Racism is a nonsense, malicious term

Author: Mesmer

Posts

Total: 182
Topic's author
#1
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
"Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." Racism - Wikipedia

The notion that all races, despite evolving in different environments, evolved to be *exactly* the same, is nonsense. Clearly, if a species lived in an environment wherein adaptive traits will be selected for, then the species as a whole will adapt in order to better suit the environment. Over time, this will make them superior in ways other races are not *because* of this adaptation.

To give a specific example, African-Americans always have the Allele G (Gly180) which causes them to sweat more profusely than Koreans whom never have this allele, but instead have Allele A (Arg180). fgene-03-00306-g003.jpg (892×1167) (frontiersin.org) Frontiers | Pharmacogenetics of human ABC transporter ABCC11: new insights into apocrine gland growth and metabolite secretion | Genetics (frontiersin.org) To deem this racial difference as "racist", as akin to the Holocaust or a violent race-based attack, is nonsensical and malicious.

Furthermore, it is appropriate to say that African-Americans have a superior advantage (sweating) in surviving in hot, arid environments compared to Koreans, because sweating allows: cooling, detoxing of heavy metals, elimination of chemicals, and bacterial cleansing Sweating Benefits: Beyond Body Temperature Regulation (healthline.com) 

Therefore, the "behavioral trait" of sweating allows African-Americans to be superior to Koreans in one way (two groups that are divided phenotypically, of which manifests in different "physical appearance[s]"), in regards to living in hotter environments. For "racism" to denote this scientific fact as negative should be considered malicious.

Theoretically, we could determine whether African-Americans are superior to Koreans, in regards to living in hotter environments, if we were to factor all relevant determinants (i.e. not just sweating). For example, Korean's higher I.Q. (roughly 106) may allow them to invent smart adaptations which are superior to merely being able to sweat. To say that this isn't possible is to say evolution had no effect on humans, which is nonsense (literal opposite of the effect evolution has) and malicious (slanders a scientific fact).

Furthermore, you could even determine if a race, overall, is superior to another, if you agreed upon valuable human traits (potentially: survivability, intelligence, civilization-building ability, reproduction capacity, absence of negative genes etc.), and then determined which races had the most desirable genes which best produced these desirable results. Again, to say that this isn't possible is to say evolution had no effect on humans.
#2
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,460
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
Nonsense: "words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas"

As you've clearly demonstrated, racism conveys a clear intelligible idea (an idea to which you state that you agree with on principle, even if not picking one that is on aggregate superior). Therefore, it is not nonsense. You've self refuted your own premise.

As for why it's a negative term... The fault for that lies at the feet of many proud racists over the years. That you know what I am talking about with reference, again disproves your premise.

You can call racism by any euphemism, and in time it will get tainted again by the many racists who preach mass murder in the name of it.

As for the notion that one broad group of people could be determined to be on balance genetically better than all others: it would be a subjective measurement, which would almost certainly overlook the value of variety.
#3
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mesmer
To deem this racial difference [the difference in sweat production] as "racist", as akin to the Holocaust or a violent race-based attack, is nonsensical and malicious.
Do you have an example of someone actually claiming that observing differences in sweat glands is racist or are you using the PIDOOMA method here?
#4
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Mesmer
I am a racist. According to your definition. I accept that I am but I try to be a racist in the smallest degree I could possibly reach. I could never treat a White American the exact same way as a Japanese or an Egyptian: I am not familiar with their differing traditions. Perfectly non-racist qualities are nearly impossible.

In today's society, racism has a different meaning which makes Hitler a racist and Rosa Parks a non-racist. One is only racist, according to society, if they deliberately treat different people differently, especially in a superior-inferior relation for some, or at least deliberately trying to not appease them due to their race or skin color.
Topic's author
#5
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Barney
As you've clearly demonstrated, racism conveys a clear intelligible idea (an idea to which you state that you agree with on principle, even if not picking one that is on aggregate superior).
"Racism" is nebulous and cannot be described in an internally consistent way that maps onto its application in reality -- that's what I'm arguing makes it nonsense. The fact that I can comment on what is ascribed racist does not mean it is intelligible. For example, I may know why someone thinks 1+1=3 (e.g. because the Illuminati controls everything), but that does not mean I think his/her methodology is intelligible.

As for why it's a negative term... The fault for that lies at the feet of many proud racists over the years. That you know what I am talking about with reference, again disproves your premise
You're on track for being right, when we consider people like Hitler. There's no doubt in anyone's mind, even his most fervent supporters, that Jews were not his favorite people.

