SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Charles Murray, controversial author of The Bell Curve, which promoted links between intelligence and race, was shouted down by protesters at Middlebury College last Thursday. PBS reports:
Murray had been invited by Middlebury's student group affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank at which Murray is a scholar. [...] Prior to the point when Murray was introduced, several Middlebury officials reminded students that they were allowed to protest but not to disrupt the talk. The students ignored those reminders and faced no visible consequences for doing so. [...]
After the students chanted for about 20 minutes, college officials announced that the lecture would not take place but that Murray would go to another location, which the college didn't name, and have a discussion with a Middlebury faculty member — livestreamed back to the original lecture site.
According to Middlebury officials, after Murray and the professor who interviewed him for the livestream attempted to leave the location in a car, some protesters surrounded the car, jumped on it, pounded on it and tried to prevent the car from leaving campus.
Other sources note that political science professor Allison Stanger, who agreed to moderate the discussion, was attacked while accompanying Murray to the car, ultimately requiring treatment at a hospital for neck injuries caused by protesters pushing her and pulling her hair.
Murray himself later gave an account of his experience on the AEI blog. He emphasized that Middlebury's administration and staff displayed in exemplary ways their encouragement of free speech:
Middlebury's stance has been exemplary. The administration agreed to host the event. President Patton did not cancel it even after a major protest became inevitable. She appeared at the event, further signaling Middlebury's commitment to academic freedom. The administration arranged an ingenious Plan B that enabled me to present my ideas and discuss them with Professor Stanger even though the crowd had prevented me from speaking in the lecture hall. I wish that every college in the country had the backbone and determination that Middlebury exhibited.
But Murray notes that the outcome was very different from his previous controversial appearances:
Until last Thursday, all of the ones involving me have been as carefully scripted as kabuki: The college administration meets with the organizers of the protest and ground rules are agreed upon. The protesters have so many minutes to do such and such. It is agreed that after the allotted time, they will leave or desist. These negotiated agreements have always worked. At least a couple of dozen times, I have been able to give my lecture to an attentive (or at least quiet) audience despite an organized protest.
Middlebury tried to negotiate such an agreement with the protesters, but, for the first time in my experience, the protesters would not accept any time limits. [...] In the mid-1990s, I could count on students who had wanted to listen to start yelling at the protesters after a certain point, "Sit down and shut up, we want to hear what he has to say." That kind of pushback had an effect. It reminded the protesters that they were a minority. I am assured by people at Middlebury that their protesters are a minority as well. But they are a minority that has intimidated the majority. The people in the audience who wanted to hear me speak were completely cowed.
The form of the protest has been widely condemned even by those who vehemently disagree with Murray, as in the piece by Peter Beinart in The Atlantic that claims "something has gone badly wrong on the campus left." He argues strongly that "Liberals must defend the right of conservative students to invite speakers of their choice, even if they find their views abhorrent."
Meanwhile, student protesters have responded with their own account, disclaiming the hair-pulling incident as unintentional and "irresponsible" but condemning the Middlebury administration for their "support of a platform for white nationalist speech." They further claimed "peaceful protest was met with escalating levels of violence by the administration and Public Safety, who continually asserted their support of a dangerous racist over the well-being of students."
Personal note: My take on all of this is that the actual subject of Murray's Middlebury talk has been lost in the media coverage, namely his 2012 book Coming Apart, which (ironically) is a detailed discussion of the problems created by a division of the intellectual elite from the white working class. He explicitly dilutes his previous connections of social problems with a black underclass by noting that many of the same issues plague poor white communities. While his argument is still based on problematic assertions about intelligence and IQ, the topic of his book seems very relevant given recent political events and issues of class division. There's some sort of profound irony in a bunch of students at an elite school refusing to allow a debate on the causes and results of division between elite intellectuals and the (white) working class. I personally may think Murray's scholarship is shoddy and his use of statistics frequently misleading (or downright wrong), but I don't see how that justifies the kind of threats and intimidation tactics shown at this protest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:09PM (85 children)
Furthermore, there is a huge link between intelligence and productivity in society; the lower the intelligence, the worse the productivity—and at a certain threshold across a population, society starts to break down.
It does nobody any good to deny facts, and just write off discrepancies in outcomes as being "structural" or "social constructs".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:17PM (15 children)
and at a certain threshold across a population, society starts to break down.
Just like there's a huge link between bald assertions and reality?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:25PM (14 children)
This from the piece of shit that lets Corporate America & avarice determine reality? Try not being a mouthpiece and apologist before you start talking about bald assertions, lies, and what reality is.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:39PM (13 children)
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by edIII on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:17PM
I don't give a fuck what you find worthy or not. You are a corporate apologist that will deny any reality that doesn't conform with your particular idea of an ideal "society".
