Race Realism is not an attack on dignity

Author: TheMorningsStar

Posts

Total: 84
Topic's author
#1
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
Why do critics of Race Realism frame the idea as inherently attacking the dignity of people based on race?

So often I find people criticize Race Realism by trying to tie it as inherently racist in nature, but I do not see why. When science discusses that men are, on average, more aggressive than women, or women are, on average, more empathetic than men it is not seen as inherently sexist, nor is it seen as justification for sexism. It is understood that just because men and women are different in some aspects that it doesn't change the moral value of the individual, the dignity of the sexes is not in threat.

However, when people try to talk about how people of different races might be, on average, different due, in part, to nature it is seen as inherently racist, an attack on the moral value of the individual, etc.

Why does this happen? If Race Realism is true it does not follow that any race is morally of greater importance, it just means that there are differences. It doesn't justify racism, just like differences between men and women doesn't justify sexism. Yet that is consistently brought up by many who oppose the idea of Race Realism.

So why is this so often brought up as if there is an inherent link?
#2
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I think you should start by defining Race Realism.

WIKTIONARY defines

RACE REALISM

  1. (euphemistic) Synonym of scientific racism
Mirriam-Webster and Encyclopedia Britannica don't have definitions for the term.

WIKIPEDIA defines

RACE REALISM

Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.   Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific.  Dividing humankind into biologically distinct groups is sometimes called racialism, RACE REALISM, or race science by its proponents. Modern scientific consensus rejects this view as being irreconcilable with modern genetic research.

The last guy I ran into on this site that used this "race realism" terminology used IQ to claim that the average sub-Saharan black person is mentally retarded- that is, he considered whole nations of people unable to care for themselves or perform basic life skills based on skin color- which is essentially an argument against basic human and national sovereignty based on skin color.  His sources argued that African-Americans were more functional but only because White people raped the smarts into slaves.  I have to admit the argument bore no resemblance to my experiences with sub-Saharan Blacks and African-Americans and seemed to me inherently an argument for superiority/inferiority by phenotype even though the guy claimed to be offended by any such inference.

So before we even get into criticism of the concept, it looks to me like the concept itself is defined as racism by another name.   Do you define the term differently than the dictionaries and encyclopedias do?  Do you have some kind of established academic source that backs your definition of the term as opposed to dictionaries and encyclopedias?
#3
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I think it depends. If you’re talking about things like sickle cell anemia, inability to process alcohol, prevalence of lactose intolerance, or rates of skin cancer; no one cares.

If you try and assert broad causal relationships between race and various social factors; because there is some limited correlation between the two - then use this tenuous association to imply inferiority in order to justify the existence of broad and longstanding inequality - not so much.


Indeed; a big part of gender realism is about specifying which aspects of gender are really down to biological differences, vs a product of being taught, brought up and treated as a given gender - so appropriate allowances can be made in social, economic and educational policy to best support all black citizens meeting their potential; I think most people could buy into that - but it never is.

It’s almost invariably about justifying inaction on inequality under the pretence that current outcomes are fine because black people have some fundamental limitations. Which sure as f**k is an attack on dignity.




Topic's author
#4
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@oromagi
I think you should start by defining Race Realism.
Race Realism is essentially metaphysical realism applied to race, and that there are different races. The idea that 'race is a social construct' almost always stems from a sort of metaphysical anti-realism.

In another sense, it is the idea that some of the difference in outcomes between races stems from real qualities about nature. Look at the world's best sprinters, for example. Regardless of the culture they are raised in (aka, a variety of nurture elements) there is a tendency for one particular race to be "over-represented" among these world class sprinters.

This is not to say that nurture does not play a role, but that one cannot ignore nature. As such, using statistics of 'outcomes' to determine policy (when attempting to make a fair equality of opportunity) is flawed if you do not account for the nature elements. How much nature is an influence would be something that needs to be studied.