However, when researchers and scientists are also labeled "racist" for producing their sound work, and hand-waved away as being racist, this is where the term goes from being intelligible to being a malicious nonsensical weapon. For example, the works of J.P. Rushton (someone who studied human racial differences) suffered this very fate in his debate with David Suzuki Rushton Refuted: David Suzuki vs. J. Philippe Rushton - YouTube . If Rushton's works are faulty, then it should be demonstrated how that is so. Bickering about whether they are "racist" is a nonsensical derailment because it doesn't address whether the works are faulty, and it's malicious because it discounts scientific endeavor. 

You can call racism by any euphemism, and in time it will get tainted again by the many racists who preach mass murder in the name of it.
I'm making a distinction between genuine racial hatred and a nonsensical, malicious attack on science. I'm not asking for genuine racial hatred to be euphemized. Unfortunately, the term "racism" conflates the two and attacks them both.

As for the notion that one broad group of people could be determined to be on balance genetically better than all others: it would be a subjective measurement, which would almost certainly overlook the value of variety.
I think most people can agree that having more intelligence is better than having less. I think most people can agree that being taller is superior to being shorter. I think most people can agree that being more physically attractive is superior to being less physically attractive.

How do you disagree with any of the above?
Topic's author
#6
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Intelligence_06
I am a racist. According to your definition. I accept that I am but I try to be a racist in the smallest degree I could possibly reach
I don't know why you agree with the term, let alone thought I did too. I can't address anything more you wrote because it assumes the term "racist" is sensical, which I spent the entire OP demonstrating why it was not.

#7
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
"Superior," in the way you're using it here, is  limited to analysis of one advantage in one environment. That's hardly tantamount to overall racial superiority. If someone was to believe that black people are overall superior to Koreans because of their advantage in hot environments, that would be racism, and flawed reasoning.
#8
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
I think this is the first time I'm seeing this kind of discussion. I don't mean to veer off-topic but I think racists don't follow a contest of ideas. In other words, I think they don't adequatly participate in reasoning their belief from a list of possible racial differences. I believe they are more likely to be affected by experience. For example, if a pair of terrorists blew up someone's house, I believe the victim has a greater chance of being a vengeful racist than a person who spends his free time by contesting the different ideas of race.
#9
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,888
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Mesmer
Another denier of truth and facts of last 200 years in USA and other places around the Earth.

Euphenisms used to soften a truth and facts on the ground ---not just a single  intellectual  definition---  some do not want to see, and deny deny, deny deny.

My best guess another Trumpeteer still waiting for Qanon  { patriot? } to take over government and show this world how things aught to be run.

Trumpeteers do not lie, unless they plan on repeating the same lie over, and over, and over,  and over,  and over, til even the most rational, logical common sense person begins to doubt the known truth and facts.

Have we seen this historically?  If so, did anyone learn from this type of immoral behavior ?

2021 >>> 2032 >>>>>>>>>2132 >>>>>>>>>>>>>2232 end date for how many billions of humans on Earth?




#10
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Mesmer
Evolution. Yeah.
#11
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
That was a brilliant piece of analysis. Well done, sir
#12
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
"Racism" is nebulous and cannot be described in an internally consistent way that maps onto its application in reality -- that's what I'm arguing makes it nonsense.
It really boggles the mind watching the same group of people who take such offense to being called racists try and argue that there is no such thing or that the word has no meaning.
Topic's author
#13
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Sum1hugme
"Superior," in the way you're using it here, is  limited to analysis of one advantage in one environment. That's hardly tantamount to overall racial superiority. 
I 100% agree.

However, if we take another example such as I.Q. (the proxy for intelligence), when someone says that the White I.Q. is higher than African American I.Q., what is sometimes the reaction? Have you never heard someone call someone "racist" for stating this fact?

Topic's author
#14
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I don't mean to veer off-topic but I think racists don't follow a contest of ideas. In other words, I think they don't adequatly participate in reasoning their belief from a list of possible racial differences. I believe they are more likely to be affected by experience. For example, if a pair of terrorists blew up someone's house, I believe the victim has a greater chance of being a vengeful racist than a person who spends his free time by contesting the different ideas of race.
So by "racists", I'm going to assume you mean 'people who dislike/hate people with different skin colors'.

I agree that people, on the whole, aren't going to develop a disliking/hatred for others based on scientific papers and macrosocietal analysis. As you've said, they could have had a bad experience or two. 