When you want to claim authority over reality, I WILL speak up against you, you loathsome piece of shit.
Again, as always, burn in hell mother fucker.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:41AM (9 children)
Control your anger or you will continue to be someone unworthy of my time.
Wow, khallow has been pushed to threatening behavior!!! Please, khallow, do your worst to me first, before you do it to edIII! Please?
(Of course, it might be more effective to take edIII's advice, and quit being such an apologist for racist rich people. )
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:51AM (8 children)
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:00AM (7 children)
Hey, count me in too, Mr. Hallow :D Maybe if you get enough people giving you shit you'll stop and ask yourself why at some point ...or maybe not, but I always was an idealist.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:31AM (6 children)
Furthermore, there is a huge link between intelligence and productivity in society; the lower the intelligence, the worse the productivity—and at a certain threshold across a population, society starts to break down.
I then replied to that last comment (which slid in a big assertion more than just "links").
Just like there's a huge link between bald assertions and reality?
How much you want to bet that the original AC's idea of societies that break down due to "lower intelligence" are societies that have come to have a high ratio of poor blacks in them? Such as Detroit transitioning from 1950 to present, Zimbabwe after Rhodesia fell, etc.
Was my supposed corporate leanings at all relevant?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday March 10 2017, @12:37AM
Dogpile on the khallow! Dogpile on the khallow! So sad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @08:33AM (4 children)
You know, it is not so much what Prof. Murray was going to say, as what he did say in the past. That is enough to justifying shutting him down. Likewise, our own khallow says something, and gets hammered, not so much for the content of this particular post, but for what he has said in the past. And he cannot comprehend this? Are all right-wing pretend-intellectuals so utterly clueless? (Don't bother answering, it was meant to be a rhetorical question.)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 10 2017, @03:16PM (3 children)
You know, it is not so much what Prof. Murray was going to say, as what he did say in the past. That is enough to justifying shutting him down.
Let me introduce you to the ad hominem fallacy [wikipedia.org]. What I find particularly weird about this is how much bleating there has been here without a thing being said. The universal lack of content of the criticisms is bizarre. You have as usual given me zero feedback by which I could correct anything, even if there were a legitimate problem.
I think we all realize that I'm not going to change my beliefs and opinions merely at the drop of the hat. But it is remarkable how little effort ever goes into trying to persuade me of anything. I think there's a simple explanation here. You are a fucking idiot who couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag. These silly games are the best you can do.
L2P noob.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @08:58AM (2 children)
Khallow, you answered a rhetorical question, and you got it wrong! What else could you be wrong about? I have seen Soylentils expend prodigious effort in trying to educate you, going on for days, and it all had absolutely no effect on you. And now you are amazed that no one tries anymore, except aristarchus, who seems to think you might be corrigible? Game over, man!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 11 2017, @01:00PM (1 child)
I have seen Soylentils expend prodigious effort in trying to educate you, going on for days, and it all had absolutely no effect on you.
Let's see these alleged efforts then. Just link them.
Or will you continue to make empty assertions? I note, for example, that when I complained about certain peoples' dishonesty or abusive behaviors, I linked to their [soylentnews.org] problems [soylentnews.org]. I didn't merely assert something to harass someone in some sort of school yard bullying.
Will we have an actual rational conversation? Or will this be days and days of innuendo and false accusations?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @10:57PM
Will we have an actual rational conversation? Or will this be days and days of innuendo and false accusations?
You reap what you sow, dude. You reap what you sow.
(Score: 1) by AssCork on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:17PM (1 child)
I got next. Lemme know who wins.
/me flexes his namesake
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:05PM
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:22PM (58 children)
> There is a huge link between DNA and Intelligence
Sure. But what there is not is a huge link between "race" and intelligence.
Race itself is a social construct.
Just ask any geneticist.
For example, Dr Craig Venter (founder of the Human Genome Project) who said in 2000, "Race is a social concept, not a scientific one. We all evolved in the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonized the world." [nytimes.com]
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:29PM (24 children)
If it were, then you wouldn't be able to get a reading of your genetic heritage, and various groups of people wouldn't be more at risk for certain diseases, etc.
Black people are better at being outside in the son doing manual labor, and white people are better at living in dark climates with very little light. That's the just the superficial stuff; there is zero purpose in lying to people by telling them that they are all the same when they are quite obviously not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:38PM (4 children)
You should have attempted only your first point. People with African heritage are at a greater risk for breast cancer and sickle-cell anemia. You'll find credible references on this easy to come by.