Do you have some kind of established academic source that backs your definition of the term as opposed to dictionaries and encyclopedias?
Off the top of my head, I can think of Dr. Steven Pinker. He has been very clear that one should not use 'the realities of racial differences' as justification for racism. He is an academic that has stood by Race Realism for quite some time now, that such differences does not lead to being able to make moral judgements. He also tends to feel like nurture plays a much more insignificant role than I think is justified, but he does so by using studies with twins, siblings, adoptions, etc.
#5
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Your response is under the presumption that it is a false idea.

Let's step into the realm of the hypothetical for a moment: let's say that we prove that the IQ gap between races are 100% biological (exaggerating for the purpose of clarity). Intelligence is known to be a very strong predictor of success in life.

How would you respond? Would you get rid of affirmative action? Do more of it? What kinds of policies would you propose since you say that this idea of race realism is used as a justification for not doing something?
#6
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
The following is from an article by Gavin Evans:

One of the strangest ironies of our time is that a body of thoroughly debunked “science” is being revived by people who claim to be defending truth against a rising tide of ignorance. The idea that certain races are inherently more intelligent than others is being trumpeted by a small group of anthropologists, IQ researchers, psychologists and pundits who portray themselves as noble dissidents, standing up for inconvenient facts. Through a surprising mix of fringe and mainstream media sources, these ideas are reaching a new audience, which regards them as proof of the superiority of certain races.
The claim that there is a link between race and intelligence is the main tenet of what is known as “race science” or, in many cases, “scientific racism”. Race scientists claim there are evolutionary bases for disparities in social outcomes – such as life expectancy, educational attainment, wealth, and incarceration rates – between racial groups. In particular, many of them argue that black people fare worse than white people because they tend to be less naturally intelligent.

Although race science has been repeatedly debunked by scholarly research, in recent years it has made a comeback. Many of the keenest promoters of race science today are stars of the “alt-right”, who like to use pseudoscience to lend intellectual justification to ethno-nationalist politics. If you believe that poor people are poor because they are inherently less intelligent, then it is easy to leap to the conclusion that liberal remedies, such as affirmative action or foreign aid, are doomed to fail.
#7
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If, by race realism, you mean that there are obvious physical traits which are expressed by the various groups of people on Earth, then, yes, I agree, it is real. But, my response is: so what? Why can't we just celebrate our variety of physical expressions and stop trying to determine if we are all children of God. I believe we are, and in that matter, on absolutely equal footing with one another by every measure that exists. For example, why does the Census care by what race we identify? Are not all infrastructures of service to all? Then why does Uncle Sam care what you are as a different entity than me? I don't care.

As for the Census, I am a nose, and that's all that the government needs to know. Count it. Period. It has access to birth records, so it already knows my age, gender, and other germane qualities that define me for all the government cares. Makes for an easy Census form.

If you mean something else, happy trails, but I'll not join your walkathon.
#8
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@949havoc
It has access to birth records, so it already knows my age, gender, and other germane qualities that define me for all the government cares. Makes for an easy Census form.

But the census also asks for where you live, and they cannot surmise that from your birth certificate. That helps count population to allocate electoral votes.

That, and all the social security checks that go to dead people show that they wouldn't accurately know when to stop counting you in the census.
#9
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@bmdrocks21
I file a tax return every year that contains my name, address, ss#, my spouse and dependents, by name, if any, their ss#, so they have all the info they need from that annual document. Anything else?

It is the responsibility of each surviving executor of the estate of the dead to file their death certificate to stop SS payments. There are already in place the means to know when the dead die, and we carry that responsibility.

Face it,  the Census asks too many questions that are otherwise answered. Let the government clean its house of inter-communication. They've had 230 years of practice.


