my earlier point.....
Anyway, as we discussed. Individual alleles on Loci do not indicate difference. However only when seen in large numbers do results correlate. Of course within groups their are differences, it is called ethnicity. For your support that "race" is hogwash, Lack of considering this is worrisome. it is known that Africa bears the greatest amount of Genetic Diversity. However, There is an error, Between Groups the Gap is clear, and within groups they are small. A complete contradiction. This is clearly shown here.
This Abuse of Science is beginning to be troubling, it seems that Perception and semantics plays large role in Steering "opinion"
This Furthers my point that Admixtures are Ethnic Groups to which Genetic Mixing in the past occurred, in small numbers.
In essence, while race as the social concept it is seen as cannot demarcate Humans, In-depth genetic studies can.
(You know, I have actually convinced myself. If these are the views of people who are leading the fields which deals with such issues, I find it hard to believe there is any information you can provide to prove them otherwise.)
We are in 2016 going on to 2017. Ten years is quite the time for new research to develop.
(You provided a picture in your argument, firstly I would like the source, secondly the statement above should make it abundantly clear that although there are undeniable biological traits that are possessed by different populations of humans based on geographic location this ultimately does not lend any merit to the concept of 'race'.)
Race is just basic classification of Distinctions, what else would you call it. I like the term variants of the Human Species. Basic Science already suggests (as per evidence of Australian aborigines) If the Human Pockets were isolated for another lets say 20,000 years. Interbreeding would not be possible due to natural evolution creating distinct species. It is like finches. Back then they could in theory interbreed and make hybrids at one point. But taking the Galapagos as an example, genetic isolation leads to genetic evolution and thus distinct species. However immoral, the same can be done with Humans if tested long enough. Yet we both know that isn't a possibility as a test due to the thousands of years it would take.
You seem obsessed with "Sources" Listen mate, No one can remember years of research and each individual, book, document, or site. This is why common sense is applied and ACTIVE research outside ones comfort zone and confirmation Bias is a necessity. In the Age of information, if you cannot find Information.....I do not know what to say.
Note*- Graphs are sources. If you do not consider it one. Well then I do not know what to say. Most Racial Studies are done at universities or Laboratories.
***You seem obsessed with "Sources" Listen mate, No one can remember years of research and each individual, book, document, or site. This is why common sense is applied and ACTIVE research outside ones comfort zone and confirmation Bias is a necessity.***
Yes because sources are important, because simply regurgitating what we think we know wastes time and may lead to inaccuracies. Not to mention, sources would give your argument far more credibility otherwise like I said before it's difficult to separate fact from fiction without prior knowledge.
***In the Age of information, if you cannot find Information.....I do not know what to say. ***
I agree, I agree completely
***Note*- Graphs are sources. If you do not consider it one. Well then I do not know what to say. Most Racial Studies are done at universities or Laboratories.***
I would consider where the graphs came from, the source.
Yes anthropological studies would be done at universities and once complete such studies are published and can often be found on the interwebs.
In any case, I've presented the arguments I believe to be true to the best of my ability and have more or less achieved my goal, which was to learn more about this. Continuing we will probably just keep on going in circles. I feel as if you ignore mainstream science in favour of more obscure information that could be considered outdated, like that study you provided me about different brain sizes. I also think you interpret things erroneously. You previously mentioned something about manipulating semantics and I feel like that's exactly what you're doing. And finally your lack of outside sources, such as articles or published scientific works (accepted by mainstream science) makes your arguments insubstantial.
Feel free to criticize my conduct too.
(Yes because sources are important, because simply regurgitating what we think we know wastes time and may lead to inaccuracies. Not to mention, sources would give your argument far more credibility otherwise like I said before it's difficult to separate fact from fiction without prior knowledge.)
