0
   

Top scientist claims black people 'stupid'

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 01:15 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
well there you go

is it antisemitic to suggest jews are abnormally intelligent?


Yes - the 'model minority' is a form of racism as well.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 01:18 pm
Cycl - I've another question: how can anyone accuse other posters of "racism" while simultaneously proclaiming that "race" does not exist?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 03:20 pm
It's a simple matter, really. Those who get accused of racism are those who believe that there are such things as separate races among humans (Darwin used the term "races," but he was speaking of various species of animals), and contend that any one race will be superior or inferior to another in one regard or another. That doesn't mean that there actually is such a thing as separate races among human beings, it just means that some people think so. When they use that erroneous belief to claim significant distinctions among groups based on genetics--for which they have adduced not a shred of evidence--the exercise is racist, for whatever the character or the intent of the person making the claim.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 03:25 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
well there you go

is it antisemitic to suggest jews are abnormally intelligent?


Yes - the 'model minority' is a form of racism as well.

Cycloptichorn


This is a good point, because it points to a significant variety of statistical blindness, which is the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances. If one ignores all the Jews who are poor, or poorly educated, or just plain stupid (as well as those who are honest and always behave with probity), it is easy to allege that Jews are rich, intelligent and shifty.

I once knew a Jewish gentleman who was an "outlaw biker," functionally illiterate and living in a men's shelter. He was also inordinately fond of the singing of Barbra Streisand. I could not in good conscience associate with him . . .







































. . . I detest Barbra Streisand . . . to me, her singing is like fingernails on the blackboard . . .
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 03:30 pm
Setanta wrote:
. . . I detest Barbra Streisand . . . to me, her singing is like fingernails on the blackboard . . .


A feeling I share and a metaphor I have used. Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 03:34 pm
Otherwise, he was a very friendly and personable guy . . . for an illiterate, homeless outlaw biker . . .
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 03:39 pm
High Seas, you ask: "how can anyone accuse other posters of "racism" while simultaneously proclaiming that "race" does not exist?"

Human biologists (physical anthropologists) agree that there is no such thing as "race" as normally understood.* There are genes, of course, but they do not group neatly into organizations that can be called discreet races. Yet "racism" does exist. It exists any time we think that the genetic composition of groups/categories of people are socially significant. Social anthropologists use the term "social racism" to denote the attitude of "racists" as we defilne them. This is of interest to sociologists but irrelevant to the work of human biologists.

* A few years ago the American Anthrpoological Association petitioned the government to delete reference to "race" as a demographic category in the national census.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 04:51 pm
A thesis was advanced within the last decade to suggest that the Clovis points were copied from people already living in North America. Clovis points refer a very particular form of working chert (or flint), which differs from flint knapping; it involves bi-facial pressure-flaking, which has only ever been known in one other culture, to wit, the Solutreans. This is known as the Solutrean hypothesis (that is, that the Clovis points were copied from a method used by a population already resident in North America at the time of the arrival of humans from Asia, circa 13,500 BP). The theory is controversial, and there are numerous objections to it, not the least of which is that the Solutreans flourished in Europe about 20,000 BP.

However, it is interesting that the genome of Amerindians contains, in about 3% of cases, a particular genetic marker which is only found elsewhere in ancient European genomes. (Those with more sophisticated understanding of human genetics are referred to the MtDNA Haplogroup X). What is more interesting, however, for the Solutrean hypothesis is that the occurrence rises to 25% in Amerindians of northeastern Canada.

The point of all of this is that even anciently, varying groups of human beings have mixed, and those ancient events are far less likely to be known to us. There are likely few groups which arrived in the "modern era" without contact with outside groups, the Australian aboriginal people and the people of the deep valleys of Papua-New Guinea being the most obvious candidates. I have already mentioned in this thread the tribe of South Africa which has traditionally held that they are descended from the Jews, the Lemba. Among the Lemba, the "Cohen modal hapoltype" of the Y chromosome occurs among about 10% of the population. Among the Buba clan of the Lemba, this occurrence rises to nearly 50%. The Buba are considered the priestly class of the Lemba. The Cohen modal hapoltype is only seen elsewhere among the Jewish priestly caste, the Kohanim.