#10
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,068
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@bmdrocks21
Your response is under the presumption that it is a false idea.
As you pointed out Ramshutu and Orogami, two objectively very intelligent people, didn't actually present any argument against race realism, but instead presented arguments about why we shouldn't discuss race realism. You can tell that many liberals secretly believe that race realism/human biodiversity is real because they form a taboo around discussing the issue. Taboos and euphemisms typically form not because people are convinced of their positions, but because they are afraid of/ashamed of their own true beliefs which are not the beliefs they publicly proclaim. The point is often made that the differences between groups are cultural, but there is never any discussion about how to change cultures. Black Americans are shrinking as a percentage of the population, yet their share of violent crimes, largely inflicted upon each other, continues to grow (13/50 has become 12/57 now.) Around half of black babies are aborted. Clearly this is a culture in severe distress, but the leftist response is always to either make the subject taboo or to blame white people for the problems. Neither of these, of course, address the issue in any way. 

The funny thing is I'm actually less convinced of race realism than many liberals probably are, in their heart of hearts. I believe in a soft form of it, that what we consider to be "race" is socially constructed but genes are not distributed evenly between "races", so some of the differences we see are definitely genetic. But culture and environment together account for at least 50%, from what I've seen.
#11
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@oromagi
I think you should start by defining Race Realism.

WIKTIONARY defines

RACE REALISM

  1. (euphemistic) Synonym of scientific racism
"Racism" is a nonsense term, so this definition should be rejected: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com) .

WIKIPEDIA defines

RACE REALISM

Scientific racism
Again, "racism" is a nonsense term, so that's a non-starter.

The last guy I ran into on this site that used this "race realism" terminology used IQ to claim that the average sub-Saharan black person is mentally retarded- that is, he considered whole nations of people unable to care for themselves or perform basic life skills based on skin color- which is essentially an argument against basic human and national sovereignty based on skin color.
"The last guy" actually argues that they can take care of themselves, just not in a complicated context. Pygmies having 55 IQ makes them unable to trade stocks, operate toasters, use calculus etc. They can take care of themselves in a nomadic/hunter-gatherer sense, though. 

I just thought I'd correct you on what "the last guy" said.

His sources argued that African-Americans were more functional but only because White people raped the smarts into slaves. 
The last guy never said this.

If you think otherwise, you should directly quote the last guy.

I have to admit the argument bore no resemblance to my experiences with sub-Saharan Blacks and African-Americans and seemed to me inherently an argument for superiority/inferiority by phenotype even though the guy claimed to be offended by any such inference.
Who cares lol.

Data should be preferred over your nearly worthless anecdotes.

The last guy must have given your shitlib false narratives a big enough whack for you to come here crying like this hahaha.

So before we even get into criticism of the concept, it looks to me like the concept itself is defined as racism by another name.   Do you define the term differently than the dictionaries and encyclopedias do?  Do you have some kind of established academic source that backs your definition of the term as opposed to dictionaries and encyclopedias?
Racism is a nonsense term.

You need to deal with that before you're worth listening to on this topic.

Otherwise you should be quiet, before the last guy comes back and embarrasses you again.
#12
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
If you try and assert broad causal relationships between race and various social factors; because there is some limited correlation between the two - then use this tenuous association to imply inferiority in order to justify the existence of broad and longstanding inequality - not so much.
Yeah dude.

55 IQ is functionally the same as 140 IQ.

Saying otherwise is a real "tenuous association" with "limited correlation".

Nice dude.

Indeed; a big part of gender realism is about specifying which aspects of gender are really down to biological differences, vs a product of being taught, brought up and treated as a given gender - so appropriate allowances can be made in social, economic and educational policy to best support all black citizens meeting their potential; I think most people could buy into that - but it never is.
The average Black person's intellectual "potential" is lower of that than Whites, Asians, Hispanics and Jews, so those "appropriate allowances" need to be pretty large xD

It’s almost invariably about justifying inaction on inequality under the pretence that current outcomes are fine because black people have some fundamental limitations. Which sure as f**k is an attack on dignity.
You're such a bs artist LOL.

"Fundamental limitations" meaning higher real crime rates, lower IQ, lower ability for self-control, lower verbal ability, higher rates of MAOA genes etc? Is that what you mean by the supremely generous euphemism of "fundamental limitations?"

