Racial Characteristics

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

Here you go, 781:
http://gnxp.com/

This is a science blog dedicated to population genetics, the very thing you seemed interested in but were vilified for discussing. I’m with Entheogens, I didn’t see anything racist about your original post.

BTW, in my electrical engineering classes in college, I noticed that the students were mostly Asian. I guess I’m a racist for this observation. I’ve also noticed that most elite-level athletes are black in sports like sprinting, football, and basketball. I can’t help it. I’ve noticed these things.

42

[quote]entheogens wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
That’s some offensive shit the OP has put up.Hard to believe he’s a student of anything.The only ‘grasping’ he’s doing is at straws.

What is so racist about it? I believe the OP is making an observation and is not asserting that these qualities are unique to any race.

Now, a lot of what the OP has observed is due to culture. I can’t say that all of it is. Chinese children are from a very early age pushed in school and take a lot of extra-curricular classes, beginning well before elementary school even begins.

It’s very common with middle-class chinese families. From my perspective there are pros and cons to this. However, that’s a whole different topic.

Couldn’t it be that African-Americans excel in sports and music because for a number of generations those were activities they were not excluded from? Now, I don’t see Africans excelling in sports.

Aside from long distance running, they seem to pretty much suck, in fact. I am not saying that there might not be some biological advantage that blacks have (I don’t know) but when you compare African Americans with Africans, it would seem that a cultural tradition explains the fact that the latter excels at sports while the other doesn’t for the most part.

I am sure that we can find adventurers among many races, but I think something happened around the time of the Rennaisance in Europe that explains why European/American civilization has been so dynamic…that is the birth of the modern individual, where the individual takes on central importance over social codes.

Now this notion of the individual was born in Europe but it contaminates :slight_smile: just about everybody who gets exposed to it. It’s not a racial thing, but a cultural thing.
[/quote]

West Africans smoke whiteys ass at sprinting.

If you look at the article that is attached to the other article about intelligence and race, oh here it is Liberal Creationism, it seems to me it is more in favor of a correlation between brain size and intelligence. If head size is a good indicator of brain size, well I wear a size 8 hat.

Also, us crackity ass crackers stole our music from black people. In fact, pretty much every kind of music invented in america comes from black people.

I was watching a program about the development of the human brain and that clown from clown-town said that whatever geneticists he works with or whatever found a gene that creates a larger brain, and it, they beleive, was formed to cope with living in a larger community.

Now, that would obviously have a large survival value in somewhere like china where there are lots of people crowded in a small place, as well as in parts of europe, and even in native america, and parts of africa. I dont know if the gene made its way to native america, as crossing an ocean is tough stuff for a gene to do before the vikings or columbus or whoever swam across, so who knows if they had it.

Anyways the point is that the gene doesnt have a large survival imperitive for a hunter gatherer society, but being able to move in an apropriate manner, having good hand eye coordination and just plain old agility might be more better. Being more intelligent doesnt mean you are superior in my book, it could just mean you need to get your ass kicked you cocky jackass.

I thought most people believed in evolution, so does it not apply to humans?

43

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
I read a book where two groups fought constantly making bigger and better weapons…because one group buttered their bread butter side up and the other group buttered their bread butter side down. [/quote]

Dr. Zeus?

44

[quote]Scrotus wrote:
entheogens wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
That’s some offensive shit the OP has put up.Hard to believe he’s a student of anything.The only ‘grasping’ he’s doing is at straws.

What is so racist about it? I believe the OP is making an observation and is not asserting that these qualities are unique to any race.

Now, a lot of what the OP has observed is due to culture. I can’t say that all of it is. Chinese children are from a very early age pushed in school and take a lot of extra-curricular classes, beginning well before elementary school even begins.

It’s very common with middle-class chinese families. From my perspective there are pros and cons to this. However, that’s a whole different topic.

Couldn’t it be that African-Americans excel in sports and music because for a number of generations those were activities they were not excluded from? Now, I don’t see Africans excelling in sports.

Aside from long distance running, they seem to pretty much suck, in fact. I am not saying that there might not be some biological advantage that blacks have (I don’t know) but when you compare African Americans with Africans, it would seem that a cultural tradition explains the fact that the latter excels at sports while the other doesn’t for the most part.

