Race Realism: Critical understandings

1. Do not address me as "big boy."

2. Your nonsense about race is unpersuasive.  For example, you linked a blog that is non-responsive to what I wrote written by an individual who lacks familiarity with the subject matters on which he opines.  To illustrate this point: I reviewed some of his other writings.  He clearly does not understand such basic concepts as psychometric testing, and yet purports to use data he doesn't understand to argue a point that is over his head.

You further tried to make a point about skull shape.  That point was incoherent, and non-responsive to what I wrote. Google the term "phrenology," and consider whether arguing with me over skull shapes is an efficacious use of your time. 

3.  Your comment that "If that's too complicated for you" will surely result in me not taking you or anything else you have to say seriously.  That is particularly where, as here, you have been taken for a ride by a series of ideas that are devoid of any kind of scientific or other evidentiary basis.

It's not even clear you can correctly repeat what, for example, Murray wrote on race and IQ; much less understand how Murray's methods were wrong, why or on what grounds.  

To wit, exactly nothing you have put forward can be taken seriously.

To wit, exactly nothing you have put forward can be taken seriously.

Yep. You've already ad hommed me in this thread, which you should be able to find.

You don't understand race realism to such an egregious extent that you don't realize you're already a race realist, despite attempting to argue against it.

My God dude, grow up. You clearly do not understand what an ad hominem is. I never argued that your claims are invalid because you are a racist, I never even called you a racist. I implied that racism is the overwhelming driver of this conversation and challenged you to explain how and why I am wrong by providing some other reason this conversation matters. All you did was complain that I'm calling you names.

That's because your definition of race realism is probably the most pointless thing I've ever seen discussed on this site. There will always be differences between races because no two human beings are exactly alike, so those differences I described will always apply to any group of any kind that could ever be put together. Even if you separate a bunch of twins and create two separate teams out of them you will still have differences among them, so what is the point of talking about this? Please explain how we get from this to any policy discussion.

You've implied that my argument is wrong because

You implied that my argument was invalid because

**if** certain racial groups had better abilities (say Jewish people with 108 I.Q. being better able to comprehend the written word -- you don't have to agree that this is true), would it be a good idea to attempt to account for that in policy?

**if** certain racial groups had better abilities (say Jewish people with 108 I.Q. being better able to comprehend the written word -- you don't have to agree that this is true), would it be a good idea to attempt to account for that in policy?

No.

I’ve never seen a convincing argument against race realism, because there isn’t one. I would like someone who denies any significant differences between human populations to explain, for example, why 79 of the last 80 100 meter dash finalists at the last ten Olympics were of African ancestry 

Is there any racial difference that, in your mind, should ever be accounted for through policy? Like if a certain racial group was far more prone to a certain disease, or a certain racial group excelled in a particular field? Or should these racial differences be totally ignored in policy?

They should be ignored. If say, African Americans are more prone to a particular type of disease, then that gives us an indication as to where the resources to fight that disease are likely to be needed. We don’t create a policy to fight the disease for African Americans in a way we would deny anyone else who comes down with the same illness.

This is exactly what happened with COVID, and in many cases we sent more resources to black communities. That’s not a racial issue, we did the same thing for seniors. Any group we recognize as being more likely to be in need of a resource will be more likely to have those resources available.

This is distinct though from policy. Policy is a proactive conversation, this is reactive. The policy says we’re going to fight COVID for everyone, the method figures out how to do that so we all have an equal chance of getting through it with our health in tact.

With the China example I gave, you can still have lactose products for sale, but clearly they need to indicate that they have lactose, otherwise the majority lactose intolerant population is going to be sick. How would such a policy, based on race, be "arbitrary?"

I would be behind the “don’t talk about it” position if our political culture wasn’t enthusiastically pointing out every single metric of inequality as proof of racism and scapegoating white people as the culprit.

Q1: Do you believe white people are largely responsible for the racial disparity within our society

Racial differences in humans are entirely cultural. No significant biological differences exist. The minor superficial cosmetic differences are not enough to categorize any difference taxinomicaly.

That’s crazy because sprinting is basically pure physicality, and people of African descent but from all cultural backgrounds (Africa, Britain, United States, Caribbean) dominate the sport. I know we agree on this but it’s just so laughable that it needs to be said 

I would be behind the “don’t talk about it” position if our political culture wasn’t enthusiastically pointing out every single metric of inequality as proof of racism and scapegoating white people as the culprit. There’s a reason that in such a “systemically racist” country Asian people do extremely well (even though they *actually* face extremely well documented discrimination in university admissions and probably job hirings.) Culture has a lot to do with it, but pretending like the tens of thousands of years of different selective pressures resulting in different cognitive abilities has nothing to do with it is just crazy 

These differences are entirely cosmetic.

Because race has nothing to do with it. Even if you can find an established correlation between races on lactose, that still has no place in government policy. The policy would be aimed at *people* who are lactose, not at people who share genetic traits with others who are lactose.

i will call you a racist that's not an ad hominem

there are differences in races i dont deny that but these are mainly insignificant

you cannot use small genetic differences like some being more prone to sweat more

do you think people shouldnt be able have children with chinese people because of lactose intolerance? what a joke dude

I don't think he's saying that in post #53.

I think he's saying that the genetic makeup of a people, effect their actions/policies.

And making his case towards his OP claim race realism, or recognition of differences.

If your race on average has: lower I.Q., lower impulse control, greater likelihood to have debilitating genes (for civilizations) like the MAO-A 'warrior gene', you're going to have worse modern societies on average. We can see this when we look at countries with majority Africans and the bottom of worldwide HDI index is full of African countries List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia . Mexico does way better, but it's still middling at #74. The top 30 countries are majority White, Asian or Jewish.