HAHAHAHAHAHA
Topic's author
#13
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
A clip of Dr. Steven Pinker arguing that racism is not justified under race realism:

There are, of course, more aspects of this argument not in the clip. It is just a segment that quickly goes over it.
Topic's author
#14
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@thett3
The funny thing is I'm actually less convinced of race realism than many liberals probably are, in their heart of hearts. I believe in a soft form of it, that what we consider to be "race" is socially constructed but genes are not distributed evenly between "races", so some of the differences we see are definitely genetic. But culture and environment together account for at least 50%, from what I've seen.
This honestly speaks to what my main issues with so many proponents and critics of race realism is.
So many critics try and have all differences boil down to aspects of nurture, so many proponents try and have all differences boil down to aspects of nature.
It is all one or all the other, so few are willing to say that both nature and nurture play a role.
The question is how much does nature play a role in comparison to nurture? How much would it impact statistics of outcome? The problem is that this type of research would never get funding because it isn't politically correct to even suggest that nature might play a role in the first place.
#15
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@thett3
@TheMorningsStar
Can you give me examples of observations within 'race realism' and proponents of it that aren't racist?

One thing I have an issue with is that it's called 'race realism' as opposed to 'ethnic observations'. The reason I have an issue with 'race' as opposed to 'ethnic' is that you are pooling everyone of the same race into one category, that always will lead to irrational racism that ignores environmental causes for common traits. On the other hand, the reason I have an issue with 'realism' is that it is not only arrogant but doesn't make clear what the thing is. If it's just observations, there'd be no reason to need to call it that unless you were some edgy racist trying to prove a society wrong that loathed racism.
#16
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
Can you give me examples of observations within 'race realism' and proponents of it that aren't racist?
They shouldn't be able to do this because "racist" is a nonsense term.

If they answer based on your usage of this nonsense term, they're guessing at what you mean, rather than knowing.

You need to specify what you mean by "racist".

Are you attempting to refer to racial hatred? Are you attempting to refer to racial bias? Are you attempting to refer to people who advocate for certain race's genocide? Who knows what you're referring to.

Stop using nonsense language so that people can understand what you're referring to.
#17
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I don't think ill be able to answer your OP, but I understood what you mean by race realism. I acknowledge that there are racial differences. I have only one reservation: exceptions to the fact. Sure, lots of people say black people are athletes, but where black people are scarce (especially where I grew up or the city I'm studying in), they generally make better academic peers than local ones. Not to mention, they're also way better writers than most local authors; they're more creative in their language expression. Writing isn't an aggressive or violent profession so I see no reason to accept such weird stereotypes. Then again, I don't live in the west.

On a personal level, I do relate with exceptions. I have more empathy than most women. Sure, men are introspective about their emotions but if you actually study them closely, men can be exceptionally deep in their feelings. Women may hold a monopoly when it comes to feelings and parenthood, but I believe that these stereotypes bear no relation to reality other than, perhaps, a comfortable "social cushion" for people to rest their heads on. Exceptions exist and I see them as a reason to reject race realism.  
#18
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Are you attempting to refer to racial hatred? Are you attempting to refer to racial bias? Are you attempting to refer to people who advocate for certain race's genocide? Who knows what you're referring to.
Racism is an overall term that includes everything you referred to. Similar to how the term 'mathematics' has algebra, calculus, trigonometry, statistics, mechanics etc.

Stop using nonsense language so that people can understand what you're referring to.
Dear Mesmer, go back to school and ask your teacher to remind you of the R-section in the dictionary.

While you're looking up 'racism' look up the term 'respect' and learn to pay some to those you deal with.
#19
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@thett3
And I doubt I will get a straightforward answer, assuming I get a response at all.

I think you’re right. He probably does believe that there are racial differences and he doesn’t want to stake a position that he would have to hold.