I am sure that we can find adventurers among many races, but I think something happened around the time of the Rennaisance in Europe that explains why European/American civilization has been so dynamic…that is the birth of the modern individual, where the individual takes on central importance over social codes.

Now this notion of the individual was born in Europe but it contaminates :slight_smile: just about everybody who gets exposed to it. It’s not a racial thing, but a cultural thing.

West Africans smoke whiteys ass at sprinting.

If you look at the article that is attached to the other article about intelligence and race, oh here it is Liberal Creationism, it seems to me it is more in favor of a correlation between brain size and intelligence. If head size is a good indicator of brain size, well I wear a size 8 hat.

Also, us crackity ass crackers stole our music from black people. In fact, pretty much every kind of music invented in america comes from black people.

I was watching a program about the development of the human brain and that clown from clown-town said that whatever geneticists he works with or whatever found a gene that creates a larger brain, and it, they beleive, was formed to cope with living in a larger community.

Now, that would obviously have a large survival value in somewhere like china where there are lots of people crowded in a small place, as well as in parts of europe, and even in native america, and parts of africa. I dont know if the gene made its way to native america, as crossing an ocean is tough stuff for a gene to do before the vikings or columbus or whoever swam across, so who knows if they had it.

Anyways the point is that the gene doesnt have a large survival imperitive for a hunter gatherer society, but being able to move in an apropriate manner, having good hand eye coordination and just plain old agility might be more better. Being more intelligent doesnt mean you are superior in my book, it could just mean you need to get your ass kicked you cocky jackass.

I thought most people believed in evolution, so does it not apply to humans? [/quote]

thats some pretty cool shit dude.

as far as the musical stuff it makes perfect sense to me that black people would be gifted more for music than other races since music and dance was invented by them and holds a big part in african culture.

@evolution…its true, unless you get on these boards and then evolution equates to racism somehow.
people are adaptive, they will acquire survival traits for their enviorment and then pass those genes on, after enough time the genes can start to become permanent racial traits. a 6th grader could tell you this stuff.

if you guys dont like it, go get someone from every race different than you pregnant.

45

oh my god…

while this is surely an interesting topic, the over-simplifying and generalizing being done here are mind blowing.

the only intelligent posts thus far were the ones in the beginning that suggested you take some actual courses in anthropology and biology.

46

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
@evolution…its true, unless you get on these boards and then evolution equates to racism somehow.
people are adaptive, they will acquire survival traits for their enviorment and then pass those genes on, after enough time the genes can start to become permanent racial traits. a 6th grader could tell you this stuff.
[/quote]

Not surprisingly, you seem to have a level of understanding that would be expected of a 6th grader.

47

I’ll humor you and play

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
have you ever noticed how some races/nationalities seem to be a certain way naturally. now, dont get this wrong. im not talking about stereotypes, i just think that certain ethnicities have predispositions towards certain things which may be related to culture/migration etc. its something im very interested in and would like to discuss seriously.[/quote]

sure, wonderful topic

nods head if we restrict the domain of athletics to the sports in which black people are more gifted. though to be charitable, we all know what you mean.

what do you know about genetics? first, i wouldn’t hang my hat on the claim that “black people” are the “original people”, whatever that means. If you merely mean that “black people” share more biological traits with early homo sapiens, then how does that imply that they “still maintain more of the genes needed for original man to survive”? one, genetic diversity is an issue of dominant and recessive traits–genetic information is common to all humans. second, how does the fact that “black people” share more biological traits with early homo sapiens imply that they share the DESIRABLE traits? one could equally well assume that “black people” have retained all the undesirable traits of early man.

the point is, your inference is absurd.

[quote]next i look at the stereotype of white people being seen as crazy in the sense of the “xtreme” sports, xgames, snowboarding, and all the other crazy shit white people have invented. i think this is because white people are the descendants of the people who left Africa so they obviously are the more adventurous ones since they left to explore new things.
[/quote]

wouldn’t a much more plausible and intuitive answer simply be that this is a culture thing? perhaps “white people” dominate these sorts of sports because they are small sports with a primarily white following?

