Are all races equal?

[November Adam]

Well, reasearch in this field would definetly increase the viability of eugenics, and hate it or love it, eugenics may be a benifit for human society as a whole.

[ranskaldan]

If directed properly, then yes, it would.

However, such research would make our society more bigotted. This is plain evil, and it discourages innovation and participation by shutting out certain groups, including the talent in those groups. Society's productivity and wellbeing would go down as a whole.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18
I'd agree that to be afraid of the results because they might prove another race to be equal is racist. Believing they are equal and willingness to test that belief is not. I think this was what you were trying to get at.

Actually I would say that to be afraid of the results because they might prove another race not to be equal is racist.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


Yes, it is better not to know. I can certainly accept people of other races. But can everyone else?

If it was proven beyond all doubt that there are significant racial differences, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for people to recognise that, yet treat others as individuals. Any reasonable person realizes that an individual is not necessarily representative of their race.

Let's say murder was legalized. I certainly wouldn't go around killing people, and I'm pretty sure mostly everyone here wouldn't either. But can you guarantee that the rest of the world wouldn't kill either? Can you guarantee you won't be killed yourself?

Sorry, but I really don't think the belief in significant racial differences equates to murder. I believe races are significantly different, does that make me as bad as a murderer? Even though I treat people as individuals?

It's the same with racism. Go ahead with research if you want, and go ahead with the controversy. But if you get fired tomorrow because somehow it's proven that Subtype AFG is 0.4% stupider than Subtype BQQ, and your boss is a bigot because he thinks of you not as a person but as a Subtype AFG-93, while some other dumbass who happens to be a BQQ-47 is promoted, then too bad for you and too bad for human society.

The concept of the individual is not dependent on proof of racial equality.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Believing in something without any form of proof is blind faith. There is no research suggesting that the entire Black population is 50% smarter, as smart, or 50% dumber than the entire White population. Hence, believing in any one of these choices would be equally (in)valid in logic.

So you admit that believing there is no significant difference between races is blind faith? That's a step in the right direction.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
However, such research would make our society more bigotted. This is plain evil, and it discourages innovation and participation by shutting out certain groups, including the talent in those groups. Society's productivity and wellbeing would go down as a whole.

As long as we treat people as individuals, that will not be a problem.

[Ramo]

I repeat, there are no differentials between selective pressures on human intelligence among different environments, hence, there are no significant mental disparities between peoples of different ethnicities. Q.E.D.

[Caligastia]

The evidence for that is anecdotal at best. Do you really want to get into this type of argument again Ramo? Why not join in the discussion we are having right now?

[Master Zen]

I think the whole question is moot since any "scientifically" proven theory of racial superiority might eventually be overrulled by another, newer theory. It's like the theory of the atom. Our fathers were still taught that the atom had the electrons flying around in orbits, now they teach us that the it's more like a gas with the electrons flying around in no particular pattern (at least that's what I remember from physics in HS)

So a theory proves Germans are 0.14% smarter than Frenchmen. Then 10 years later a new theory proves it's actually the other way around since a previously undiscovered function of the brain is better developed by Frenchmen. Now what?

With problems like cancer and AIDS to be solved, I truly doubt that using science to find out which race is superior is truly time and money well spent.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen
With problems like cancer and AIDS to be solved, I truly doubt that using science to find out which race is superior is truly time and money well spent.

I say the more we know about ourselves the better. Who knows what useful things this kind of research could uncover, especially on the genetic side of things.

Understanding racial differences helps us to understand humans as a whole.

[Japher]

However, such research would make our society more bigotted. This is plain evil, and it discourages innovation and participation by shutting out certain groups, including the talent in those groups. Society's productivity and wellbeing would go down as a whole.

Said referring to research into racial differences as a means for medical and social treatments.

My response to this comment is that such a thing already occurs. It is called EOE (equal opportunity employment), filling quotas, and Affirmative Action. Yet, the research that was applied was only historical and behovioral reasearch, and we are talking about genetic. Biggotry exists in this world not because we define the differences, but because we react in order to try and fix the differences. In some cases we take it to far.

If I were a scientist studying the development of syckle cell in an attempt to create a vacinne I do believe that my target would be aimed at the black community. Racial Profiling? Or logical selection? I feel it is logical, because the chances of me actually vacinating someone that may of carried that trait would of gone up.