Mate, I have given answers to those seeking, unlike you, they were able to overcome course singular interpretation and either like you say had prior knowledge or simply found the sources. Truth has no source, it simply has form. When one speaks, it is a combination of long periods of encoding information, No lies are a gain in a discussion. (Said in your earlier post). Nor is there a benefit to attempting manipulation of thought here. I notice you use "I" quite frequently in previous and this one. If you do not possess knowledge on something, it does not mean it doesn't exist. If you have not seen a study, you never bothered to look. I could waste time, looking through documents and books. To enlighten you by your own realization, however if you need someone else to do so, then your quest for truth is flawed. You say fact from fiction, yet know, none of what i say is fiction. It can be, in your own perspective of reality. I understand Race as it is seen socially is hogwash, However differences cannot be ignored, they are the result of genes and unique proteins and elements arranged in a certain sequence. If this simplified form cannot be understood, Then Critical Thinking is beyond the modern day. As for Prior knowledge, yes this can lead to conflicting paths, however it is not the fault of the one that needs not rely on the studies of others to argue, but rather absorb and use them to utilize critical thinking to see past a fog and reach a conclusion. If one cannot tie various information and sources to reach a defined reality and only sees one spectrum, then there is no point discussing with Blind eyes. I recommend you spend time looking at Information outside your perception. For if you only seek information that supports your thesis, it is a cognitive error, known as confirmation bias and has no place here. I deny nothing of what you said, as i used them to further my point. Along with your previous post (to which ill respond to after this one) you basically agree to what i say.
(In any case, I've presented the arguments I believe to be true to the best of my ability and have more or less achieved my goal, which was to learn more about this. Continuing we will probably just keep on going in circles. I feel as if you ignore mainstream science in favour of more obscure information that could be considered outdated, like that study you provided me about different brain sizes. I also think you interpret things erroneously. You previously mentioned something about manipulating semantics and I feel like that's exactly what you're doing. And finally your lack of outside sources, such as articles or published scientific works (accepted by mainstream science) makes your arguments insubstantial.
Feel free to criticize my conduct too.)
What goals?Nothing has been solidified in respects to your interpretation. There are no circles here, just attempts at dismissal. Science is improved upon, never outdated. Mainstream Science doesn't disprove the genetic reality of differing races, Many articles and scientists in essence prove the existence of such things in otherwise quite interesting use of linguistic semantics, I see how it might confuse the average mind. Now, you take information as needing sources, Truth and Information exist even without you seeing it, if you want sources, be an active learner and look for it, if you cannot, you are either not interested in finding something to prove your reality asunder or simply think that unless you see something, it can be dismissed. Such a thought process is arrogance to which i cannot fathom, but no matter. I suggest you research properly by taking courses in related fields or Doing Efficient research (including those that contradict you opinion on the matter). As per conduct, there is no issue, simply Become more knowledgeable. Dismissing an argument because sources aren't provided for your convenience is similar to the thought that Because this plant has no seeds it is not one. Along with not disproving my argument.
Anyway, the post to which this is a response was an attack and did not case aside the information i provided. Thus this confliction as no basis, other than mental annoyance. We will move to the previous post.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Tsiteeri: Kirjutas Enosia, 04.09.2016 at 15:16
/(Our brains generate emotion and are, to some extent, capable of logical processing. Both helped our ancestors survive, though logic is too expensive and slow to be useful in emergencies. So our brains are rigged to run on instinct when we feel threatened or have overwhelming desires. At such times, our logical abilities tend to shut down.
Humans are logical creatures, we always have been. If you disagree please provide a reputable source suggesting otherwise.)/
The Human Mind is Extremely Irrational proven by numerous Psychological phenomena, I'll list them for you, and even provide a little description.
1. Confirmation Bias: the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories, Primarily caused by Cognitive dissonance named by B.F skinner. Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it. (Thus Information tends to be flawed in many arguments and thus allows one to believe that they are correct. This Shows that unless it correlates with One belief, it will be denied. Hence its manifestation in the 14 types of Denial.)