Moreover, what makes you think that “white people” left Africa because of their adventurous spirit? first of all, when “white people” left Africa, they weren’t even “white”. most likely the shift in dominant characteristics that resulted in “white people” only took place once a sub group of early homo sapiens left the main population and was sufficiently separated to allow for the dominant traits of the group to come out. Second, isn’t it again much more likely and intuitive that the ancestors of “white people” left Africa for more mundane reasons, like a lack of food?

here not only is your inference absurd but your premise is stupid as well.

somewhat debatable? holy shit. this claim of yours is so stupid i won’t even touch it. get a basic grasp of history.

your not even using the right terms… last time i checked “white” and “black” were not generally condered “ethnic” groups.

further, Latinos are WHAT? a mix of Asian and white? last time i checked most of the “Latinos” or “Hispanics” where a diverse mix of native central Americans, early ethnic groups from the Iberian peninsula, and Africans.

I’ve talked about this before.

again, none of this is racism (i think…), and all of it is garbage. go and study some history, anthropology, and biology.

48

stokedporcupine, think to yourself “could a 6th grader understand what I just said?”

Maybe if you include pictures…

49

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
oh my god…

while this is surely an interesting topic, the over-simplifying and generalizing being done here are mind blowing.

the only intelligent posts thus far were the ones in the beginning that suggested you take some actual courses in anthropology and biology. [/quote]

Educate us then, otherwise your criticism is too vague. Look, as I said I tend to think the differences are mostly cultural; however, I think it is ridiculous to start shouting “racist” the moment anyone mentions that there MIGHT be some genetic differences.

Most people with sickle-cell anemia in America are of african or hispanic descent. Is that racist? Look, I think this is an issue of political correctness. As long as we talk about genetics in relation to disease or some strictly “physical” characteristic it is ok. The minute anyone starts talking about genetics and how it might affect performance, we have to shut-up. Especially since real racists have tried to paint african-americans as somehow sub-human and more animalistic than other races, we hesitate to suggest that there is a TENDANCY for people of African descent to have more athletic prowes (since this suggests that what the racists say is true). I can understand this reaction. Most of you know that I am so left-wing that I make Dennis Kucinich look like a member of the John Birch Society. However, reacting to “genetics” in this manner seems like knee-jerk political correctness.

The OP was generalizing and over-simplifying. I don’t think he would deny that. But he didn’t say, ALL blacks are great athletes or all asians are good at math or all white people are adventure-types. His post indicated to me that he was talking about tendancies he observed in those populations. What is racist about that?

50

pictures… so thats what i’ve been missing all this time.

51

[quote]entheogens wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
oh my god…

while this is surely an interesting topic, the over-simplifying and generalizing being done here are mind blowing.

the only intelligent posts thus far were the ones in the beginning that suggested you take some actual courses in anthropology and biology.

Educate us then, otherwise your criticism is too vague. Look, as I said I tend to think the differences are mostly cultural; however, I think it is ridiculous to start shouting “racist” the moment anyone mentions that there MIGHT be some genetic differences.
[/quote]

ah, i’m not the one to “educate”, this isn’t my thing. I did though go through the original post and point out the silly things that were said. Again, the mistakes and claims made only show that the OP lacks a basic grasp of modern anthro, bio, and history.

Also, i never claimed it was racist… only very wrong. of course there are differences between groups of humans (and i agree that these differences are mostly cultural, though of course biological difference contribute as well).

Denying differences between groups is silly. A question often overlooked in this topic though is the question of group identity. that is, of course there are differences between groups, BUT, which groups and what counts as a group?

we can of course create many artifice groups–say like the group of all humans with “black” skin. But, the very way the domain was selected for this group limits the range of applicable characteristics to… black skin (and thus limits the possible ways the group can inherently differ from other groups).

the real ticket is to figure out which ways of grouping people are more objectively based, and thus will lead to a broader range of applicable characteristics for the given domain. As you mention, these tend to be cultural differences.

but again, this is a much larger question of social group identity and classification (this, i’m actually interested in).

but for the cliffnotes: I did address the OP’s claims, and I never called racist.