It's "sun," btw, if you're referring to the giant fusion reactor in the sky. For that point, allow me to throw out seasonal affective disorder. Here's wikipedia [wikipedia.org], but it doesn't include data that might support your point. Can you demonstrate that people with African heritage are at a greater risk for SAD?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:45PM (3 children)
... are not worth engaging.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:48PM
Well that was easy.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:30PM (1 child)
SAD isn't a strawman here. You failed to elaborate what you meant by "better at living in caves" so he took a guess.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:39PM
Here [nutrition.org]:
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:46PM (15 children)
If it were, then you wouldn't be able to get a reading of your genetic heritage, and various groups of people wouldn't be more at risk for certain diseases, etc.
You are wrong about that too, there is more genetic diversity within commonly defined racial groups than there is between them. An illustration of this fact:
In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim.
Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue [scientificamerican.com]
Another example is sickle cell anemia. [psychologytoday.com] Pop science says it is racial, because its more common in african-americans than in white americans. But in africa there are entire countries where it is no more common than it is among white americans and there are parts of southern europe where it is just as common among the local populations as it is among african-americans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:13PM (14 children)
Just as there are whole populations of people whose genetic heritage condemn them to a higher risk of sickle cell anemia, there are also whole populations whose genetic heritage condemn them to lower IQs.
I'm not arguing that because some black populations have genetically lower IQs that all black people have lower IQs; I'm arguing that it's WRONG to tell those affected populations that they can be just as good at theoretical particle physics as Ashkenazi Jews, if only they just worked harder in school. It's a horrible lie, and it's creating a great deal of strife for everyone.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:16PM (3 children)
there are also whole populations whose genetic heritage condemn them to lower IQs.
That may or may not be true, but even if it is, that "genetic inheritance" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SKIN COLOUR. The genes that govern the brain and intelligence are not the same ones governing melanin production.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:27PM (2 children)
You are not arguing against what is being said.
What is being said is that there ARE differences in populations; the only thing that is a social construct is the notion that all humans are equal and would have the exact same outcomes were it not for some nefarious "structural" conspiracy in the organization of society.
That being said, it may very well be that having black skin in America is a very good proxy for having some genetic trait, such as sickle-cell anemia or difficulty with higher mathematics.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:33PM (1 child)
OK, the word "populations" here is a deceptive one. I suspect you are thinking of "populations" as is "a bunch of similar looking people living in the same geographical area". I'm thinking of "populations" as in "a bunch of people who share some genetic traits but don't necessarily look like or live near one another".
Also, please see elsethread for a debunking of the "sickle cell anemia correlates nicely with skin colour" myth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:47PM
I am the one speaking of populations in terms of genetic heritage, not something superficial like skin color.
Furthermore, people who look similar and live in the same geographical area tend to share the same genetic heritage.
You'll note that I wrote "having black skin in America". In America:
You are not arguing against me; you are arguing against a straw man.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:26PM (9 children)
I'm not arguing that because some black populations have genetically lower IQs that all black people have lower IQs;
What you are doing is begging the question. You simply assert that some "black populations" have genetically lower intelligence. You might just as well say that some "white populations" have genetically lower intelligence.
It is true that if you cherry pick any group of individuals for intelligence and you'll get a group that has lower intelligence. But you can't usefully go in the reverse and say being white is predictive of lower intelligence any more than you can say being african is predictive of having sickle cell anemia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:30PM (8 children)
You are making things up; you are constructing a straw man.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:40PM (7 children)
What is that now? 3 different accusations of "strawman!"
Its funny how you are reduced to declaring that everybody else is arguing a strawman when in fact all of these "strawmen" are the direct and obviously intentional conclusion of your postulation. Especially when you say things like, "having black skin in America is a very good proxy for having some genetic trait, such as ... difficulty with higher mathematics."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:54PM (6 children)
I said "it may well be the case"
Here, allow me to put back in place those parts you cut out in your attempt to build a straw man:
Indeed, nobody disagrees that having black skin in America is a very good proxy for having sickle-cell anemia. There could well be other traits of note; that is the point.
Equality is a social construct. Real variations should not be ignored.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:29PM (2 children)
> There could well be other traits of note; that is the point.
Yeah and the one "trait of note" you just happened to single out is intelligence.
Its pretty funny watching you try to have your racist cake and eat it too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:38PM (1 child)
What is wrong with you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:03PM
And thus the circular argument that proves itself with no actual proof.
We are talking about racial differences in intelligence so its totally possible there could be actual racial differences in intelligence...
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:52PM (2 children)
Now when you say "real variations should not be ignored," *what* precisely do you mean by this?