2. Ingroup Bias: simply the tendency to favor one's own group, at the expense of people they don't know.
3. Gambler's Fallacy: is when an individual erroneously believes that the onset of a certain random event is less likely to happen following an event or a series of events.
4. Choice-supportive bias: is the tendency to retroactively ascribe positive attributes to an option one has selected. It is Basically a cognitive bias.
5. The neglect of probability: is the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty and is one simple way in which people regularly violate the normative rules for decision making.
6. Selection bias: the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed.
7. Status quo bias: an emotional bias; a preference for the current state of affairs.
8. Negativity Bias: Basically something very positive will generally have less of an impact on a person's behavior and cognition than something equally emotional but negative.
9. The bandwagon effect: a psychological phenomenon in which people do something primarily because other people are doing it, regardless of their own beliefs, which they may ignore or override.
10. Projection bias: the tendency to falsely project current preferences onto a future event.
If you want more "proof" read a psychology book, or use the internet. Here, a Basic Site listing Cognitive errors >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
There is also antonio damasio, and his study on how the human mind makes decisions on emotion rather than logic
(Intelligence is very complicated. First of all there is no clear definition of what intelligence actually is or entails however we can surmise that its numerous qualities such as short term/long term memory capacity and ability to think logically that come together to form what we know collectively as intelligence. You're correct about how genes that would not support an organism's survival may over numerous generations and through natural selection be bred out and clearly you're suggesting that this is the case for people originating from Africa.
However, to pose such a great claim you should at least be able to provide me a scientific study that delves in to the genome of the average african, that identifies these so called 'intelligence genes' that we may posses but they do not.
I think you'll find there is no such study to have made such conclusions because no intelligence genes have been pinpointed from what I've read.)
There is a definition, it is called English and its Dictionary>> Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills
No one said 'intelligence genes', that makes no sense first off, Secondly when i was discussing the passing of genes, i was talking about genes passed down that are inefficient, like those that produce down syndrome or autism or weaknesses. Now if you want facts, it is commonly know that for the out of Africa theory, it was harder to get food, gain shelter, make clothes and raise children and needed more family planning. To make a Larger and more efficient Brain takes time and energy during a person's development, thus the changes that occurred in EU and East Asia by slower rates of growth and lower levels of sex hormones. Apparent in both Whites and Asians, While blacks have higher sex hormone levels, 19% in testosterone as an example, than Whites or Asians, and smaller Brain mass and less neurons. Proven Science. So Especially in the geographic location of the EU and the environment it had 40,000 years ago which was near the end of the last Glacial period. These are Traits encoded into Genes that make the Unique peoples of earth different. Intelligence is not confined to a gene, but it is found in genetics, it is the product of Genetic sequences, it is not to say that these Traits cannot be suppressed with Environmental factors, like social influences for example. Thus the Average African genome and your Statement of "Intelligence gene" are void. The fact you brought such a thing up when it was not suggested shows your attempt at diverting the Argument, to support your Bias.
(Again, these are serious claims. As far as I am concerned, this is just your opinion until you provide me with a scientific source backing up your outlandish claims. I've never known any scientific study to have proposed that our brains were different in the fashion you propose.)
Here:
A review of the world literature on brain size and IQ by Rushton [Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior: a life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction] found that African-descended people (Blacks) average cranial capacities of 1267 cm3, European-descended people (Whites) 1347 cm3, and East Asian-descended people (East Asians) 1364 cm3. These brain size differences, containing millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of synapses, were hypothesized to underlie the race differences on IQ tests, in which Blacks average an IQ of 85, Whites 100, and East Asians 106. The race differences in brain size are correlated with 37 musculoskeletal variables shown in standard evolutionary textbooks to change systematically with increments in brain size. The 37 variables include cranial traits (such as jaw size and shape, tooth size and shape, muscle attachment sites, and orbital bone indentations), and postcranial traits (such as pelvic width, thighbone curvature, and knee joint surface area). Across the three populations, the "ecological correlations" [Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger] between brain size and the 37 morphological traits averaged a remarkable r = .94; ρ = .94. If the races did not differ in brain size, these correlations could not have been found. It must be concluded that the race differences in average brain size are securely established. As such, brain size-related variables provide the most likely biological mediators of the race differences in intelligence.