Would I be a biggot? If so then I don't really care. You may argue that if I were to cure this trait through racial profiling that I would be biggot, yet would be praised by the black community. The ends, here, justify the means, and the means also justified the ends.

Biggotry is a word used by ignorant people, usually the same people who are biggots themselves. I look at race without emotion, yet with a scientific judgement in mind. Call it prejudice, I call it a theory... If it's a catapillar it will change... Will it be a moth or a butterfly? I don't know. Yet it will change, this much I know. Yet, if a did some genetic testing, and mapped it to other catapillars, cross-referenced it with what they changed into, I would know...

[Ben Kenobi]

I repeat, there are no differentials between selective pressures on human intelligence among different environments..

-Ramo

Differentials imply that there are selective pressures on people for intelligence in today's society. I'm not sure this is the case. Can we even say that there are any selective pressures at all? What would qualify under the heading of intelligence?

[ranskaldan]

Cali:

If it was proven beyond all doubt that there are significant racial differences, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for people to recognise that, yet treat others as individuals. Any reasonable person realizes that an individual is not necessarily representative of their race.

That's precisely the problem! Our experience of history shows that people are not reasonable. If it is indeed proven that races have tiny percentages of advantage over each other in certain areas, then legislatures will pass segregation laws, racist laws, etc. That's how it works.

Sorry, but I really don't think the belief in significant racial differences equates to murder. I believe races are significantly different, does that make me as bad as a murderer? Even though I treat people as individuals?

It's an analogy. If murder was legalized, people would do it. Similarly, if racism were somehow justified (even indirectly), people would jump to conclusions and do it.

[edit: thx Ramo] Japh:

If I were a scientist studying the development of syckle cell in an attempt to create a vacinne I do believe that my target would be aimed at the black community. Racial Profiling? Or logical selection? I feel it is logical, because the chances of me actually vacinating someone that may of carried that trait would of gone up.

False analogy. Research into sickle cell anemia would indeed benefit the black community. But research into the relative intelligences of the population? That would alienate groups from each other and destabilize the integrity of society. That would cut a lot of talent and experience away from the general acceptance of society because it's from "the wrong race".

obi:

Differentials imply that there are selective pressures on people for intelligence in today's society. I'm not sure this is the case. Can we even say that there are any selective pressures at all? What would qualify under the heading of intelligence?

Actually, I think cultural pressures might eventually cause small shifts in the average IQ of a population. If nothing else, genetic drift could cause the same effect as well. But we don't know, and I don't think we should.

[Az]

Ok ok ok, wait a sec:
"I don't think we should" is something bordering willful ignorance, and I am definetly against it.

On the other hand, I don't think this is such an important research priority. There is on neccessity to find it out, and it won't help us in any way in our daily lives, because the amount of variety in each "race" varies so much, but the difference between "races", if it even exists is so small, ( as we can see by the fact that biased "research" had to go out of it's way to get the results they needed, processing data not scientifically, i.e. in a way that would be similar to the way a scientific experiment is done, with only one differing factor, with the other being the same), that it can serve no indicator of the human being before us.

That means that we cannot assume a person is stupid, smart, musical, psychic, etc. just because he's of a certain heritage.
THAT means that it shouldn't be an issue in one's judging of a person.

I personally think since it's hard to put exact borders of "races", there is no point in trying to quanitify qualities for "races".

Of course, we can all agree that the people of Iceland are white, while the people of Kenya are black. But an example of something belonging to a group is not a valid description of the group.

[Ramo]

rans, I never wrote that... Japher did.

Differentials imply that there are selective pressures on people for intelligence in today's society.

Come again?

The evidence for that is anecdotal at best.

No, it's a scientific conclusion. Unless you can point out a counterexample. OTOH, the "evidence" for the mental inferiority of certain ethnicities is anecdotal at best.

Do you really want to get into this type of argument again Ramo? Why not join in the discussion we are having right now?

1. It's boring.
2. I was refuting the "blind faith" assertion you made.

[philippe666]

All races are equal.
Although.....i somehow feel French have just evolved a little bit more they now slowly are transforming to frogs...
j/k
Everyones equal and that is it.

[cavebear]

I don't have any particular objection to research on racial differences. There *are* some differences that affect medical treatments and most likely diagnoses, for example. But mostly, because there is value in proving some ideas incorrect! Any serious study of racial differences using valid scientific methods would show that there were no biological bases for racial superiority claims.

