Well I’ll agree to that.
You haven’t been here from the beginning. This thread has been mostly a discussion of whether race is a biological construct or whether it’s a social one. Secondarily the genetic differences in intelligence was also discussed.
Okay, fair enough.
And I’m assuming your stance is that it’s biological?
Yeah
Well, I am of an opinion that is more of a middle-ground. and if anything it’s a false dichotomy to say it has to be a product of one or the other. Social constructs are influenced by biological constructs.
The modern use of the term “race” is a social construct, but we can all agree (I hope) that the different races as we now know them originated from centuries of procreation and evolution. An individual is not confined by their racial genetics since biological heredity is not immune to mutation.
Populations, even of a single “race,” are not biologically monotonous. Modernly, if it is a forced-choice issue, race should be viewed as a societal construct.
[quote=“lil.greggy, post:1707, topic:228119, full:true”]
An individual is not confined by their racial genetics since biological heredity is not immune to mutation. [/quote]
What does this mean?
Example?
Right so this is a bit oof topic but still fits in with the race biological intelligence thing occurring.
Its a Vox video but is well done so bear with me.
So they go on to say that the more advanced a culture is the more names they have for colors, yet this is labeled as racist. So linguistically they have less names for colors either black, white or red while other cultures and languages have lots of names just for blue. Thought this was interesting discussion point.
Funny IQ mattered when he was still working at Microsoft.
Funny, you apparently can’t read. “…not as important as I used to think.”
Of course not, when your life switches from making billions to giving it away mostly to 70 iq Africans it should come as no surprise
Raj why are you like this?
Bill Gates has a disconnect between how he earned his billions versus how he’s trying to carve out his image today.
Hey @ActivitiesGuy since you can’t answer this question, make yourself useful and explain this study’s findings
The US military uses iq tests I guess they’re trolls too huh? Charles Murray estimates average white male iq to be 103 and average black male iq to be 88 in the military
[quote=“therajraj, post:1708, topic:228119, full:true”]
So if we operate under the premise that “racial genetics” are only the genes/traits that we ascribe as commonly associated with certain races due to their evolutionary origins, we have to also acknowledge that there are still the occurrences of 1) recessive traits/multiple phenotypes within those populations, and 2) mutations of those traits. If “race” were bioogical, the parameters would necessitate definitive genetic distinctions (essentially a check list of genotypes/phenotypes that are paired to a specific race), not just statistical tendencies (e.g. African Americans are more likely to have, but not always, distinctive facial structures apparent when a skull is examined). If a person is distinguished as half-white and half-black but has a genotype shown in a DNA test to be 55% of European ancestry/traits and 45% sub-Saharan ancestry/traits, we still distinguish them racially as half-white and half-black.
I feel like I’m just going to have to keep explaining my explanations, but oh well.
You’re a troll because you talk about things you don’t have a clue about as if you’re an authority. For example, you’ve never even taken the ASVAB; yet, here we are…
P.S. Sowell destroys Murray or have you forgotten?
This accurately describes most discussions with raj.
Sure. I appreciate the fact that an alpha such as you gives a beta like me a command, and good, dutiful beta that I am, I will oblige.
Before we begin, I should note that
I am guessing that you found this through a blog post on the Unz Review (IQ Brain Map?, by James Thompson - The Unz Review), which fashions itself “An Alternative Media Selection: A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media.” Despite the warnings going off in my head upon reading that tagline, I found the blog post to be quite reasonably written, and would encourage anyone to read that for a decent layman’s breakdown of what the study did and what they found. It’s basically the same thing that I would have written here, and my reaction to the paper essentially mirrors James Thompson’s conclusion:
“I think that the paper is exciting and innovative, and may well be right. However, I have got used to modern genetics papers, which commonly find an excellent match between genetic and behavioural measures in sample sizes of 100,000+ only to find that the match crashes down when tested on a new sample of 25,000+.”
Papers such as this can easily “over-fit” their own data, conclude that they have found something exciting (mapping brain networks can predict intelligence!) only for the supposedly groundbreaking algorithm to be essentially worthless when tested on a different sample of people.