Usually when forced to concede, they start blaming culture. Obviously that is a factor, but even then no nuance is added. They still blame the entire difference on either racism or poverty caused by racism.

It seems like the people who bash creationism have their own blind spot: they at least pretend to think that groups that were separated for hundreds of thousands of years under vastly different environments led all groups to turn out exactly the same in terms of ability to achieve under a capitalist meritocracy. Now that would be nothing short of a “miracle”, especially considering that children with the same parents don’t even achieve equally.
Topic's author
#20
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@RationalMadman
Can you give me examples of observations within 'race realism' and proponents of it that aren't racist?
Dr. Steven pinker is obviously not a racist, and he takes the view that there are genetic differences between races that lead to different outcomes via nature. One of the things he points out is that Jews, regardless of where they live in the world, tend to have higher average intellect than the population around them, and he attributes this, in part, to genetics.

One thing I have an issue with is that it's called 'race realism' as opposed to 'ethnic observations'.
I do not know why it was called such initially, but I think the term gained traction as a counter to the 'race is a social construct' argument that people make.
The whole 'race is a social construct' argument tends to be that differences between races that are observed are due to social and cultural reasons, and that 'race' itself is something that is constructed by society.
Race realism, on the other hand, holds that there is a real component behind 'race' and that differences can, in part, be attributed to this real component.

To me, it seems almost like a parallel of the debate on metaphysical realism vs anti-realism.
Race realism ultimately stems from a type of metaphysical realism applied to 'race'. So, to me it makes sense that it is called Race Realism.
The whole 'race is a social construct', on the other hand, almost always stems from social constructivism, which stems from a form of anti-realism (that isn't to say there haven't been attempts at moving constructivism into the realm of realism, just that none of these attempts have been particularly convincing).
#21
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
So let’s start out with addressing something important; the people suggesting race realism, often put forth pseudoscience implying that some small correlations are indicative of causation for things like this.

Right now; there’s is no indication whatsoever that race is even a substantial component in determining what your ultimate IQ is; and yet a lot of individuals are still making that argument and pretending as if these claims are somehow rooted in science.

Regardless of what any biological component of IQ ends up being; this form of argument, built on this type of premise is still clearly unreasonable. Which was my point.


The first issue with your question is that we know the premise isn’t valid. While we don’t know all the inherent genetic factors that predispose intelligence, we do know there is a vast array of genes in involved, and substantial impact of environment in its determination. So we know that whatever the racial gap is right now; we know it isn’t what any definitive racial gap is in the future.

Now; if it turns out that due to immutable biological factors of a given race, some policy can’t work - I think that’s a good reason not to have that policy: but there are so many impractical ifs implicitly involved. For example; there would have to be an implicit genetic issue that is determinative of IQ: rather than giving a predisposition towards IQ - it must be immutable, in that a given intelligence cannot be attained by changing environmental factors; it must be determinable - so one doesn’t simply assume that an underachiever is underachieving because they have the wrong genetic disposition, as opposed to other environmental factors.

The final issue is that various “success” indicators and IQ being fundamentally linked is one example of assuming correlation is causation. While I could probably buy into the claim that no amount of training or learning will make me the next Einstein; and that levels of IQ has an impact on profession and thus earnings; but I don’t think it’s even close to a given that there is a causal link between IQ and things such as criminality, etc, as opposed to sharing broad correlating environmental factors.


Or to summarize; you missed the point, and your question as three inherent premises I don’t think are valid.
#22
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@thett3
As you pointed out Ramshutu and Orogami, two objectively very intelligent people, didn't actually present any argument against race realism, but instead presented arguments about why we shouldn't discuss race realism
While not phrased explicitly in these terms, I pointed out:

If you try and assert broad causal relationships between race and various social factors; because there is some limited correlation between the two - then use this tenuous association to imply inferiority in order to justify the existence of broad and longstanding inequality - not so much.
At this time, “race realism” as its currently presented by multiple individuals and organizations is primarily a pseudoscientific (and above I broadly explain the why) attempt to justify those groups own prejudice, rather than an honest attempt to determine what aspects of our genes and environment are responsible for our ability to succeed; and how do they differ between different groups. 

