Racism

[scram 1]

yeah. the guy has a hypothesis, makes observations, and makes a valid conclusion. that's how arguments work, right?

No, the guy starts out with a non-scientific philosophy and summarily seeks to find whatever organic information that might speak in favor of it. His methodology is just as flawed as a lot of Eugenic sciences that occurred at the turn of the century.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

2) You do not support claims by saying "YEAH, WELL, WHAT ABOUT THAT THING THAT YOU DID!!!!" It's what politicians do when they're backed into a corner (It's also the classic "liberal defense" to almost anything).

I believe what you're referring to is a 'moral equivalency argument'; "What I did was bad, but not as bad as what YOU did.." or "What he said was dumb but what you said is dumber."..and I don't think that's what's he doing at all.

[vbnautilus 48]

1) You're making a laughably false corollary by trying to say my suggestion that prospect differences in intelligence between races and whatever genetic or neurological that may cause them is based on my "personal experience". My personal experience is what caused me to question the retarded notion of "equality" and in turn, found some pretty intriguing science that might suggest biological differences.

The fact remains there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that brain function is differs by race.

2) You do not support claims by saying "YEAH, WELL, WHAT ABOUT THAT THING THAT YOU DID!!!!" It's what politicians do when they're backed into a corner (It's also the classic "liberal defense" to almost anything). What I did, do, say or believe that has nothing to do with Guns, Germs and Steel doesn't serve as proof or disproof of same. If you're going to support the bullshit "theories" vomited out in that book, feel free to do so on merit, or simply say that you agree with them and leave it at that.Citing "me" isn't a valid defense of GG&S.

The point is that you will be held to the same standards of evidence to which you hold others. You have derided someone else who has taken considerable effort to gather evidence and present a coherent argument, chastising him for intending to prove his preconceived notion. Meanwhile you have developed a very strong conviction for which you are unable to present any evidence. I find it ironic.

[scram 1]

I believe what you're referring to is a 'moral equivalency argument'; "What I did was bad, but not as bad as what YOU did.." or "What he said was dumb but what you said is dumber."..and I don't think that's what's he doing at all.

Oh, that absolutely is what he is doing.Other than his post being a lame display of his own inability to comprehend written words, he proffers no legitimate defense to support GG&S. He simply makes a very bad and completely conclusion about "me" and leaves it at that.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

Oh, that absolutely is what he is doing.Other than his post being a lame display of his own inability to comprehend written words, he proffers no legitimate defense to support GG&S. He simply makes a very bad and completely conclusion about "me" and leaves it at that.

I still don't think that's what he was doing, but.. as far as I can tell, you've given him no scientific proof or really anything other than anecdotal evidence and conjecture..why would he afford you anything more than that?

[scram 1]

The fact remains there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that brain function is differs by race.

Wrong. See; Ashkenazi Jews and look further into "sphingolipid disorders"

The point is that you will be held to the same standards of evidence to which you hold others. You have derided someone else who has taken considerable effort to gather evidence and present a coherent argument, chastising him for intending to prove his preconceived notion. Meanwhile you have developed a very strong conviction for which you are unable to present any evidence. I find it ironic.

This is a tired old debate- one which I've had (including on this site) many, many times and don't feel like engaging in time and time again. If you google "race and intelligence" you will find all the information you seek, both pro and con. It's only your willingness to accept the fact that the 'most popular answer' might be the wrong one that might keep you from the truth. The Bell Curve is a classic example. The refutations of it have been very weak.

[scram 1]

I still don't think that's what he was doing, but.. as far as I can tell, you've given him no scientific proof or really anything other than anecdotal evidence and conjecture..why would he afford you anything more than that?

When I pointed out that the basic, functional model used by GG&S would fail by any other standard, his reply was basically "Muuuh.... BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT ONE TIME YOU SAID THAT ONE THING!!!!"Oddly enough, the "Muuuuh" in question was a completely inaccurate assessment of what predicates my ideas, but for him, it sure was quick and convenient.