("Now you are correct to say that a being can be conditioned to retain information, however there is a limit to the capacity in which the information and be stored and expressed.The IQ for a 25% Bred Black with White in america is from 80-85. The IQ of Sub-Saharan is around 70 and below."
Firstly, you've provided no source for the rather specific '25% bred black with white' for which I would think a source necessary. However it is common knowledge that the IQ of african americans is below average as well as the IQ of the average citizen of a sub saharan country. Although, there are no scientific studies at all to suggest that this is because of innate genetic variations, I would challenge you to find one if you disagree.
Rather, the difference in IQ is due to a combination of environment factors. For example it is no coincidence that the countries with the lowest IQ are those with the lowest gdp.
"IQ and Global Inequality", the average IQ for sub-Saharan Africa was found to be 82, lower than the average in Western countries, but higher than Lynn and Vanhanen's estimate of 67. Wicherts at al. conclude that this difference is likely due to sub-Saharan Africa having limited access to modern advances in education, nutrition and health care.
Wicherts, Jelte M.; Dolana, Conor V.; van der Maas, Han L.J. "A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans". Intelligence. 38 (1): 1-20.
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
"Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions."
And it goes on to discuss race specifically:
" Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective. "
The idea that these are at all related to what goes on inside one's head has been entirely subjective.
And another source from wikipedia: "Earl B. Hunt agrees that racial categories are defined by social conventions, though he points out that they also correlate with clusters of both genetic traits and cultural traits. Hunt explains that, due to this, racial IQ differences are caused by these variables that correlate with race, and race itself is rarely a causal variable. Researchers who study racial disparities in test scores are studying the relationship between the scores and the many race-related factors which could potentially affect performance. These factors include health, wealth, biological differences, and education." Hunt, Earl (2010). Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7.)
"On average, the scientists found, people who identified as African-American had genes that were only 73.2 percent African. European genes accounted for 24 percent of their DNA, while .8 percent came from Native Americans." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/science/23andme-genetic-ethnicity-study.html?_r=0
My mistake 24%
The Nations obviously with the lowest GDP have the lowest IQ because they do not have the IQ or capacity to grow. It does correlate, along with the fact, that Japan's GDP is greater than England's and they have a Higher IQ. Where is your sense?
Income doesn't affect the genetic aspect of how The IQ gap remains
Btw IQ is inherited and is determined by 75% due to genes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html
(Ironically this disproves your earlier challenge)
This also proves your errors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ ("Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores; however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects")
Take a Psychology course and maybe you wont challenge fact that can easily be found and proven.
All your sources prove my point, rather than yours. While Sub-Saharan Africans may not have access to proper education, even if they are educated, the IQ gap between the blacks in comparison to Asians and White with equal education remains, as evidenced in the USA. Where Blacks that have higher concentrations of White genes score better those those with less. Thus showing a genetic correlation. Blacks maintain a standard deviation of IQ from whites of 10 points, no matter the income.
(This seems like a baseless assertion.)
Of course, ignorance in Basic genetics and biology along with no knowledge of the bell curve, of which i'll provide, would make you say so. However As stated before, IQ deviation if maxed in a Black group and Maxed in an Asian or White, the IQ Gap Remains, hence my earlier statement, to which you bore no argument. Ignorance on the subject, does not make it wrong, nor allows you the right to dismiss, if you are not educated on said subjects.
(I've pretty much addressed this above.)
Same
I accept your assessment of the irrationality of the human mind, but I still think we act mostly logical, let's leave that at that.