As I kinda said at the end; the issue with me specifically is not that such actual differences are impossible, or should not be discussed; but that those who promote this form of race realism aren’t actually doing that.


Or in other words; those who are advancing “race realism”, are trying to piss on people’s heads and tell them it’s raining,

Explicitly objecting to that approach, and explicitly calling them out in it does not imply or suggest that I am adverse to talking meteorology, or trying to argue rain cannot exist.
#23
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Dr. Steven pinker is obviously not a racist, and he takes the view that there are genetic differences between races that lead to different outcomes via nature. One of the things he points out is that Jews, regardless of where they live in the world, tend to have higher average intellect than the population around them, and he attributes this, in part, to genetics.
After reading the University of Utah paper, Harry Ostrer, who headed New York University’s human genetics programme, took the opposite view to Steven Pinker: “It’s bad science – not because it’s provocative, but because it’s bad genetics and bad epidemiology.”
Ten years ago, our grasp of the actual science was firm enough for Craig Venter, the American biologist who led the private effort to decode the human genome, to respond to claims of a link between race and intelligence by declaring: “There is no basis in scientific fact or in the human genetic code for the notion that skin colour will be predictive of intelligence.”
#24
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I do not at all agree that Dr. Pinker isn't an obvious racist but what I'd agree is he's what seems to be a less severe one. I do find that there's justifiable reasoning behind why Jews of today are, on average, more intelligent and even more cunning/adaptable than what there would have been pre-WWII, the reasons are obvious and to do with the types that survived and had their genes passed on. Even pre-WWII, they've been persecuted for millennia in fact (even the Ancient Egyptians persecuted the Hebrews). The idea of averages in IQ differing between ethnicities is absolutely acceptable science and I get why it's wrong to make the topic itself taboo but what happens is often people who start bringing it up instantly then go into ways to stratify society based on it and that is absolutely 100% racist whenever it's enacted.

What you will find is that the averages differing is also hugely environmental but yes there is a genetic component. What I mean is that when you grow up in even a sheltered Amish family environment, not just a Ghetto environment, there's a variety of upbringings where being smart and particularly intelligent matter far less than raw work ethic and athleticism. This is why you get children and adolescence of such upbringings often not having 'flexed' their brain nearly as much as those who had a more education-focused upbringing (even outside of school). One of the hugest reasons why all Asian ethnicities maintain a consistently high IQ, as well as Jews of today, is that their cultures emphasise education massively, it's not just about innate IQ which may well be higher but that 'higher' is a slight advantage, it's about flexing it and making it come to fruition.

Do you not think it's likely, not just possible, that certain brains within ethnicities that emphasise intelligence less in upbringing had the capabilities to be Einstein and/or Tesla? I do. I think that a genius brain of a lower-income family applied to a harshly capitalist culture, in any continent becomes a thriving businessman if they're very practical (Tesla/Zuckerberg genius, INTJ) or becomes a hobo on the street who sadly couldn't have their ingenuity amount to anything because the crap schooling and nutrition they got didn't enable that brain to thrive (Einstein/Darwin-style genius, INTP).

I would say though, that ethnicities tend to utilise intelligence differently and that is where Caucasians happened to have an edge due in fact to the environment in which they evolved earlier on. Caucasians evolved in colder climates with an incredibly balanced mix of need to 'hide from' predators, 'hunt down' stealthy prey and yet also have the open areas of grassland and/or ice during the ice age where just plain open-planning mattered. What I mean is that you will find there are two fundamental ways humans evolved to be smart; either they evolved to estimate and calculate deep (hiding and hunting stealthy prey) or they evolved to calculate and estimate fast (open-plain environment). Blacks of Africa were in extremely open-plain scenarios where absolutely nothing mattered more than endurance, literally. How far you could run, how long you could chase down and then carry your prey's body back to your tribe, how long you could last in a straightforward fight, these are the things that mattered in Africa. The only element of intellect required here was speedy tactics, therefore what was naturally selected was entirely based around that. In Asia, you had to memorise which trees are likely to have predators lurking in them, which areas are fantastic to find prey, which sounds among other sounds to listen out for that would warn you of a stealthier predator and on top of this you had to have the very same expertise and ability in hand-to-hand combat as the Africans did (especially in East Asia which was prone to massively brutal clan-on-clan combat). So this environment naturally selected for people who could memorise well and calculate fast, regularly, not just strength. 