[checkymcfold 0]

Oh, that absolutely is what he is doing.Other than his post being a lame display of his own inability to comprehend written words, he proffers no legitimate defense to support GG&S. He simply makes a very bad and completely conclusion about "me" and leaves it at that.

LOL@irony.scram, i'm honestly curious as to what you have to say about steven leavitt's work, which i've referred to twice when you throw out your "experientially justified" claim that white people are genetically superior to black people. both times, you've conveniently ignored it. occam's razor would probably lead one to believe that this means you have no response to leavitt's work, which is, uh, a bit more rigorous than your personal experiences with black people.

[vbnautilus 48]

When I pointed out that the basic, functional model used by GG&S would fail by any other standard, his reply was basically "Muuuh.... BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT ONE TIME YOU SAID THAT ONE THING!!!!"

I said:

That's an ironic response given that there is no evidence in favor of your claim of genetic or brain differences, a perception which is by your own admission based on "personal experience".

and then elaborated on demand:

The point is that you will be held to the same standards of evidence to which you hold others. You have derided someone else who has taken considerable effort to gather evidence and present a coherent argument, chastising him for intending to prove his preconceived notion. Meanwhile you have developed a very strong conviction for which you are unable to present any evidence. I find it ironic.

And you translate this as "Muuuh.... BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT ONE TIME YOU SAID THAT ONE THING!!!!"?!?!And you think it's I who can't comprehend written English?

[scram 1]

LOL@irony.

Banana?

scram, i'm honestly curious as to what you have to say about steven leavitt's work, which i've referred to twice when you throw out your "experientially justified" claim that white people are genetically superior to black people. both times, you've conveniently ignored it.occam's razor would probably lead one to believe that this means you have no response to leavitt's work, which is, uh, a bit more rigorous than your personal experiences with black people.

I've never read it, so I cannot comment on it.I don't do "wikipedia" or cliffs notes to form opinions or create the illusion that I actually have knowledge about something (unlike most debates of this nature that go on on BBS) so I really can't say anything about it, one way or the other.Maybe it's the magic bullet that I need to really show me that indeed, we are all equal. Maybe it isn't a long winded legal brief that seeks to distract away from the entire human experience and that yes, the introduction of the European turd beetle to Senegal in 1527 is legitimately what causes Negroes to perform so poorly on IQ tests.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I had never heard of the book. Glad I started such a controversy, though.I was being more general than the specifics of that book, probably. I wasn't only citing the geography of the land as a factor (though I'm sure it certainly could be one), but uncountably many other things. It could just be pure luck. I could lock 100 smart people in one room, 100 equally smart people in another room, and set them off to do some problem. By chance or some unknown factor, one one person in one of the groups could be struck with the key insight that allows them to advance quickly through the problem before the other group does. Thus, one group would at any given time be well more advanced than the other.In fact, I would actually be shocked if both groups, in total isolation, happen to be at the same level of achievement at the same time. Going back to the Native American thing, wouldn't you have been shocked if when Columbus sailed over to America, he found them in the exact same state of technology? Now, you're going to say, "But it's not that they were just slightly behind, they were WAY, WAY behind. They lived in teepee's for Christ's sake!?!"And I will argue with that point by describing how quickly technology advances (compared to the scale of humanity, of course). Within 4 thousand years, we went from living in caves to living in apartment buildings. Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. So, being off by about 4 out of 200 or so isn't really all that bad.Finally, as to the climate and geography argument, I honestly do think that it's valid. I mean, it's no coincidence that Mesopotamia and Egypt were the most fertile and human friendly areas of the time.

[scram 1]

The point is that you... you hold others. You have... Meanwhile you... for which you... And you...

And you think it's I who can't comprehend written English?

Yes.