It's insulting as fuck that you think we don't know the subtext of what you're saying. You're sure as hell not implying "well we should pay attention to things like Vitamin D deficiency and sickle-cell anaemia in this population." No, you're saying, without outright saying it because you're a goddamn coward, "Some people are worth less than others because they're less intelligent, and this is TOTALLY a dark-skin thing, yew guise."
Fuck you sideways. Human worth is not determined by intelligence, and this is coming from someone with an IQ of 140-145 or so. All our art, all our science, all our medicine, all of it is only to improve human flourishing, or what's the point of it? You've got your priorities entirely backwards.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @12:20PM (1 child)
You seem to be the first one in this thread to equate lower IQ with less worth as a person.
Subtexts are subjective, and regularly assumed by those with a strong personal narrative around a particular subject (see also: "if you're against elite bankers, you must be anti-semitic"). People regularly see subtexts which the author did not intend to express, as in just about any literature critique where the author is not available to comment.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:42PM
Let me spell it out for you: in no other context does anyone give one flying fuck about the "real variations" between populations, stratified by race, except in medicine. That's it. The only ever time it comes up is when people want to 1) play up the supposed aggregate IQ differences and 2) use 1) to justify making untermenschen out of said population.
It never comes up otherwise. And somehow I doubt every single person posting here about this is a haematologist.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:43PM
and white people are better at living in dark climates with very little light.
Silly racist! Here, let me fix this for you!
white people are better at living in tanning salons with very little intelligence
I am always impressed with how profoundly stupid and incapable of critical reasoning racists truly are. Even Runaway knows this racist stuff is pure bullshit by the lumpen proletariat in an attempt to compensate for the fact that they are so inferior. This is why we cannot have white supremacy! The South (racism, not the actual South of the United States, but Texas always make me wonder) will lose again!!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:15PM
And all that has nothing to do with intelligence.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:35PM
Black people are better at being outside in the son...
Well crap, you were doing fine with the racism. But, say goodbye to your book deal now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:51PM
Thank you for your unbiased facts, I was unaware that the human nervous system was created in the womb entirely independent of DNA and epigenetic factors.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:07PM (17 children)
Race itself is a social construct. Just ask any geneticist.
Sounds good. Let's ask Dawkins (at 35:35). [samharris.org]
Race is not simply made up, despite that so many people feel obligated to pretend it is. The fact that you can tell by looking is all you need to know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:27PM (3 children)
> Sounds good. Let's ask Dawkins (at 35:35).
Give me a link that is useful, that I don't have to turn on javascript. As it is I can't even find a link to whatever media is supposed to be on that page, audio, video? Maybe some text that you actually quote so we evaluate whatever specific claimns you are referring to.
> Race is not simply made up, despite that so many people feel obligated to pretend it is.
> The fact that you can tell by looking is all you need to know.
(1) You can't reliably tell by looking. My indian father in law (dot not feather) runs a convenience store (because of course he does) in a hispanic part of town. Every single day somebody tries to speak spanish to him because they think he's latino. My nephew who is half-indian and half-irish is darker than both his mother and said grandfather, and people often think he's black. And my wife, who is also 100% indian, is so fair skinned that everybody thinks she's european or maybe part japanese. And there is Rachael Dolezal who nobody thought was white until her bitchy parents decided to out her in a ridiculous fit of family drama.
(2) Individually "looks" are barely correlated with any other genetic characteristic.
Race isn't "made up" its both imposed on individuals by society and embraced (or rejected) by individuals too.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:40AM (2 children)
Give me a link that [lazy whining
Yes, the muppets use JavaScript for no reason, but I think you can can find a way.
You can't reliably tell by looking
This isn't the central argument you seem to think it is. Some people sometimes misjudge dogs' breeds, or people's genders. So what?
Race isn't "made up" its both imposed on individuals by society and embraced (or rejected) by individuals too.
Right... so you're saying it's arbitrary... i.e. made up. Well, no, it's not. It has medical consequences. It has genes-in-common. It's not just an arbitrary fabrication of the far right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @08:39PM (1 child)
This isn't the central argument you seem to think it is. Some people sometimes misjudge dogs' breeds, or people's genders. So what?
If it isn't a reliable predictor than its meaningless.
It doesn't get any more straightforward than that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:41PM
If it isn't a reliable predictor than its meaningless.
Reliability is not a bit flag you set. How unreliable does it have to be in order to be meaningless? It is not unheard of to figure out the ethnicity of a person who has been dead for decades or more from their skeleton.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:02PM (8 children)
First, thanks for the link. Interesting discussion.
Yes, you're correct that "race is not simply made up," but I think it's important to note a few other things Dawkins says in your linked discussion, including:
(1) The genetic variance of the human species seems to be remarkably small compared to most other species.
