the same as intellectually handicapped people which is why Barack Obama made such a point about the word "retard" & moving society forward instead of backward https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...1st-century-communications-and-video-accessib while addressing singular instances of an issue at variant points(is always important), being able to elevate the entire system even by a small notch helps elevate everything... including the instances of extremism. it helps set a better standard that in turn cultures a better standard. isolationism & greedy self importance doesn't help reduce discrimination. the whole "it doesn't matter what i say or do, as long as you do as i say" alt-right cult psychology is only going to make things worse.
They are. They are one of the most successful species on earth. As I said, all currently living species are at the peak of their species' adaptation to the environment. Do you know who is going to inherit the earth when the last human are dead? Insects!!! You know why??? Because the insect can adapt to anything we do to the environment. After a nuclear disaster and everything has died, who is able to inhabit the "radiation zone" ? Insects!!! Don't give me stuff about superiority. Last species standing is the superior species. Intellect is useless unless used wisely, which mankind has failed to do so far, because of greed. Watch this if you dare. and if you still doubt me, watch this;
Wow, I thought it was established that rats were just about the smartest rodent out there. Why don't you do a little study on the term and meaning of "empathy". You think that ability to kill other species makes for superior being? By that standard the AIDS or Malaria virus is more successful than humans. Are humans worthy of being loved by the rest of the intelligent world?
some people do not understand what empathy is because they have been taught that feeling emotions for others is a sign of weakness. they fight against that weakness as a process of self ownership(Ego unable to accept outside emotions) and declare they must have the right to choose who they feel about. meanwhile they lay claim that other people are forcing them to feel emotions that they dont like. a developmental disorder that mostly corrects its self. (i am still currently thinking through this as a thesis[have been for quite a few years]) though there is considerable support for it because of isolated conservative religion excluding critical thinking about morality and the sense of power & control. not a big fan of labels. however many people cant think(mentally frame an idea for discussion) without something having a label stuck to it to begin with. subconscious narcissistic(borderline) psychopathic(behavioral pathological disorder) bi polar disorder might be one way to describe it i have seen it in low level schizophrenia & uni/bi-polar disorder.
No! Don't leave just yet! I haven't taken a crack at your arguments..... White racism is not a mysterious force. The oppression of White colonists on regions such as Africa and the Americas is a historical fact. But that doesn't mean that White racism is the sole explanatory variable in the cause of racial differences in cultural achievement or IQ score. There are many environmental variables. However I question this claim that there is a consistent global achievement pattern. What is this pattern that you speak of? Is this pattern based on racial groupss? Population? Countries? For example could this alleged global pattern explain the differences in wealth and governmental structure between North and South Korea? How about the difference in standard of living between ethnic Koreans in Japan and native Japanese? What about the difference in nation wealth between countries in Latin America such as Argentina that are majority White and Western European countries? If race, ethnicity or country of origin determined the average achievement of a group you wouldn't have these examples that don't fit in to this alleged pattern. Racists are only able to claim a pattern by being selective and I have never heard a compelling argument for why environmental explanations can not be the sole cause of the patterns they cite rather than genetic differences. Now when it comes to genetics and the Race & IQ debate the hereditarian argument has been ripped to shreds by actual biologists and geneticists. Joseph L. Graves for example has refuted the arguments of the world's top racial hereditarians such as J. Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen and Vincent Sarich. He has actually presented genetic data showing that genes related to intelligence do not show a racial association.