52

[quote]entheogens wrote:
The OP was generalizing and over-simplifying. I don’t think he would deny that. But he didn’t say, ALL blacks are great athletes or all asians are good at math or all white people are adventure-types. His post indicated to me that he was talking about tendancies he observed in those populations. What is racist about that?

[/quote]

Again, I don’t think too many people here are calling the OP racist… just ignorant.

I also didn’t get the feeling that the OP thought he was over-simplifying. He quite straightforwardly presented his hypotheses and even defended them.

53

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
pictures… so thats what i’ve been missing all this time. [/quote]

Pictures of boobies. Big ones.

54

i guess ill just wait for someone to thoroughly disprove what ive said.

oh and please, use pictures =) i like pictures.

so whenever you guys want to stop playing the PC semantics game lemme know.

55

Disprove? You weren’t trying to provoke discussion? You didn’t hope to hear other people’s opinions or learn something?

Just in case you were, find a guy who posts under the name “stokedporcupine” and read some of his threads. He’ll explain to you why your speculations were wrong (i.e. not true). Being racist or not has nothing to do with it, and hiding behind your anti-PC campaign won’t make you anymore right.

56

When it comes to sportsmanship, I think the interference from culture is too big to allow an estimation about the role racial genetics could play. It’s clear, that genetics is crucial on a personal level, but the financial means and support systems play also an important role. You reap what you sow. Role models are important, too.

What comes to extreme sports, the general living standard seems to me to be an important factor.

EDIT: it to genetics

57

In response to Stokedporcupine,

Africans are an “older” group of people. I am not stating some kind of inferiority, what I mean is that there has been people in Africa since X thousands of years before anywhere else, and beyond that, there was a “genetic bottleneck” that occured, which would limit the genetic diversity in the rest of the world. I am not certain, but I dont think that happened in Africa, making it a more genetically diverse continent.
Genetic information is not “common” to all humans. It is very similiar, but all populations do not have all possible variations of a gene, that is how evolution happens and species differentiate(spelling?).

Nowadays we have a more global society, and most genes would probably be in most places, but in some isolated African or south American, or maybe even Siberian places they do not have access to all of the same genes. Genes dont magically change everywhere at once, they may mutate in a similiar manner coincedentally, and if it is common for change to occur in multiple places simultaneously it is a good argument for intelligent design, but that is probably pretty rare. Likewise, genes that are not beneficial in a certain community or environment are probably not going to be passed on, and if they are then it wouldnt be an overpowering force.

If said genes are not beneficial, and costly, like having a gene for a larger brain that consumes an extra 200 calories a day but not having a good use for the extra intelligence it provides, then said gene won’t proliferate, and it would probably die out.

Everything after your response to extreme sports is spot on, except maybe “I’ve talked about this before” but I dont know what you said so I wont try to interpret it.
I think it is immoral to base a persons value as a human being on their level of intelligence, as some of you seem to. Maybe I am totally off base, but it seems like that is what people think when they freak out over x race is more intelligent than y race, but when x race is faster or more athletic than y race it is only a problem when logical consequences lead you to the possiblility that x race is smarter than y race. anyways, It doesnt seem like it should be that big a deal. Some people are smart and most people are dumb, it is just life.

58

[quote]Scrotus wrote:
In response to Stokedporcupine,

Africans are an “older” group of people. I am not stating some kind of inferiority, what I mean is that there has been people in Africa since X thousands of years before anywhere else, and beyond that, there was a “genetic bottleneck” that occured, which would limit the genetic diversity in the rest of the world. I am not certain, but I dont think that happened in Africa, making it a more genetically diverse continent.
Genetic information is not “common” to all humans. It is very similiar, but all populations do not have all possible variations of a gene, that is how evolution happens and species differentiate(spelling?).

Nowadays we have a more global society, and most genes would probably be in most places, but in some isolated African or south American, or maybe even Siberian places they do not have access to all of the same genes. Genes dont magically change everywhere at once, they may mutate in a similiar manner coincedentally, and if it is common for change to occur in multiple places simultaneously it is a good argument for intelligent design, but that is probably pretty rare. Likewise, genes that are not beneficial in a certain community or environment are probably not going to be passed on, and if they are then it wouldnt be an overpowering force.