(2) The variance within races or people with a particular geographic origin for all sorts of characteristics is generally much greater than the variance BETWEEN races. He similarly notes that variance of intelligence within a race is likely much more important than between races.
(3) He doesn't think the differences in racial IQ (or intelligence in general) are an interesting subject for scientific study. He's not exactly clear on why, other than the fact that he thinks such findings could be abused to promote discrimination.
But presumably he's also aware of two other things: (A) Scientists have been claiming racial differences in intelligence for hundreds of years, but such differences have almost always been later shown to be either non-existent or based on supposed "distinguishing features" that turned out to have nothing to do with intelligence. Also, (B) the measured IQ differences have been significantly undermined by many studies that show the bias of IQ tests, its inability to isolate a single "general intelligence" marker for all peoples and cultures (and even for all situations -- what constitutes "intelligence" since many skills not correlated with IQ are also helpful in human success?), and many recent rigorous studies have shown that most of the supposed observed racial differences become a LOT smaller (if not disappear entirely) when you control for things like socioeconomic status, education level, etc.
So yes, race is not entirely made up -- the question is why so many people are so obsessed with it. I completely agree with Dawkins that I find it disturbing when people are obsessed with trying to find links between race and intelligence, because it seems that any such factor (if there is one) is likely at least an order of magnitude smaller -- and thus potentially insignificant -- compared to things like socioeconomic status, educational opportunities (of both the parents and the child), and even stuff like diet and nutrition, exposure to environmental factors (toxins), etc.
I think most geneticists who say "race is a social construct" don't really mean there are NO measurable genetic differences: what they mean is that the variability within racial groups and geographic regions is so much greater so as to make the discussion of genetic differences between races practically irrelevant to many questions. (In fact, that's pretty much what a number of the geneticists say outright in the NY Times article linked by GP.) I suspect that's part of the reason Dawkins seems to be so against the study of race and intelligence, because previous studies have shown that whatever differences may be there are likely irrelevant compared to other much more obvious social issues we should confront first if we want to deal with problems of intelligence.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:10PM (6 children)
"Race is a social construct" means, essentially, that yes, you can define a group by some shared phenotype, and then attempt to Dan Brown together some meaningful inferences based on their shared genotype, but the point is that the phenotypes chosen are entirely arbitrary. Why are we grouping people of a certain combination of skin colour, hair colour etc and calling them a "race" when we could could just as easily pick the tibia / fibia length ratio (a way to differentiate Vikings from Saxons in the British population, apparently) or some other completely pointless, muddy physical factor. What we call "races" only exist because we have chosen to make them meaningful.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:47AM
Aunty! You out-do yourself!
and then attempt to Dan Brown together some meaningful inferences
+Amazing mod for "Use of 'Dan Brown' as a verb", +Truth mod for refutation of racism.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @10:02AM (4 children)
Why are we grouping people of a certain combination of skin colour, hair colour etc and calling them a "race" when we could could just as easily pick the tibia / fibia length ratio (a way to differentiate Vikings from Saxons in the British population, apparently) or some other completely pointless, muddy physical factor. What we call "races" only exist because we have chosen to make them meaningful.
Common genetic heritage and the ongoing application of local selective pressures, is what gives rise to race.
Should we call Viking and Saxon heritages 'race'? Maybe, maybe not, but it's the continuum fallacy to try to conclude that race doesn't exist just because we seem to have found something akin to a 'sub-race'.
Look at dog breeds (which no-one is trying to pretend is merely a 'social construct'). Some breeds are more similar than others, but we still (arbitrarily, if you like) treat them as separate breeds.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday March 09 2017, @12:10PM (3 children)
Common genetic heritage and the ongoing application of local selective pressures, is what gives rise to race.
Right, but of all the genes I have in common with my neighbours, of all the thousands of physical traits (eye colour, liver function, number of toes, size of earlobes, speed of fingernail growth...) I may or may not share with them, why are hair-curliness and skin-brownness the magic ones that define how I am treated in society? It's arbitrary.
Look at dog breeds (which no-one is trying to pretend is merely a 'social construct'). Some breeds are more similar than others, but we still (arbitrarily, if you like) treat them as separate breeds.
Dogs are a very special case. The immense variation within that particular species is highly unusual, and the result of thousands of generations of deliberate, guided, selective breeding. We don't treat different breeds of dogs differently arbitrarily, we treat them the way we do because they were designed and built to be treated that way. Retrievers love to fetch things and swim because that's what we made them for. Jack Russells like to attack small squeaky things because they have rat-catching hard-coded into their genes.
