ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

k1rage wrote:

if survival rates are what we are going by Africa would be the lowest in the world....

aids, famine, war, lack of water and sanitation

people die younger there than any other continent

You're not following me: the populations in USA and Europe are decreasing (some slowly, some quite quickly) therefore, if nothing changes we will make our cultures extinct eventually. It doesn't matter how much wealth we accumulate, or what we invent, if we cease to exist.

And I believe it is this obsession with material things driving this extinction.

"

Khoranth wrote:

"

k1rage wrote:

if survival rates are what we are going by Africa would be the lowest in the world....

aids, famine, war, lack of water and sanitation

people die younger there than any other continent

You're not following me: the populations in USA and Europe are decreasing (some slowly, some quite quickly) therefore, if nothing changes we will make our cultures extinct eventually. It doesn't matter how much wealth we accumulate, or what we invent, if we cease to exist.

And I believe it is this obsession with material things driving this extinction.

I guess...

I dont care lol

but seriously our culture wont die out it will just morph into something different, thats kinda what cultures do over time, and actually the population is the US is growing (granted mostly from immigration)

but again dont care at all what cultures exist a few hundred years from now

Id rather live in a place with clean water and plentiful food.

Before I write anything else, let me emphasize that one needs both an understanding, however vague, regarding a mean AND a standard deviation in order to properly understand any probability distribution.

"

faerwin wrote:

Is the average IQ of a black person lower than that of a white person? Yes, but NOT because of skin pigment. It's simply a case of having a lot of underdeveloped countries with a majority of black people living in them that cause the disparity.

They have the same potential as whites when it comes to IQ. It all come down to education and nutrition (malnutrition can cause the brain to not fully develop).

I'm willing to bet that blacks in the US that live in the middle class class, are not immigrants (or immigrated at a young age, which allowed them to get education) have an average IQ extremely close to equivalent whites.

Does genetic play a role in IQ, yes, but not on the sample size of an entire ethnic.

This post of yours reads mostly as a denial of a genetic basis to IQ, despite the half-assed concessions. IQ has a much higher correlation between identical twins than between other types of siblings, roughly the same correlation between siblings as between biological parents and their children, and much higher correlation between biological parents and their children than between genetically unrelated parents who raise adopted children. These factors are a better (but not perfect) indicator of IQ than what sort of upbringing one has, who one hangs out with, or what schools one attends early in life (although these are all minor factors in shaping IQ).

That said, you have a good point that genes causing various skin pigments in humans do not seem to be causally linked to reduced IQs. (You also have a good point about larger samples tending to fit averages; it follows that individuals can be, and often are, divergent from the norm.) Black parents who both have a high IQ tend to have children with high IQs (although normally not as high as their parents*), while particularly stupid white people tend to have particularly stupid children (although, again, not quite as abnormally stupid). In other words, skin pigment is genetic, and IQ is partially genetic, but other than both using the same systems of sexual reproduction, they're not causally linked. Now that I've outlined the evidence that IQ is genetic and covered how genetics works in larger samples (that is, samples with both a mean and a standard deviation), let's consider the following history…

For over 300 years, blacks in the Americas and on Africa were the focus of institutional slavery. They were viewed by their slavers as rightless animals. During this time, business interests who held these people as property were able to set breeding policy and enforce it ruthlessly, to include forced abortions and infanticide. Their business interest was in strong workers with good endurance who wouldn't rock the boat by planning any trouble. Those slaves clever enough to plan escape or rebellion were brutaly punished, and sometimes their surviving families as well. Musclebound slaves were made into studs for breeding purposes, in the hopes of making stronger, more athletic merchandise. In short, as far as black slaves were concerned, the evolutionary forces of natural selection were in the hands of slaveowners and their allies in Africa for 12-18 generations.

What, you think nothing happened on a genetic level?

Eugenics is a horrible practice. But let us not pretend that it's never been tried, or that the damage it has wreaked cannot be felt today. There are ways to move on other than shoving one's head into the sand.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I've got a fewquestions prior to a full response.

1. Do you believe intelligence in humans is to some degree genetic, and if so to what degree?
2. Same as Question 1, but for athleticism.
3. Do you believe that "white privilege" is real?

1. Don't know, don't care
2. Don't know, don't care
3. If white privilege means does society give some advantages to whites in the USA then yes. If white privilege means do white people deserve to have some advantage in our society in the USA then no.

I'll expand on what "don't know, don't care" means in a bit more detail.

If one looks at different breeds of dogs, different dog breeds seem to exhibit different general characteristics like, running, loyalty, friendliness, being protective, perhaps even things like athleticism and intelligence? I understand that scientists generally say that the genetic difference between dog breeds is far far greater than the genetic differences between the human races though.

I feel that it is a generally questionable thing to get into this kind of stuff for two reasons. If there is a genetic difference on average intelligence between different races it would likely be so minuscule that it couldn't be measured with our current rough inexact ability to measure IQ. There have been some arguments that average IQ does show some minor differences. The scientific explanation that I understand is that IQ tests are rough inexact and can be impacted by minor cultural differences rather than actual intelligence differences. The tests are just not accurate enough to really tell for sure. Measuring athleticism would be even more difficult, I think. The second reason is that racism is caustic and destructive to any society, IMHO. These kind of beliefs would only foster racism and therefore should be generally discouraged outside purely scientific circles.