*** There is a definition, it is called English and its Dictionary>> Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills***
You're correct, if you write 'define intelligence' on the google search bar, what you stated is exactly what comes up. However, if you delve slightly further in to what intelligence is, you might have known that the definition of intelligence is still a controversial topic debated among psychologists. A quick google search of the topic will yield numerous results.
***No one said 'intelligence genes', that makes no sense first off, Secondly when i was discussing the passing of genes, i was talking about genes passed down that are inefficient, like those that produce down syndrome or autism or weaknesses.***
This is what you said "Now Looking at Genetics in a generalist view can be used. As Genes are passed down, and with the factor that 95% of Humans have a chance to breed. Genes of which can be considered a detriment to advanced mental capacities, are passed down or Genes which can foster Extreme intellectualism can be diluted out of a particular strain of genetic line, to which the benefit no longer appears in the organisms offspring."
Firstly I must have misinterpreted this part "Genes of which can be considered a detriment to advanced mental capacities", it would have helped if you specifically mentioned mental disorder. Secondly however "genes which can foster Extreme intellectualism" suggested to me 'intelligence genes' you can hardly blame me for that.
***Now if you want facts, it is commonly know that for the out of Africa theory, it was harder to get food, gain shelter, make clothes and raise children and needed more family planning. To make a Larger and more efficient Brain takes time and energy during a person's development, thus the changes that occurred in EU and East Asia by slower rates of growth and lower levels of sex hormones. Apparent in both Whites and Asians, While blacks have higher sex hormone levels, 19% in testosterone as an example, than Whites or Asians, and smaller Brain mass and less neurons. Proven Science.***
Well this knowledge can't be too common as I am unaware. It would be helpful if you referenced a source of some sort. Also there are some unclear details such as why exactly it was harder to survive outside of Africa. The only thing I can think of is climate and native fauna. In that regard if anything Africa was a more challenging place to survive especially considering the more manageable climate of Europe. Not to mention the fact that some locations of Africa have a climate not too dissimilar to western Europe, such as locations in South Africa. You say 'proven science' and yet you don't provide a source. As per my previous post on the issue of race, I find it difficult to accept what you're proposing about sex hormone levels considering the use of the term 'race' to be invalid.
***So Especially in the geographic location of the EU and the environment it had 40,000 years ago which was near the end of the last Glacial period. These are Traits encoded into Genes that make the Unique peoples of earth different. Intelligence is not confined to a gene, but it is found in genetics, it is the product of Genetic sequences, it is not to say that these Traits cannot be suppressed with Environmental factors, like social influences for example. Thus the Average African genome and your Statement of "Intelligence gene" are void. The fact you brought such a thing up when it was not suggested shows your attempt at diverting the Argument, to support your Bias. ***
My point was that there is no single or set of 'intelligence genes' :/ :/
I had thought you suggested it. You were unclear.
*** Here:
A review of the world literature on brain size and IQ by Rushton [Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior: a life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction] found that African-descended people (Blacks) average cranial capacities of 1267 cm3, European-descended people (Whites) 1347 cm3, and East Asian-descended people (East Asians) 1364 cm3. These brain size differences, containing millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of synapses, were hypothesized to underlie the race differences on IQ tests, in which Blacks average an IQ of 85, Whites 100, and East Asians 106. The race differences in brain size are correlated with 37 musculoskeletal variables shown in standard evolutionary textbooks to change systematically with increments in brain size. The 37 variables include cranial traits (such as jaw size and shape, tooth size and shape, muscle attachment sites, and orbital bone indentations), and postcranial traits (such as pelvic width, thighbone curvature, and knee joint surface area). Across the three populations, the "ecological correlations" [Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger] between brain size and the 37 morphological traits averaged a remarkable r = .94; ρ = .94. If the races did not differ in brain size, these correlations could not have been found. It must be concluded that the race differences in average brain size are securely established. As such, brain size-related variables provide the most likely biological mediators of the race differences in intelligence.***
Finally, some evidence, I had thought until I delved further in to what you had provided. Turns out the author of that paper, J .Phillipe Rushton is a highly controversial figure. This is within the public eye because of his purported racist tendency's but also amongst the field he was researching/writing about. Also it's worth noting that he is a psychologist rather than an anthropologist and the way he demarcates people in to 3 racial groups does not fit with the conclusions of modern anthropologists as per my previous post. Rushton's work has previously come under attack by the scientific community too due to the quality of research, refer to the information below:
For example:
Graves, J. L. (2002). "What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory".Anthropological Theory. 2 (2): 131-154.doi:10.1177/1469962002002002627. ISSN 1463-4996.