I've also pointed out in this thread, that in addition to the putative "negroid" people of Africa (a convenient racial term, it covers a host of tribal peoples with varying characteristics, from the exceptionally tall Masai to the exceptionally short "Pygmies."), Africa has been settled by Semites (as in the Bedawi [Bedouins], or "Arabs"--Arab is itself an ethnologically murky term), Hamites, Proto-Greeks (if that was, indeed, who the Hyksos were), Greco-Macedonians, Romans, Vandals and Visigoths, and the Mamelukes (being a mixed bag of military slaves brought to the middle east by the Turks--Caucasian tribesmen were the preferred military slaves of the Turks; after the collapse of the Ayyabid dynasty at the time of the Mongol incursion, the Mamelukes took control of Egypt). Those are, of course, in addition to significant colonization by Europeans in modern times, most notably the colonization of South Africa by the Dutch.

To my mind, believing is distinct "races" among human beings is evidence of extreme historical and ethnological hebetude.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 10:42 pm
Correction: social anthropologists have used the term "social race"* (not "social racism") to refer to the phenomenon of racism in society.

*cf. Charles Wagley
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 01:33 pm
"To my mind, believing is distinct "races" among human beings is evidence of extreme historical and ethnological hebetude."

well thats a good sentence

There clearly is a problem in searching for a correlation between race and intelligence, when neither term can be satisfactorily defined.

However if IQ is defined as that which an IQ test measures we can forget the other term and just look at the people with high IQ and low IQ. What would we see?
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 02:12 pm
Steve - give up. The sole argument of the foaming-at-the-mouth posters calling others "racists" is an insult buried in a flood of sophisticated words.

Prof. Watson, btw, was only trying to help Africans (for definition look at link previously posted) insofar as "Western" policies are applied to them. Nobody who's known SS (that's Sub-Saharan in this context) Africa for the last several decades can doubt his statements - nor can anyone familiar with the actual statistics and qualified to analyze them.

As to your statement that some researchers in the field (for definition look at Steve's previously posted explanation) require armed guard: I personally remember Prof. Jensen of UC Berkeley having to be escorted at all times by both armed campus police and California highway patrol after he, like Prof. Watson, looked at the statistics and published his results.

Can't recall now if Prof. Jensen's office was actually firebombed, but there were certainly threats to that effect. I'm out of this thread, if you wish to persevere you're braver than me Smile
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 10:26 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
"To my mind, believing is distinct "races" among human beings is evidence of extreme historical and ethnological hebetude."

well thats a good sentence

There clearly is a problem in searching for a correlation between race and intelligence, when neither term can be satisfactorily defined.

However if IQ is defined as that which an IQ test measures we can forget the other term and just look at the people with high IQ and low IQ. What would we see?


Well, I don't know about you, but I'd see someone intently staring at a bunch of stats with his brow wrinkled like he'd found the holy frikkin grail. And I'd still be wondering - what the hell does he WANT the conclusive "evidence" FOR?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 10:59 pm
High Seas wrote:
Steve - give up. The sole argument of the foaming-at-the-mouth posters calling others "racists" is an insult buried in a flood of sophisticated words.

Prof. Watson, btw, was only trying to help Africans (for definition look at link previously posted) insofar as "Western" policies are applied to them. Nobody who's known SS (that's Sub-Saharan in this context) Africa for the last several decades can doubt his statements - nor can anyone familiar with the actual statistics and qualified to analyze them.

As to your statement that some researchers in the field (for definition look at Steve's previously posted explanation) require armed guard: I personally remember Prof. Jensen of UC Berkeley having to be escorted at all times by both armed campus police and California highway patrol after he, like Prof. Watson, looked at the statistics and published his results.

Can't recall now if Prof. Jensen's office was actually firebombed, but there were certainly threats to that effect. I'm out of this thread, if you wish to persevere you're braver than me Smile


Watson's comment relative to blacks in the workplace was clearly based on bias, not science. I won't go so far as to say this comment means Watson had ill wishes for blacks, but I certainly will not agree that his other comments were intended to "help Africans."

The whole point of supporting Watson and his comments is support of the search for truth. There is no need to gild the lily and suggest that his search for the truth was based on some sort of PC altruism.

Casting Watson in the role of Selfless Scientific Benefactor is as silly as casting him in the role as Evil Eugenistic Egghead.

We don't have enough geniuses in the world to impose upon them political restrictions. Let them find the truth unimpeded and others who are paid to lead will be faced with the problems of application.