People, on the other hand, are all evolved for much the same thing. Life and society throughout the world and throughout 99.9% of human history has been almost exactly the same for everybody, everywhere in the world: Hunting, fishing, gathering and farming in communities of other humans; defending the tribe; singing, dancing, courting & mating; using tools and developing technology; domesticating animals; using language. These are what define ALL humans (just as "running very fast" defines a whippet) whether our roots are in India, Africa, Italy or Peru. Sure, you get some small regional specialisations (some mountain folk with thin-air adaptations for example, or cold-weather folk with pale skin) but these are tiny, superficial variations that tell you as much about a human's general abilities and personality as phrenology would.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that there is as much difference between, say, a white Scandinavian and a San bushman as there is between a chihuahua and a St Bernard?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:21PM (2 children)
that define how I am treated in society
We weren't talking about how indefensible racism is, we were talking about the existence of race as a meaningful non-arbitrary concept. Of course racism is bad. Let's not waste time.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that there is as much difference between, say, a white Scandinavian and a San bushman as there is between a chihuahua and a St Bernard?
No, of course I'm not. That's why I never said it. You should find that rather telling.
I'll restate my point. You put:
What we call "races" only exist because we have chosen to make them meaningful.
and that is false.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:37PM (1 child)
>We weren't talking about how indefensible racism is, we were talking about the existence of race as a meaningful non-arbitrary concept.
Never said we were. Replace the quoted part of the sentence with "that define what race I am" and you get the same meaning.
>>What we call "races" only exist because we have chosen to make them meaningful.
> and that is false.
Really not getting your point. As stated more eloquently by another poster somewhere in this thread, the crude pigeon-holing of "race" breaks down completely at the genetic level. You either end up with tens of thousands of "races" because there is so much genetic variety in what superficially appears to be a homogenous group, or you have to invent countless byzantine exceptions that make the whole exercise completely pointless for any purpose other than stuffing people into a conveniently small number of asian / black / caucasian boxes.
Race means something socially. It means nothing genetically.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:44PM
Replace the quoted part of the sentence with "that define what race I am" and you get the same meaning.
No, of course you don't. Stop being obtuse.
Race means something socially. It means nothing genetically.
False. Did you not bother to listen to Dawkins?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:56AM
Thanks for the solid reply.
I think most geneticists who say "race is a social construct" don't really mean there are NO measurable genetic differences: what they mean is that the variability within racial groups and geographic regions is so much greater so as to make the discussion of genetic differences between races practically irrelevant to many questions.
But that's not what a clueless bleeding-heart liberal means when they say it. Generally, it's a social construct is just a fancy way of saying it's a totally arbitrary category/distinction. They feel the need to pretend that race simply doesn't exist, and that's simply not true.
You're right of course that when it comes to intelligence/fitness/etc, individual variation obviously way outweighs between-race variation (if there even is any), but race still exists - it's sometimes even significant medically.
He doesn't think the differences in racial IQ (or intelligence in general) are an interesting subject for scientific study. He's not exactly clear on why, other than the fact that he thinks such findings could be abused to promote discrimination.
I'm inclined to agree with Dawkins' reservations here, but I think science has too strong a taboo on this sort of thing. We see that right here with this politically convenient fiction that race doesn't even really exist.
It's not something I'd want to research, but it wouldn't make you a racist to do it.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:46PM (3 children)
> Race is not simply made up,
Europeans made up a lot of artificial boundaries, as they went around the world trying to describe new things they could claim for themselves.
Challenge:
Take a map of the world. Draw me the pre-colonial boundaries of the various "races".
Good luck.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:44AM (2 children)
Well, no. None of that matters. Like I said above, race corresponds to common genes, heritage, and even has medical consequences. It's not just some fiction used to divide people.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:18PM (1 child)
> race corresponds to common genes, heritage,
So it should be easy to see where each race starts and ends, right?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:47PM
I already mentioned the continuum fallacy once in this thread, but here we are again.
Anyway, no. The same is true of species, by the way. The fact that the lines aren't always clear doesn't mean the distinction is arbitrary.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:52PM (10 children)
Maybe someone should tell this to the marine biologists working on Orcas.
Then again, they might all just be Costanza.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:18PM (9 children)
Since when are there different races of orcas?
You aren't confusing species with race, are you?
Because that would be a pretty stupid thing to do, don't you agree?
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:19PM (2 children)
It sure would be stupid, unless of course the variance across Orca species DNA was smaller than it is between races of Homosapien. I wish I had the link, it was an article from the old days of slashdot. Seeing as we are more enlightened now we probably should have just stoned the author to death. Either biologists are wrong and that there should instead be races of orcas (unless this changed since the Slashdot article) or there should be species of humans. This could very well be an issue arrising with many animals, the article only referenced Orcas.