Brace, C. Loring (March 1996). "Review: Racialism and Racist Agendas". American Anthropologist, New Series. 98 (1): 176-7.doi:10.1525/aa.1996.98.1.02a00250. JSTOR 682972.
Francisco Gil-White, Resurrecting Racism, Chapter 10
Anderson, Judith L. (1991). "Rushton's racial comparisons: An ecological critique of theory and method.". Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne. 32 (1): 51-62.doi:10.1037/h0078956. ISSN 1878-7304.
Douglas Wahlsten (2001) Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior
Leslie, Charles (2002). New Horizons in Medical Anthropology. New York: Routledge. p. 17. ISBN 0-415-27793-0.
Kuznar, Lawrence (1997). Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. p. 104. ISBN 0-7619-9114-X.
And you accuse me of bias.
I can provide more information of why Rushton's research is unreliable and should be viewed with suspicion if you request it.
*** Btw IQ is inherited and is determined by 75% due to genes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html
(Ironically this disproves your earlier challenge)***
My 'earlier challenge' was that no specific 'intelligence genes' have been discovered, that was by no means to suggest that there is not a genetic component to intelligence. The article provided is of a relatively recent study, it was very interesting.
*** The Nations obviously with the lowest GDP have the lowest IQ because they do not have the IQ or capacity to grow. It does correlate, along with the fact, that Japan's GDP is greater than England's and they have a Higher IQ. Where is your sense?***
Interesting. So where I suggested that a lack of GDP results in low IQ, you are suggesting the exact converse, that a low IQ results causes low GDP. However, I believe you are mistaken. I believe that there are numerous alternative explanations as to why Africa as a continent has historically been poorer than the rest of the world, it also provides explanations for why the native people of other continents also did not advance as fast that those of Eurasia.
I would suggest you read this: https://www.edge.org/conversation/jared_diamond-why-did-human-history-unfold-differently-on-different-continents-for-the
It is a very interesting and comprehensive analysis in to why the peoples of different continents advanced as they did, it covers numerous issues and is pretty long. We should leave it at that for this particular issue, otherwise this could end up becoming more time consuming than it already is.
*** This also proves your errors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ ("Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores; however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects")
Take a Psychology course and maybe you wont challenge fact that can easily be found and proven.***
"Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores; however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects"
But… this does prove my point???
"however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects"
***All your sources prove my point, rather than yours. While Sub-Saharan Africans may not have access to proper education, even if they are educated, the IQ gap between the blacks in comparison to Asians and White with equal education remains, as evidenced in the USA. Where Blacks that have higher concentrations of White genes score better those those with less. Thus showing a genetic correlation. Blacks maintain a standard deviation of IQ from whites of 10 points, no matter the income.***
The USA is one case study that is overused. Also, I find the methodology of such studies questionable. Another country with a high immigrant population is the UK and I found a comprehensive analysis as to how the IQ gap between blacks and whites is rapidly closing. This analysis does not simply look at all Africans as 'black' but separates them by country of origin.
Here is the link:
http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/
***(This seems like a baseless assertion.)
Of course, ignorance in Basic genetics and biology along with no knowledge of the bell curve, of which i'll provide, would make you say so. However As stated before, IQ deviation if maxed in a Black group and Maxed in an Asian or White, the IQ Gap Remains, hence my earlier statement, to which you bore no argument. Ignorance on the subject, does not make it wrong, nor allows you the right to dismiss, if you are not educated on said subjects.***
Ad hominem responses just waste time, I would ask you to refrain from it and I'll try to do so too, if I already have. Refer to the link I provided prior.