[checkymcfold 0]

Banana?

i'll allow you the use of the edit button.ok, good.well, i suggest you read it, then. the dumbed down version is in freakonomics, that pop culture thing he wrote to make lots of money, but similar studies exist in almost all of his other post-economics work. he's a smart guy, and what he does in terms of statistical analysis flies directly in the face of your claim to caucasian genetic superiority. fwiw, my personal experience as a teacher tells me that socioeconomic factors influence intelligence a hell of a lot more than do genetics. but then again, i've never been to prison, so your experiences are undoubtedly more accurate. yes, that was sarcastic.

[vbnautilus 48]

Wrong. See; Ashkenazi Jews and look further into "sphingolipid disorders"This is a tired old debate- one which I've had (including on this site) many, many times and don't feel like engaging in time and time again. If you google "race and intelligence" you will find all the information you seek, both pro and con. It's only your willingness to accept the fact that the 'most popular answer' might be the wrong one that might keep you from the truth. The Bell Curve is a classic example. The refutations of it have been very weak.

The question, as you are well aware, is not whether or not there are differences between races; the question is about the origin of those differences, which you believe to be genetic and/or brain related. I happen to know that there is no evidence of functional brain differences across races. There is also no good evidence for anatomical differences, although people have certainly tried to find them. We are currently collecting a very large dataset which, if there are such differences, will find them. The asheknazi thing, if you believe it, is evidence that genetic variation can affect intelligence. That seems to me a fairly innocuous claim.

[scram 1]

So, being off by about 4 out of 200 or so isn't really all that bad.

Legitimate position to take, but methinks your metrics are a bit off.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

To add to my point, the Native Americans include the Incas, Aztecs, Mayans, and others who build pyramids, calendars, and all that crap. The step between pyramids and modern technology is a very small one in the scale of humanity.

[scram 1]

fwiw, my personal experience as a teacher tells me that socioeconomic factors influence intelligence a hell of a lot more than do genetics. but then again, i've never been to prison, so your experiences are undoubtedly more accurate. yes, that was sarcastic.

What level do you teach at?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Legitimate position to take, but methinks your metrics are a bit off.

Probably. I just made up the 200 thing. I think it's about right, but I'd have to do further research to figure out what timescale is meaningful for my argument. Which, by the way, I'm too lazy to do.

[checkymcfold 0]

What level do you teach at?

i taught classes on religion and philosophy at mcmaster university in hamilton, ontario before i ditched academia to play poker.also fwiw, i have friends who teach at both the high school and elementary school levels that hold similar sentiments with regard to the effects of economic standing upon their students' performance.

[scram 1]

There is also no good evidence for anatomical differences, although people have certainly tried to find them.

LMAO.Yeah. What a failure that has been. (3 seconds on google)http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=1467925

The asheknazi thing, if you believe it, is evidence that genetic variation can affect intelligence. That seems to me a fairly innocuous claim.

Wow. Again with the comprehension. If you don't understand it, or if you could understand it but just don't want to bother looking any further into it, that's OK. What you said there has basically nothing to do with what I cited.

[ShakeZuma 585]

all I know is that if a category 5 hurricane is headed towards my town which also happens to be below sea level, I'd go somewhere else for a week or so.

[scram 1]

i taught classes on religion and philosophy at mcmaster university in hamilton, ontario before i ditched academia to play poker.also fwiw, i have friends who teach at both the high school and elementary school levels that hold similar sentiments with regard to the effects of economic standing upon their students' performance.

But your teaching experience is primarily relegated to the college level?

[vbnautilus 48]

LMAO.Yeah. What a failure that has been. (3 seconds on google)

Anatomical differences in brain. Try again please.

[checkymcfold 0]

But your teaching experience is primarily relegated to the college level?

personally, yes. i was a guest speaker in a hamilton private high school class on plato, but i'd hardly use that to say that i'm directly familiar with adolescent development in academics.

[scram 1]

Anatomical differences in brain. Try again please.

Sweet. After-the-fact qualifiers.They sure make a debate easy, don't they.