So, the balanced environments allowed extremely varied forms of intelligence to thrive, which was beneficial back then when that was a factor that influenced us a lot (we don't live in the wild anymore, except a select few native tribes of certain nations).

If you are curious about how and why types of intellect became attached to race, think logically about evolution and realise it has absolutely nothing to do with the race, it's to do with environment and what it both enabled to be stimulated from childhood and then also naturally selected out for.

In this day and age, very few of us live in 'survival mode' in that literal sense. That is why these things are outdated and why in fact it would be optimal to just mate with whoever, completely ignoring culture and race and embracing diversity. The only reason people are hostile to that idea is due to an animalistic tribal instinct in us that has absolutley zero positive function anymore. 

When you say 'smarter, therefore superior' what you don't understand is that it was inferior to worry too much about being too smart in certain environments where certain ethnicities evolved. You need to also realise that there are reasons why blacks were the most driven to be creative musically and have innately got more natural talent at dancing, on average, than all other races (yes, I'm being a 'race realist' here). The reason is that the tribes that tended to last were often the most creative and tactical in their environment, not the most 'logical' at all. The more creatively your tribe could adapt to the enemies and fight, the better but this was based around immediate adaptation, fast-thinking. There was no need to build a gun for them because absolutely nothing about open savanna warfare requires you to need to innovate a weapon that severely, it's much more about keeping your eye out and spotting the enemy themselves from far and then calculating how to either avoid or confront them successfully. In a forest environment you don't have the same advantage (and barefooted humans who memorise where all the twigs are in their surroundings are extremely difficult to hear until they're too close to properly prepare and react to). 

The kind of brain functions and thinking patterns different environments demanded are why different races of today probably still have lingering tendencies in how their brain handles certain hormones, addiction, aggression and all of it. That doesn't really mean anything much because I am telling you that the innate/genetic factor is differing in averages, you should always design a society to enable outliers to thrive at what they're good at, not stifle those who are gifted in a way that you deem doesn't matter.
#25
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

I support RationalMadman for president, not of just DebateArt, but President of the USA !
#26
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@FLRW
Your sarcasm is appreciated
#27
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
Yeah dude.

55 IQ is functionally the same as 140 IQ.

Saying otherwise is a real "tenuous association" with "limited correlation".

Nice dude.
This doesn’t appear to be an argument.


The average Black person's intellectual "potential" is lower of that than Whites, Asians, Hispanics and Jews, so those "appropriate allowances" need to be pretty large xD

You're such a bs artist LOL.

"Fundamental limitations" meaning higher real crime rates, lower IQ, lower ability for self-control, lower verbal ability, higher rates of MAOA genes etc? Is that what you mean by the supremely generous euphemism of "fundamental limitations?"

HAHAHAHAHAHA
Let’s ignore the name calling, for a moment let’s broadly explain the fundamental issue with your belief.


We’re given a set of genes from your parents, when you are conceived these genes, together with epigenetic changes in your parents (typically caused by environmental factors and stressors), form the basis of your brains construction.

This is mediated and impacted from a variety of other factors, stress, chemicals in the womb, strongly dependent on diet and macronutrients from your mother, which can modulate your development in all manner of ways.

Once your born, your brain goes through massive stages of development; and is impacted both by the type and nature of the stimulation you receive, various environmental factors such as stress cortisol levels as an infant, strongly dependent on diet, health, etc.