******You're correct, if you write 'define intelligence' on the google search bar, what you stated is exactly what comes up. However, if you delve slightly further in to what intelligence is, you might have known that the definition of intelligence is still a controversial topic debated among psychologists. A quick google search of the topic will yield numerous results.*******
Listen get a dictionary, Intelligence is one thing. The debate on its extent on differing groups is another. It still retains its intrinsic definition. This is an insult to language.
******This is what you said "Now Looking at Genetics in a generalist view can be used. As Genes are passed down, and with the factor that 95% of Humans have a chance to breed. Genes of which can be considered a detriment to advanced mental capacities, are passed down or Genes which can foster Extreme intellectualism can be diluted out of a particular strain of genetic line, to which the benefit no longer appears in the organisms offspring."
Firstly I must have misinterpreted this part "Genes of which can be considered a detriment to advanced mental capacities", it would have helped if you specifically mentioned mental disorder. Secondly however "genes which can foster Extreme intellectualism" suggested to me 'intelligence genes' you can hardly blame me for that.******
At least we are clear.
******Well this knowledge can't be too common as I am unaware. It would be helpful if you referenced a source of some sort. Also there are some unclear details such as why exactly it was harder to survive outside of Africa. The only thing I can think of is climate and native fauna. In that regard if anything Africa was a more challenging place to survive especially considering the more manageable climate of Europe. Not to mention the fact that some locations of Africa have a climate not too dissimilar to western Europe, such as locations in South Africa. You say 'proven science' and yet you don't provide a source. As per my previous post on the issue of race, I find it difficult to accept what you're proposing about sex hormone levels considering the use of the term 'race' to be invalid.*******
The knowledge is common, if you know geography and its History. It is not my fault if you were not aware, this information is widespread amoung Intellectuals. It is not unclear why it was difficult outside of Africa, it is common sense, this was near the last glacial period, what is it you cannot comprehend, in Europe and East Asia the temperature was low, the conditions regarding food were scarcity and in the last glacial period, raising a family in such conditions was Extremely difficult. Africa back then and today is challenging, do not regard modern Europe's climate and have the gall to compare it to 40,000 years ago. Has for Africa's Climate, in comparison to Europe, ill provide a map, it is southern Europe, not Western, and it is a Subtropical Climate. Only South Africa during a certain part of the year, reaches temperate conditions and only South Africa. Yes it is proven science and is common sense to those who now geography history and Human Geographic history and Biology/Evolutionary Biology to understand change over time. As for "Blacks" since you are sensitive to the word race. Here ill give you More Graphs on Climate and Hormone levels.
Here ill even give you a PDF of Hormone levels of Testoterone between Global Populations i.e The Ethnic groups
>>>>> https://ethnicmuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ethnic-testosterone.pdf <<<<<<
*****My point was that there is no single or set of 'intelligence genes' :/ :/
I had thought you suggested it. You were unclear.******
Listen, it is Simple, Genes make you who you and others are, they are not Individual genes that dictate intelligence, but a collection of genes placed in a specific sequence. I don't know how to dumb it down any further.
*******Finally, some evidence, I had thought until I delved further in to what you had provided. Turns out the author of that paper, J .Phillipe Rushton is a highly controversial figure. This is within the public eye because of his purported racist tendency's but also amongst the field he was researching/writing about. Also it's worth noting that he is a psychologist rather than an anthropologist and the way he demarcates people in to 3 racial groups does not fit with the conclusions of modern anthropologists as per my previous post. Rushton's work has previously come under attack by the scientific community too due to the quality of research, refer to the information below:*******
After looking through all of them, they do not Debunk his science but question it, This seems to be a result of Social and ethnic pandering. Until a study refuting his Studies with Cold hard Experiments like he performed. It holds weight. Now Rushton may be the one with the most controversy, but there are Numerous other books and research on this. They Question the Quality of work, yet do not debunk it, i don't understand the logic, This is pandering to social belief, and as no place here.