At least, let's pray, it will be the leaders, not the bureaucrats and petty political hacks, who decide.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2008 08:04 am
Quote:
Let them find the truth unimpeded and others who are paid to lead will be faced with the problems of application.


Well, you're a bright guy, Finn. What are some possible suggestions you might offer up as to an "application" for the "truth" that blacks are inferior intellectually to whites?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 03:17 pm
High Seas wrote:
Steve - give up...
An excellent new years resolution HS, I will...immediately...everything. Cycled nearly 60 miles today mostly against a head wind, or so it seemed, so I am giving up this thread and everything conscious for the next 10 hours hopefully.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 04:43 pm
I was thinking recently that supposedly the only unique art form invented and developed in America is jazz music.

All races can, and do, participate in that. However the preeminent innovators and exponents of it, I think I can state to not much dissent, are and were Louis Armstrong, Art Tatum, Edward "Duke" Ellington, Charlie Parker, Oscar Peterson, Wynton Marsalis.

I'll see your Stan Getz and raise you John Coltrane and Coleman Hawkins.

Bix Beiderbecke I would concede.

So what does that prove? Maybe not too much, but I think it's interesting.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 06:08 pm
snood wrote:
Quote:
Let them find the truth unimpeded and others who are paid to lead will be faced with the problems of application.


Well, you're a bright guy, Finn. What are some possible suggestions you might offer up as to an "application" for the "truth" that blacks are inferior intellectually to whites?


We've already been through this snood, and I've already agreed with you that assuming it can be proven blacks are, in general, intellectually inferior to whites there is no practical application of such knowledge which I can imagine. This does not mean the development of the knowledge should be prohibited.

I have to say I'm kind of tired of repeating myself to you.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 07:56 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
snood wrote:
Quote:
Let them find the truth unimpeded and others who are paid to lead will be faced with the problems of application.


Well, you're a bright guy, Finn. What are some possible suggestions you might offer up as to an "application" for the "truth" that blacks are inferior intellectually to whites?


We've already been through this snood, and I've already agreed with you that assuming it can be proven blacks are, in general, intellectually inferior to whites there is no practical application of such knowledge which I can imagine. This does not mean the development of the knowledge should be prohibited.

I have to say I'm kind of tired of repeating myself to you.


So sorry, old shoe. P'raps you should rest if you're tired. I just want it to be clear as a bell that even those most staunchly decrying the "prohibition" of the search for this kind of "knowledge" have no idea what the f*ck its good for.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 07:57 am
I cant think what its "good" for either. But I can guess what its "bad" for in the heads of the malicious. Perhaps there are certain avenues we should not pursue. On the other hand perhaps we should learn to handle knowledge wisely.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 11:41 pm
snood wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
snood wrote:
Quote:
Let them find the truth unimpeded and others who are paid to lead will be faced with the problems of application.


Well, you're a bright guy, Finn. What are some possible suggestions you might offer up as to an "application" for the "truth" that blacks are inferior intellectually to whites?


We've already been through this snood, and I've already agreed with you that assuming it can be proven blacks are, in general, intellectually inferior to whites there is no practical application of such knowledge which I can imagine. This does not mean the development of the knowledge should be prohibited.

I have to say I'm kind of tired of repeating myself to you.


So sorry, old shoe. P'raps you should rest if you're tired. I just want it to be clear as a bell that even those most staunchly decrying the "prohibition" of the search for this kind of "knowledge" have no idea what the f*ck its good for.


What's your point?

I've hardly declared that I am capable of finding the practical application of every scientific finding.

Yours is an incredibly illiberal notion.

I can think of few things more counter-productive and, personally, depressing, than the notion that we should limit ourselves in the search for truth because some of us fear the application of truth.

I understand your concern that "proof" that one race is intellectually inferior to another will be malignantly applied. In fact, there is a pretty good chance, based on history, that it will be. However, as much as this may seem a valid reason for burying the truth, it is not.

The battle must be fought at the level of application, not discovery.

Otherwise, you are no different from those who argued that Copernicus and Galileo should be silenced.

When someone tries to use this "science" to create a caste system you may be surprised to find that I will be right there beside you on the barricades.

In the mean time, I don't want uber-focused geniuses to worry about the political ramifications of their magical discoveries.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/26/2021 at 06:41:32