In a post above there's an argument that slaves were breed and slave pressures and forces removed more intelligent genes from the gene pool. What this argument ignores is that a significant amount of the genes in the slave gene pool were white genes being passed down from slave owners, slave supervisors, sons uncles and friends of slave owners, as normal practice was that slaves were commonly raped. Studies indicate that only about 80% of an African-American genes are African. The other about 20% coming from European white genes. I assume that it is clear that this 20% would likely have a greater impact on the African-American gene pool than the above "culling" out argument.
https://psmag.com/news/how-slavery-changed-the-dna-of-african-americans

"

Turtledove wrote:

a significant amount of the genes in the slave gene pool were white genes being passed down from slave owners, slave supervisors, sons uncles and friends of slave owners, as normal practice was that slaves were commonly raped. Studies indicate that only about 80% of an African-American genes are African. The other about 20% coming from European white genes. I assume that it is clear that this 20% would likely have a greater impact on the African-American gene pool than the above "culling" out argument.
https://psmag.com/news/how-slavery-changed-the-dna-of-african-americans

I don't believe it's obvious, but it seems like it would have had a significant effect upon American slaves and their descendants, because 20% is a lot. It's worth noting that I don't think it's obvious because I am not a white supremacist and therefore I do not immediately assume that a white rapist has more genetic predisposition to high IQ than a black slave woman; for all I know she's a genius and he's an utter moron. It would be a lot more complicated to figure out what kinds of people, statistically and genetically speaking, were performing the rapes (more specifically, the rapes that resulted in childbirth), as well as what kinds of slave women were made so available.

It's also worth noting that blacks were made slaves on Africa before being traded to ship captains, and the same dysgenic effects would apply to slave populations in Africa as well.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I've got a fewquestions prior to a full response.

1. Do you believe intelligence in humans is to some degree genetic, and if so to what degree?
2. Same as Question 1, but for athleticism.
3. Do you believe that "white privilege" is real?

1. Don't know, don't care
2. Don't know, don't care
3. If white privilege means does society give some advantages to whites in the USA then yes. If white privilege means do white people deserve to have some advantage in our society in the USA then no.

I'll expand on what "don't know, don't care" means in a bit more detail.

If one looks at different breeds of dogs, different dog breeds seem to exhibit different general characteristics like, running, loyalty, friendliness, being protective, perhaps even things like athleticism and intelligence? I understand that scientists generally say that the genetic difference between dog breeds is far far greater than the genetic differences between the human races though.

I feel that it is a generally questionable thing to get into this kind of stuff for two reasons. If there is a genetic difference on average intelligence between different races it would likely be so minuscule that it couldn't be measured with our current rough inexact ability to measure IQ. There have been some arguments that average IQ does show some minor differences. The scientific explanation that I understand is that IQ tests are rough inexact and can be impacted by minor cultural differences rather than actual intelligence differences. The tests are just not accurate enough to really tell for sure. Measuring athleticism would be even more difficult, I think. The second reason is that racism is caustic and destructive to any society, IMHO. These kind of beliefs would only foster racism and therefore should be generally discouraged outside purely scientific circles.

In a post above there's an argument that slaves were breed and slave pressures and forces removed more intelligent genes from the gene pool. What this argument ignores is that a significant amount of the genes in the slave gene pool were white genes being passed down from slave owners, slave supervisors, sons uncles and friends of slave owners, as normal practice was that slaves were commonly raped. Studies indicate that only about 80% of an African-American genes are African. The other about 20% coming from European white genes. I assume that it is clear that this 20% would likely have a greater impact on the African-American gene pool than the above "culling" out argument.
https://psmag.com/news/how-slavery-changed-the-dna-of-african-americans

Oh no, cans of worms! Now someone need to answer whether mixed race babies are smarter. Mul­tira­cial babies are genetically Superior?

"

deathflower wrote:

Oh no, cans of worms! Now someone need to answer whether mixed race babies are smarter. Mul­tira­cial babies are genetically Superior?

The short answer is: some are, and some aren't. The long answer involves replacing the "some"s with measurements.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

Oh no, cans of worms! Now someone need to answer whether mixed race babies are smarter. Mul­tira­cial babies are genetically Superior?

The short answer is: some are, and some aren't. The long answer involves replacing the "some"s with measurements.

What atrocity! How could we ever forgive you for giving such an half-assed answer?

"

deathflower wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

Oh no, cans of worms! Now someone need to answer whether mixed race babies are smarter. Mul­tira­cial babies are genetically Superior?

The short answer is: some are, and some aren't. The long answer involves replacing the "some"s with measurements.

What atrocity! How could we ever forgive you for giving such an half-assed answer?

:-)

Hybrid varieties have well known advantages in horticulture.

:-)

In all seriousness, this kind of stuff really should be scientifically measured and analysed.

"

Turtledove wrote:

:-)

Hybrid varieties have well known advantages in horticulture.

:-)

In all seriousness, this kind of stuff really should be scientifically measured and analysed.

Why? I would think evolution by natural selection would become old tech when genetically modified babies come into being.