I also think there is perhaps an innate level of disliking for other races. That's why countries, such as Jordan, are by one metric (not wanting a neighbor of a different race) quite disliking of other races despite being 98% Arab Jordan - Wikipedia MAP of the Most and Least Racist Countries - Notice Anything STRANGE? (thefederalistpapers.org) However, you have other countries, such as Australia and Canada, whilst being ethnically diverse, have a lot of tolerance for other races (implying they will interact with other races far more frequently). Of course, this is only one metric, but I could garner others in a dedicated thread to this topic.
#15
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Mesmer
So you think that black people have a lower iq than white people? just making sure.
#16
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Mesmer
What reson do you think whites have higher IQ
Topic's author
#17
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@drlebronski
So you think that black people have a lower iq than white people?
I know this.

What reson do you think whites have higher IQ
Just to be clear, I specifically said "African Americans", rather than just black people, but other black-colored racial groups (Pygmies, Bantus, West Indians, Australian Aborigines etc.) have lower I.Q. than Whites. Due to space and time constraints, I'll specifically address African American and White I.Q. here.

One of the best resources for African American I.Q. is this document which is a meta-analysis of 57 studies: 100 years of Testing Negro Intelligence – Human Varieties . It details 100 years of testing African American (what it calls "negro") intelligence, up to around 2012. African American I.Q. has always been tested to be roughly 85, relative to White being set at 100.

I'll also add that I've seen one instance wherein African American I.Q. was superior to White I.Q., and that was African Americans who earned Emancipation during the slavery era (101 to 100). Keep in mind this is roughly 10% of African Americans, which is roughly the expected result of a standard I.Q. deviation from African American I.Q. (i.e. going from the 85 I.Q. to 101). I can re-word that if it isn't clear.

Otherwise, every study I have ever encountered has shown that White I.Q. is superior to African American I.Q.
#18
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Mesmer
but why do think there is a disparity

#19
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,460
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
In short: You're confusing the term nonsense with Mesmer dislikes. If the word "racism" were nonsense, no one would have a clue what you're talking about.

Your claims are as non sequitur as someone declaring "Guild Wars 2" is nonsense.  Said person might dislike that video game, but the words and concepts tied Guild Wars 2 are quite capable of being understood. If it's the worst video game in history, and its very name "should be considered malicious" would not render said name nonsense.


As you've clearly demonstrated, racism conveys a clear intelligible idea (an idea to which you state that you agree with on principle, even if not picking one that is on aggregate superior).
"Racism" is nebulous and cannot be described in an internally consistent way that maps onto its application in reality
It is done quite easily, and by your own definition. That you don't like the term being generally negative, has nothing to do with paradigms of racism being consistent to the definition. Even using more broad definitions, said paradigms are still accurately encapsulated.


As for why it's a negative term... The fault for that lies at the feet of many proud racists over the years. That you know what I am talking about with reference, again disproves your premise
...when researchers and scientists are also labeled "racist" for producing their sound work, and hand-waved away as being racist, this is where the term goes from being intelligible to being a malicious nonsensical weapon.
I have no interest in sitting through your two hour video. Let me guess, someone was called a racist and booed? Again, this only further supports that the word is not nonsense, since we all understand the connection of said booing to the accusation of racism. If he were attacked because "jabberwasky" one minute, and "blarg" the next, then you would have him being attacked over nonsense (it'd be rather like a toxic Among Us lobby).


You can call racism by any euphemism, and in time it will get tainted again by the many racists who preach mass murder in the name of it.
I'm making a distinction between genuine racial hatred and a nonsensical, malicious attack on science.
That you disagree with the attacks and call them malicious, does not connect to the term being nonsense. Said attacks could not be organized if no one knew what racism meant.


As for the notion that one broad group of people could be determined to be on balance genetically better than all others: it would be a subjective measurement, which would almost certainly overlook the value of variety.
I think most people can agree that having more intelligence is better than having less. I think most people can agree that being taller is superior to being shorter. I think most people can agree that being more physically attractive is superior to being less physically attractive.
As seen above: "it would be a subjective measurement, which would almost certainly overlook the value of variety."

I enjoy being taller, but if I were too tall I would have related heart problems. Height is only better relative to some given task; while I am able to lift things off the top shelf more easily than a short person, they can get the bottom more easily; working together with those who are different leads to greater utility.