*****My 'earlier challenge' was that no specific 'intelligence genes' have been discovered, that was by no means to suggest that there is not a genetic component to intelligence. The article provided is of a relatively recent study, it was very interesting. ****
Thanks, at least we are clear.
******Interesting. So where I suggested that a lack of GDP results in low IQ, you are suggesting the exact converse, that a low IQ results causes low GDP. However, I believe you are mistaken. I believe that there are numerous alternative explanations as to why Africa as a continent has historically been poorer than the rest of the world, it also provides explanations for why the native people of other continents also did not advance as fast that those of Eurasia.
I would suggest you read this: https://www.edge.org/conversation/jared_diamond-why-did-human-history-unfold-differently-on-different-continents-for-the******
Mate, Listen, Africa is poor because of the people, When Europeans left, we left Buildings, mining equipment, and governmental structures amoung numerous other things, yet they Fail to take advantage and fail as a nation and as a people. Common sense as to why. If on their own they could not advance, and with aid they cannot advance, then common sense dictates the genes that determine behavior and intellect are to blame. It is the only way to justify the nonsense that goes on in Africa without Making them seem like Barbaric Humans comparable to Animals. That entire Study even with the liberal guilt pandering has lost any sense with this phrase alone _ ("Still other peoples, including the original inhabitants of Australia, the Americas, and southern Africa, are no longer even masters of their own lands but have been decimated, subjugated, or exterminated by European colonialists.") _. <<<Besides the faulty logic behind that, of which if you are confident enough, ill be extremely keen on debating. >>>> That isn't the point of this response. While the whole link shows me pathos semantics to persuade rather than look at the fact of WHY EU and Asia advanced far quicker to conquer to world, instead of the poor "Ethnic groups" that were "Oppressed" instead of the other way around is annoying. It basically proves my point of how the differing genes made Asians and Europeans successful and not the Africans and Native Americans of the western hemisphere. Enough of this ethnic and social pandering. Or did you forget the Mongols invading EU, the Caliphates Invading, the Turks invading, the Africans Moors invading. All these Ethnic people came and raped, killed and attacked the Europeans First while we were in primitive conditions and didn't even have the thought of colonies. Just how religion dominated back then, Eye for and Eye (The law of Retribution) and the Thought of wealth and Glory, made Colonialism amoung other things, a reality.
*****The USA is one case study that is overused. Also, I find the methodology of such studies questionable. Another country with a high immigrant population is the UK and I found a comprehensive analysis as to how the IQ gap between blacks and whites is rapidly closing. This analysis does not simply look at all Africans as 'black' but separates them by country of origin.
Here is the link:
http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/*******
This is getting ridiculous, this proves the previous statements in the other posts that you can improve Intellect and also degenerate it, Since you are from the UK, perhaps you don't notice the decline in its Youth Culture. Of Which Flynn Points out back in 2009, We all know that in this day and age. The decline of common sense and intellectualism is Paramount than the contrary of Intellectual growth and Cultivation. There are many Social Aspect in Human Society that throws logic out the window. This is reality now, but don't have the audacity to say that decline of IQ in EU is Equal to Improvement of African IQ. For the best IQ the UK can offer is still FAR beyond what Nigeria can provide even in UK settings of education. This Pandering toward Equality of all humans and absolute disregard for difference is why there is conflict in the first place, I see now that people are more obsessed with being the same than being proud and respectful of our Differences. Thank you.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
Enosia
Postitused: 19
Kasutajalt: UK
|
Tsiteeri:
Considering your views, it must really tick you off, how Germany has taken in 1.1 million refugees this year 
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