I will let you have a crack at this research if you choose to return which shows that the racial hereditarian theory of gene-based IQ differences has been shown to be false. If you are unfamiliar with Graves you should know that he has videos on the internet where he has debated or spoken at colleges about race and intelligence. He is an evolutionary biologist who has done genomics research which disproves both the existence of biological races and racial differences in IQ having a genetic basis. "My research is in the area of evolutionary genetics, now more accurately called evolutionary genomics. My PhD was granted in the area of Evolutionary, Environmental, and Systematic Biology. Professional scientists are always undergoing development during their careers, for example I added Next Generation Sequencing data analysis and various bioinformatics protocols to my tool set in the last 5 years." - Joseph Graves Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Source: Genome-wide quantitative trait locus association scan of general cognitive ability using pooled DNA and 500K single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays Genes, Brains and Behavior, 7, 435–446 (2008) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Now whether or not races are real depends on your definition of race. The differences in definition for example between socially-defined and biologically-defined racial groups makes the discussion or racial classification difficult to have. Personally I think that whatever differences do exist between humans on a biological level are not socially important. So the existence of races discussion in not important to me from the perspective of an egalitarian who values equality (fairness and equal treatment under law and in social life). I will say though that your definition of races as genomic similarity is problematic from a scientific perspective. You have to define groups scientifically before you can determine the significance of genomic similarity. Two different people are more or less related depending on their genetic similarity and the same is true for populations. But to identify populations as biological races you need a scientific definition of biological race. This is where the race debate between geneticists, biologists and anthropologists becomes a scientific discussion. How do we define race? How genetically differentiated are human populations and how important are these differences on a biological and social level (ex. do they have relevance socially, impact health conditions, intellectual performance etc.)? Those questions are answered by Graves in the video and the research above from genome-wide association studies is the best I have seen to give a scientific answer to whether or not genetic differences have an impact on IQ score differences between groups.
That brings to mind an interesting picture. A label is a mental picture....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (lech...) Perhaps it the reason why we acquire that ability for empathy. It rests on our ability to form and remember pictures. Subjective experiences and emotional responses. Empathy is a "recognition"of a previously experienced emotional action or situation and produces the same emotional chemical experience in the observer as in the observed person or situation. In the end it always seems to come down to pattern recognition.
Administrator note: Several posts have been removed from somebody who signed up under the name Dr. M.H. B.Sc. M.Sc. M.D. The individual in question has been permanently banned from sciforums. Advice to this person, in case you're reading: 1. When you sign up to a new forum community, don't start by insulting the existing members. 2. Never refer to a black person as "this negro". 3. Learn some manners. 4. I pity your "grad students", if you actually have any. You don't sound like an academic.
Ancestry or genomic similarity, which are effectively the same thing. That's a predictive (the sine qua non of science) system, and we use the same system in phylogenetics. But politically motivated pseudoscientists want to make an exception for humans. Well just look at the Congo, Japan, Haiti, Iceland, Detroit, Brazil. There's your answer. I don't think anyone's falling for an argumentum ad tl;dr. Usually when people can't succinctly make their case in their own words and claim the answers are in a nine hour video or buried among thousands of copy pastes somewhere they're just gaslighting.
This isn't a guessing game. It's your argument to make. You allude to some kind of difference based on genetic differences in something or other relating to these nations you list, but you don't spell it out. The nations you list have widely separated geographic locations, different environmental conditions, different histories of colonisation and exploitation, different levels of wealth. I take it that you think that there is something genetic that contributes to these differences. Well?
Koreans are hardly that different when you compare them to Africa. If anything North Koreans are even more stable and productive. And differences are due to external forces e.g. American occupation, or Japanese racism. However last time I checked Koreans in Japan aren't significantly illiterate, illegitimate, impoverished or criminal so I hardly see how this doesn't fit the pattern as you claim.
You're being intellectually lazy if you can't respond to the posting of some genetic research. People can watch the videos on their own time. So in other words the example of Koreans isn't noteworthy if they don't conform to enough racist stereotypes. The point still stands. Also if external forces can have an effect on Koreans then why do differences in the standard of living of Blacks between Whites and Asians have to be due to genetic differences? Are you sure you don't just hate Black people and want to dehumanize them with notions of inferiority?
No I'm just not wasting my time. If you can't state your position succinctly you can just be dismissed. Right. Wrong. Because the Black difference is large and consistent. Like really "there is some environmental effect, all effects are environmental". That's retard tier. Whether or not I hate Black people is irrelevant to a parsimonious explanation of differences. Straight into the ad hominem pseudoscience. Typical.