Simplifying this down on just intelligence: imagine a society made up primarily of copies of the greatest genius: With that staggering intellect, he's unhappily forced to engage in every low intellect trade to keep the society going, thereby making it torture. Of course on this I do not speak of racism, but Rickism.
#20
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Mesmer
However, if we take another example such as I.Q. (the proxy for intelligence), when someone says that the White I.Q. is higher than African American I.Q
why do you use a specific set of outdated frameworks to measure a multifaceted and subjective notion such as intelligence
#21
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Mesmer
So by "racists", I'm going to assume you mean 'people who dislike/hate people with different skin colors'.
Yes.

...that's why countries, such as Jordan, are by one metric (not wanting a neighbor of a different race) quite disliking of other races despite being 98% Arab Jordan - Wikipedia MAP of the Most and Least Racist Countries - Notice Anything STRANGE? (thefederalistpapers.org) However, you have other countries, such as Australia and Canada, whilst being ethnically diverse, have a lot of tolerance for other races (implying they will interact with other races far more frequently). Of course, this is only one metric, but I could garner others in a dedicated thread to this topic.
I think those "others" include factors which are region-specific. The source you mentioned is using a useful metric, enough to know the general trend of racism but not the specific reasons for it. I think one of the specific reasons why an arab would act racist towards a non-arab has more to do with islam and its close ties to the arab culture. For example, Qatar had provoked the international community about its abusive treatment of muslim labor workers from non-arab countries. I think these factors are ultimately region-specific. I don't know much about the west's racial tolerance. I do maintain that experience has more influence on any kind of racism.
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
I am Caucasian by definition, but sweat freely.  Does that make me a racist?

Though, am I racist because I am not Korean.


No.

Racism is about unreasonably discriminating on the basis of perceivable difference, and not about ones particular propensity to perspire.

Everyone discriminates internally but not everyone allows their internal judgements to manifest externally.


For sure, there is currently a whole lot of malicious PC racism going on....But that's largely  based upon the possibility of a cash reward.....Fraud.


Interestingly my wife sweats very little....So does that suggest that she is Korean?
#23
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
Therefore, the "behavioral trait" of sweating allows African-Americans to be superior to Koreans in one way (two groups that are divided phenotypically, of which manifests in different "physical appearance[s]"), in regards to living in hotter environments. For "racism" to denote this scientific fact as negative should be considered malicious.
Sweating is not a behavioral trait, it is an involuntary physical reaction.
Topic's author
#24
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@drlebronski
why do you use a specific set of outdated frameworks to measure a multifaceted and subjective notion such as intelligence
I don't agree with any of the assumptions in this sentence. Please show:

(1) that it is a outdated framework (and why that would matter)
(2) that the g factor is, in itself, multifaceted (that it does anything but act as an intelligence metric)
(3) that intelligence is subjective

Topic's author
#25
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@rbelivb
Sweating is not a behavioral trait, it is an involuntary physical reaction.
I am arguing that 'behavioral trait', in this instance, doesn't have to be voluntary. Unless 'behavioral trait' is in every circumstance 'involuntary' (even your source doesn't agree with you: "In humans, behavioral traits are often learned rather than instinctive" (i.e. often means not always)), then you can't make this absolutist argument.
Topic's author
#26
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Barney
In short: You're confusing the term nonsense with Mesmer dislikes. If the word "racism" were nonsense, no one would have a clue what you're talking about.
No.

I'll provide a more thorough deconstruction of the term.

If "racist" meant only people who showed/had racial animosity to others, purely because of their race, I can agree with this sensical usage of "racist". It is intelligible. It is also part of the current "racist" definition that people commonly use. We agree on this.

However, "racist" isn't wholly that definition. It also has a nonsensical part which conflates racial animosity with mere mention of race. For example, when the notion of races having different I.Qs is brought up, as you guessed was in the J.P Rushton and David Suzuki debate, Rushton's research is dismissed out of hand because it is "racist", NOT because it flawed. You could argue that the research is wrong, that Rushton had racial animosity himself, but the arguments he posited themselves cannot be "racist" their function is to find truth (i.e. what are the various I.Qs of human races). THAT's the nonsense -- labelling scientific claims about race as racial animosity. THAT is not intelligible. 

Now, just so this distinction is crystal clear, **if** people were to go on and say that well, because Whites have superior I.Q. to African Americans, we should kick African Americans out of America, that is racial animosity as embodies the sensical part of the definition for "racist". If we stop one short of that, if we just say that Whites have superior I.Q. to African Americans, then this doesn't demonstrate racial animosity.