I suppose that it could also be because if a biologist can convice people that the pod they are researching is a separate species distinct from what they were before, and therefor endangered, they would stand to get more research dollars investigating them. I imagine data on the human genome is more accurate than on Orcas as well.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:07PM (1 child)
It sure would be stupid, unless of course the variance across Orca species DNA was smaller than it is between races of Homosapien.
And which races of homosapiens would that be?
. Either biologists are wrong and that there should instead be races of orcas (unless this changed since the Slashdot article) or there should be species of humans.
Or... seeing as how you can't actually back up your claim with anything, you fantasized something that confirms your racism because racism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:30PM
And which races of homosapiens would that be?
I'm guessing these folk mean "White and Non-White" as well as "Rich and Non-Rich".
(Score: 2) by number6x on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:50PM (5 children)
Since when are there different races of orcas?
<sarcasm>
There are Orcas that are black and white and there are other Orcas that are white and black. They are both white in the same places and both black in the same places, but somehow they still know the difference.
This, along with other made up facts, are why humans learn to hate other humans for no justifiable reasons.
</sarcasm>
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday March 08 2017, @10:13PM (3 children)
Maybe the world is different, but growing up I was taught that "our differences are what make us stronger" and I have always believed this. This truth becomes evident in the educatioanl and business world in getting new ideas for solving problems as well as avoiding groupthink. I am not interested at all in what the author from the article has to say about it, all I know is that there are verifiable differences. So what? My problem is that the genetic differences between the races of man (whether or not they exist is up to you) are important to know for, at the very least, the development of targeted medicines and monitoring techbiques to catch problems before they arise. Our differences make us stronger and the genes of someone from Africa with someone from Europe will produce a child who is more resistant to skin cancer and less at risk to heart disease.
Yet anymore instead of "our differences make us stronger" there is "no difference and if you see there is one then you are a racist". Yet as we push for the later option for humanity in the animal world they are further subdividing what was one species into multiple. So wither we accept we are different and they are different, or we accept that we are the same and they are the same. Both are fine but there needs to be consistancy. The easiest and most politically correct would probably take the genetic deviation of humans and decide that is the amount deviation acceptable for something to be one species, and we subdivide it no further than that, all of us one species. Then we go reclassify animals as either the same species or separate based on that standard.
Now that we have genetics and all, we need to change our medical books to specify the genes associated with particular tolerances and what drugs interact best. Everyone should know what their genes are (or their doctors do) so that we subdivide only by specific chains with our genes. This way we are all the same and regarded the same with the exception of gene structure known only to ourselves, our doctors, facebook, and the NSA. Regardless of the label we are different, its a good thing, deal with it.
Here they talk about it some, but it doesnt have the DNA variance number I was looking for
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/deleted-scenes/one-ocean-four-or-more-killer-whale-species [sciencenews.org]
Been reading all day about Orca species, seeming more and more a scam for more funding
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:45PM (2 children)
Yet anymore instead of "our differences make us stronger" there is "no difference and if you see there is one then you are a racist".
That is some Grade-A willful ignorance.
The "differences that make us stronger" aren't genetic, they are cultural.. And they have always been cultural.
And that's because genetic differences between races do not exist in any meaningful fashion so no one ever meant it the way you are using it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 09 2017, @12:47AM (1 child)
No bullshit in Sulla's post. Using a simple descriptor to identify a person can get you in hot water in today's world. And, now that Sulla has reminded me, I did hear that mantra, "Our differences make us stronger." Actually, I heard it a lot as a young man. E Pluribus Unum doesn't mean everyone is the same. It means we listen to each other, we value each other, we share ideas and values.
Sulla's post is spot on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:01PM
Lol.
That's just a fancier way of saying all y'all libruls are hypocrites cause you won't tolerate my intolerance!
(Score: 3, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:13PM
Do the Orcas look like this? [wikia.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:56PM (2 children)
There's genetic component of intelligence, for instance: Irish setters, not quite as smart as your average Homo sapiens - there's a strong genetic component at work there. Even within H. sapiens, there are genetic components that play into intelligence/aptitude.
Race also has a strong genetic component, skin color, body type, hair type and coloration, etc. all come together with a few social factors to determine one's race.
Thank God that we are not (yet) a homogenous pool 7 billion identical copies. There will be some correlations among genetic traits (blonde hair is more commonly found with blue eyes than brown), but they are not exclusions. A person of any race can be highly, or lowly, intelligent. Persons of high, low, or average intelligence may be of any race. There are certain correlations that exist - higher percentages of A found with B, but not exclusions between race and intelligence.
What we need to do is focus on the social aspect to ensure that "easy prejudices" like race and sex do not act to perpetuate existing boundaries, anyone can strive to be anything, and many can succeed.