Current evolutionary thought estimates that it takes about 20,000 years for humans to change from black to white (or vice versa). If you isolated a viable population of white humans in the Australian Outback for 20,000 years, without technological protections, they would be blacks (of a new sort) after that time. The reverse goes for a population of Bantu moved to Scandanavia, of course.

What we call "race" is merely the physical adaption to a given environment for a sufficient length of time.

And I expect (without concern) that all humans will become some generally uniform shade of "tan". "Race" is probably a temporary condition of humanity. We are all becoming far too mobile for the local adjustments to the isolated geographical environments of the past 50,000 years to endure for long.

(See the color of the icon? That would be a nice skin color...)

[ranskaldan]

Ramo:

thanks for the correction.

Az:

Yes, I would, idealistically, be against willful ignorance as well. But this particular situation is special; there is no way to predict if research results wouldn't prove absolutely harmful to human society. In fact, if you take the average IQ of certain "races", there are likely to be minor differences of a few fractions of percentage points; and letting these "differences" be public knowledge would be very dangerous.

cbear:

Well, of course, research into sickle-cell anemia is perfectly welcome... but when we start comparing the "intelligence" of races, there's something wrong there.

But I do have a problem with the belief that there is value in proving some ideas incorrect... etc. How do you know that the experiments would prove these ideas incorrect? Can you guarantee that the average IQ-levels of two "races" would really equal to the nearest 0.0001 point? If they don't, what effect would that have on society?

[Master Zen]

But that's the point, how do we know that an IQ is THE ideal perfect way to measure someone's intelligence?

It is a test made by humans, based on no biological fact, therefore it is fallible.

[Master Zen]

I've read that humans only use 10% or less of their brain capacity. Hell, if we can-t even measure how much of our brain we use, how the hell can we measure how good it is???

Trust me, science is waaaaaaay far off in making it 100% possible to truly measure intelligence. Until we get any closer, let's spend our money and time curing cancer, Aids, and that goddam hell-sent illness called the common cold.

[ranskaldan]

Well put, Master Zen.

[Master Zen]

I stumbled upon this article in the MSN Encarta, check it out:

http://encarta.msn.com/column/iqmain.asp

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
That's precisely the problem! Our experience of history shows that people are not reasonable. If it is indeed proven that races have tiny percentages of advantage over each other in certain areas, then legislatures will pass segregation laws, racist laws, etc. That's how it works.

It doesn't have to be that way. If half as much energy as is put into promoting 'diversity' were put into promoting the concept of the individual, I don't think it would be a problem.

It's an analogy. If murder was legalized, people would do it. Similarly, if racism were somehow justified (even indirectly), people would jump to conclusions and do it.

Not necessarily. For the reason I mentioned above.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ramo
No, it's a scientific conclusion.

An incorrect one.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen
But that's the point, how do we know that an IQ is THE ideal perfect way to measure someone's intelligence?

IQ has been proven to be a valid predictor of success.

http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html

[Gangerolf]

all races are equal, but some races are more equal than others

[Master Zen]

Success is not the same as intelligence. THere are many personality traits which come into play to determine success and intelligence is but one of them.

After reading the article I am still not convinced since it is not an universally held view for ALL experts. Plus, being an economist who has to prove everything with statistical estimates, I can assure you, just because you proved it statistically, does not mean you're right!

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen
After reading the article I am still not convinced since it is not an universally held view for ALL experts.

You're never going to get a completely unanimously held view. If a statement signed by 52 internationally reknowned experts in the field of intelligence isn't good enough for you, then nothing will be.

[Master Zen]

Nicotine is a carcinogen, therefore causes cancer. Cigarettes have nicotine and thus causes cancer. I think this is a pretty universally held view by 99% of experts.

I doubt the PoVs on IQ and intelligence are held so widely.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Nicotine is a carcinogen, therefore causes cancer. Cigarettes have nicotine and thus causes cancer. I think this is a pretty universally held view by 99% of experts.

I doubt the PoVs on IQ and intelligence are held so widely.

You say that you don't accept what is said in the signed statement I provided because it is not universally supported by everyone in the field of intelligence, yet your own opinion regarding intelligence is not universally supported either. Your own opinion does not live up to the criteria you specified as being the reason you are unconvinced by the signed statement. Why don't you tell me the real reason you are unconvinced by it?