Let's take a different, practical example. Let's say we saw a Jew carrying shopping bags down the street. I see the Jew's knees shaking, the bags wobbling all over the place, and so I say, "That Jew is struggling to carry those bags". Yes, that's not a positive thing to say, but it's what I deem to be the truth. Now, you could turn around and say, "You must hate Jews. You are racist." So, functionally, we've turned a non-positive empirical description into something that is ascribed as having racial animosity which axiomatically cannot be truthful, if we use the term "racist" there. So: perceived truth =/= ever truth, is what we get when we use the term "racist" in that way, which I hope you can see as nonsense.

Again, for clarity, **some** of the definition of "racist" IS intelligible and something I can agree with you on. However, not **all** of the definition is intelligible, and thus this renders the definition nonsense.

Hopefully that is clear now.

I enjoy being taller, but if I were too tall I would have related heart problems. Height is only better relative to some given task; while I am able to lift things off the top shelf more easily than a short person, they can get the bottom more easily; working together with those who are different leads to greater utility.
Within your first sentence, you're already starting to objectivize how tall someone should be: "but if I were too tall...". Clearly, even if only subconsciously, you already agree that certain heights are better than others.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but height plays a major role in what people subconsciously think of you, and thus correlates with desirable life outcomes. Height effects your ability: to attract a sexual partner (especially for men), ability to play most sports, ability to move up faster at corporate jobs (only minor correlation to be fair), ability to instantly garner respect of people (for the most part), ability to be seen as a leader etc. Happy to provide sources if need be.

Therefore, I think we can safely say that having more height (to an extent, as you've indicated) is more desirable -- it isn't all subjective.

Simplifying this down on just intelligence: imagine a society made up primarily of copies of the greatest genius: With that staggering intellect, he's unhappily forced to engage in every low intellect trade to keep the society going, thereby making it torture. Of course on this I do not speak of racism, but Rickism.
We know the real world outcomes of top-end intelligences with people like Terence Tao (I.Q. 230), Marilyn Vos Savant (I.Q. 228) and Christopher Hirata (I.Q. 225) who aren't being tortured by boredom, but are instead flourishing in life Here Is The Highest Possible IQ And The People Who Hold The World Record | Science Trends . So, for now, more intelligence is better for the top-end people, and for the average Joe, surely you agree that they would benefit from more intelligence. So, objectively, more intelligence is currently better for everyone.

I'll assume you agree that being physically more attractive is desirable, given that you didn't address it.

Anyway, my overall point is that most people can agree that having certain traits or better traits is desirable, and your 'everything is subjective' spin isn't congruent with reality. Therefore, it remains possible to select for positive human traits (e.g. higher I.Q.), and then determine which race of humans are genetically better than others.

#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
As you exemplified above, neither certain traits nor better traits, are necessarily perfect traits....In fact, certain traits can be profoundly undesirable.

Desirability  would seem to depend  as much upon the circumstance, as it does upon the trait itself. 


And better at what?

Wherein do you see the necessity for a specific betterness?

I would suggest, technological development.


I would also suggest that a diverse gene pool is always beneficial.

Pedigrees have a tendency to develop genetic flaws.
#28
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
I am arguing that 'behavioral trait', in this instance, doesn't have to be voluntary. Unless 'behavioral trait' is in every circumstance 'involuntary' (even your source doesn't agree with you: "In humans, behavioral traits are often learned rather than instinctive" (i.e. often means not always)), then you can't make this absolutist argument.
An instinctive action is not the same as an automatic biological process - such as growing hair or the beating of the heart. It is not controversial that the skin of different races has different biological traits.
#29
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,460
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
#30
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Mesmer
(1) that it is a outdated framework (and why that would matter)
the creator the the IQ test
literally
doesnt value the IQ test



(3) that intelligence is subjective
there is no empirical standard for intelligence
there never has been one
there never will be one
animals are seen to be incredibly unintelligent compared to humans
but that is due to certain applications of frameworks
those of which being incomplete, you cant exactly put faith in a framework thats trying to measure something with no many causes, factors, processes,
especially without the understanding of intelligence or medical/scientific  approaches of sophisticated value that we just dont have
and also to be subjective just means that there is no objective truth to it
one person can consider foraging in early anprim societies
to be insanely intelligent
compared to how humans now even with technology and rapid scientific testing/scientific method
still believe anti-vax for example
does any of that not make sense