If said genes are not beneficial, and costly, like having a gene for a larger brain that consumes an extra 200 calories a day but not having a good use for the extra intelligence it provides, then said gene won’t proliferate, and it would probably die out.

Everything after your response to extreme sports is spot on, except maybe “I’ve talked about this before” but I dont know what you said so I wont try to interpret it.
I think it is immoral to base a persons value as a human being on their level of intelligence, as some of you seem to. Maybe I am totally off base, but it seems like that is what people think when they freak out over x race is more intelligent than y race, but when x race is faster or more athletic than y race it is only a problem when logical consequences lead you to the possiblility that x race is smarter than y race. anyways, It doesnt seem like it should be that big a deal. Some people are smart and most people are dumb, it is just life. [/quote]

For the record, the guy behind the brain size/intelligence race research has been so thoroughly discredited it’s not even funny. He had an agenda, and he threw his career away for it.

59

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Scrotus wrote:
In response to Stokedporcupine,

Africans are an “older” group of people. I am not stating some kind of inferiority, what I mean is that there has been people in Africa since X thousands of years before anywhere else, and beyond that, there was a “genetic bottleneck” that occured, which would limit the genetic diversity in the rest of the world. I am not certain, but I dont think that happened in Africa, making it a more genetically diverse continent.
Genetic information is not “common” to all humans. It is very similiar, but all populations do not have all possible variations of a gene, that is how evolution happens and species differentiate(spelling?).

Nowadays we have a more global society, and most genes would probably be in most places, but in some isolated African or south American, or maybe even Siberian places they do not have access to all of the same genes. Genes dont magically change everywhere at once, they may mutate in a similiar manner coincedentally, and if it is common for change to occur in multiple places simultaneously it is a good argument for intelligent design, but that is probably pretty rare. Likewise, genes that are not beneficial in a certain community or environment are probably not going to be passed on, and if they are then it wouldnt be an overpowering force.

If said genes are not beneficial, and costly, like having a gene for a larger brain that consumes an extra 200 calories a day but not having a good use for the extra intelligence it provides, then said gene won’t proliferate, and it would probably die out.

Everything after your response to extreme sports is spot on, except maybe “I’ve talked about this before” but I dont know what you said so I wont try to interpret it.
I think it is immoral to base a persons value as a human being on their level of intelligence, as some of you seem to. Maybe I am totally off base, but it seems like that is what people think when they freak out over x race is more intelligent than y race, but when x race is faster or more athletic than y race it is only a problem when logical consequences lead you to the possiblility that x race is smarter than y race. anyways, It doesnt seem like it should be that big a deal. Some people are smart and most people are dumb, it is just life.

For the record, the guy behind the brain size/intelligence race research has been so thoroughly discredited it’s not even funny. He had an agenda, and he threw his career away for it.[/quote]

I didnt know that, You dont mean the guys that find brain size correlates to intelligence(not just IQ, but spatial skills, verbal skill, etc that require brainpower to do)but specifically race related to brain size/intelligence because why have a brain so big if it doesnt need to be? It eats up a lot of calories.
How specifically was he discredited, because his line of thinking isn’t something that is very popular, and scientists are just as prone to believe what is popular as anyone else. Shit, they used to think the solar system revolved around the earth, and even had it mapped out, with planet paths and everything that were fairly accurate in relation to how things move around the earth, but everything went in weirdo squigles, I laughed when I saw their crazy model on TV. Then the guy Coppernicus got his idea from had this simple elegant plan that only requires things to go in circles and, when Coppernicus started pushing it, they were all like WTF thats not right God made us the center. The pope said so, so Fuck off C-dog.
Anyways, the point is that scientists are just as easily swayed by popular opinion, and just as willing to do things that support it, and discredit things that don’t, even if it is wrong(as in not correct). So I would like to hear the details surrounding said discreditment.

60

I think the line of reasoning regarding the race/IQ issue works like this: the same environmental effects that made one race look different and better suited to that environment couldn’t have POSSIBLY affected intelligence in that group because that would be unfair.

No, the environmental selection pressures affected everything BUT intelligence. In that aspect, we’re all the same.

It is interesting to watch people who claim to subscribe to Darwin’s theory of natural selection come unglued at the mention of disparities of intelligence amongst different racial groups.