Having said all of that, there are some significant correlations between race/sex and aptitudes for things like mathematics, social empathy, etc. Just because the correlations exist is not a reason to exclude members of the "low odds" pool from pursuing a profession if they want to, but the correlations are real and we shouldn't expect every profession to fill up with 50/50 male/female, or races according to the local population percentages.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:47PM (1 child)
There's genetic component of intelligence, for instance: Irish settlers, not quite as smart as your average Homo sapiens -
You bigot! Irish Settlers were just as intelligent as all the other European exiles that settled in the Americas! What the hell are you? American racist, Bill O'Reilly? Or a bloody Pom?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:50PM
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:10PM (7 children)
the lower the intelligence, the worse the productivity—and at a certain threshold across a population, society starts to break down.
Funny you should say that. Just last night I read this article, that says, among other things:
This line of thinking was extended to become a core part of the logic of colonialism. The argument ran like this: non-white peoples were less intelligent; they were therefore unqualified to rule over themselves and their lands. It was therefore perfectly legitimate – even a duty, ‘the white man’s burden’ – to destroy their cultures and take their territory. In addition, because intelligence defined humanity, by virtue of being less intelligent, these peoples were less human. They therefore did not enjoy full moral standing – and so it was perfectly fine to kill or enslave them.
— On the dark history of intelligence as domination [aeon.co]
Looks like you have uncritically incorporated that into your belief system. Which is hella ironic, because by your own logic, that intellectual failing would make you partially responsible for the "break down" of society. There is one simple thing you could personally do to help save society. I think you know what it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:23PM (5 children)
Firstly, see this comment [soylentnews.org], namely the reply titled "You are AGREEING with me".
Secondly, note that Africans were enslaved by other Africans in their various tribal wars, and then those slaves were sold to Arab slave traders; Europeans and Americans then purchased those people not as slaves, but as indentured servants, who (like white people, too) would serve for some number of years under a master, and then be set free according to a contract.
One of these African slaves who became an indentured servant was Anthony Johnson from Angola; after he was freed as per the indentured servitude, he purchased his own African servants, but he purchased them as slaves, and actually took the matter to court, becoming the first person living in America to be recognized under common law as a slave holder.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:31PM (4 children)
> Secondly, note that Africans were enslaved by other Africans in their various tribal wars,
As if the fact that some africans sold other africans into slavery has anything to do with genetics.
Your decision to trot out a completely unrelated rationalization for racism just revealed that this is all about you justifying white supremacy and nothing to do with science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:01PM (3 children)
The second point is tackling your warped history of slavery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:12PM (2 children)
Eh, the lamestream history on this was already fake news even back in 1840 I'm guessing.
Those poor southern
slaveerservant-holderser job creators, their angel-like nature sullied by the degenerate influence of the negro.(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:20PM (1 child)
You're just some triggered fool who is trying to sooth his cognitive dissonance by replacing the actual statements with ones that nobody made.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:32PM
Secondly, note that Africans were enslaved by other Africans in their various tribal wars,
Yes, that's true.
and then those slaves were sold to Arab slave traders;
Yes, that's true.
Europeans and Americans then purchased those people not as slaves, but as indentured servants, who (like white people, too) would serve for some number of years under a master, and then be set free according to a contract.
I'm certain from time to time that yes, that's true.
One of these African slaves who became an indentured servant was Anthony Johnson from Angola... [who became] the first person living in America to be recognized under common law as a slave holder.
I'm assuming that's also true.
Am I supposed to understand that whoever posted that was implying nothing, that it is merely a disinterested recounting of selected historical trivia?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:52PM
There is one simple thing you could personally do to help save society. I think you know what it is.
You don't say! The "one weird trick" that would increase the intelligence of white people? I sense a Netflix TV series in the offing: "The Racist Suicides"!!
JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you, just kill yourself instead."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:47PM
Furthermore, there is a huge link between intelligence and productivity in society
How do we know that if we don't even have a scientifically provable way of measuring intelligence? IQ hasn't been proven to accurately measure an individual's level of intelligence, and the social 'sciences' don't have anything else to offer either. It's not that I don't think the particular statement I'm quoting makes sense, but that I expect rigorous scientific evidence to prove it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:29AM
You just butt-fucked yourself dumbass.
"Furthermore, there is a huge link between intelligence and productivity in society; the lower the intelligence, the worse the productivity"
Lets see now. Nothing is made in america anymore. Few good jobs. Most white people I see sell drugs, burglarize homes, and dumpster dive daily.
Low intelligence and poor productivity across the board for white americans.
Looks to me like you white supremacists are the inferior ones. Go fuck yourselves.