From infancy into childhood; education, and access, continued health and A wide variety of other factors can also impact your intelligence - from exposure to crime, abuse, etc; or from malnutrition.


The presumption that differences between races is solely down to hereditable factors and not the specific combination of all those other factors; is just begging the question 

To have a minimal level of confidence for your conclusion; you have to be able determine the genes that account for intelligence and how much - which we can’t (there appear to be many, and their interaction is not we’ll understood), to be able to understand the impact of environment on intelligence, what environmental impacts and effects prevent or promote intelligence (so we can correct IQ for environmental factors), which we don’t; to be able to assess the broad distribution of these genes across racial groups to determine whether there is an actual disadvantage - which we haven’t.


The reality is that the interaction between environment, genetics and intelligence are so complex and difficult to disentangle that it is impossible to validly assert exactly what the true impact of genetics actually is; such that the conclusion that the only valid correlating factor is race is simply an attempt assert ones own prejudice is justified; especially given that we do know there can be a massive impact on intelligence from various environmental factors. 
#28
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@FLRW
Funny, Singapore academics have strongly criticized pinker for his careless psychology experiments. My professor arrogantly claimed that academics have moved on from "Pinker's Psychology". Pinker may  be a good source for the laymen, but he's as incompetent as every other loony, isolated researcher out there who managed to win money through popularity contests.
Topic's author
#29
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@RationalMadman
What you will find is that the averages differing is also hugely environmental but yes there is a genetic component.
I agree, there is both nurture and nature. You, however, think that nurture plays the biggest role while Dr. Pinker thinks nature does. My stance is that we don't have enough research to know one way or the other, and thus cannot make an accurate guess (and thus statistics on outcomes are almost entirely useless).

Do you not think it's likely, not just possible, that certain brains within ethnicities that emphasise intelligence less in upbringing had the capabilities to be Einstein and/or Tesla?
I have no idea. I do think that if there are races or ethnicities that have a genetic component for higher intelligence then, we would expect that 100 most intelligent people to be mostly comprised of individuals with these genes, with the possible very rare exception for people with genes that lead to the lower end of intelligence.
That isn't to say that the smartest people with genes for lower intelligence wouldn't be smarter than the averages of all people, humans are more the same than different. It is at the extremes where differences are made apparent (like with Olympic level sprinters).

 What I mean is that you will find there are two fundamental ways humans evolved to be smart; either they evolved to estimate and calculate deep (hiding and hunting stealthy prey) or they evolved to calculate and estimate fast (open-plain environment). Blacks of Africa were in extremely open-plain scenarios where absolutely nothing mattered more than endurance, literally. How far you could run, how long you could chase down and then carry your prey's body back to your tribe, how long you could last in a straightforward fight, these are the things that mattered in Africa. The only element of intellect required here was speedy tactics, therefore what was naturally selected was entirely based around that. In Asia, you had to memorise which trees are likely to have predators lurking in them, which areas are fantastic to find prey, which sounds among other sounds to listen out for that would warn you of a stealthier predator and on top of this you had to have the very same expertise and ability in hand-to-hand combat as the Africans did (especially in East Asia which was prone to massively brutal clan-on-clan combat). So this environment naturally selected for people who could memorise well and calculate fast, regularly, not just strength.
So, you do agree that mental characteristics also differ across race or ethnicities and not just physical (height, sprinting speed, etc.)?

When you say 'smarter, therefore superior' 
Never said that nor would I ever say that.
My only interest is in what characteristics have nature components and how much of an impact they have in outcomes. This is because so many try and use outcomes to determine if there is a systemic issue (or cultural issue) that leads to this inequity, but they assume that nature components do not play a role in these outcomes.

For example, we know that the more aggressive someone is the more likely they are to commit violent crimes, and thus more likely to end up in prison. Men are more aggressive than women, on average, but this means when you look at the top 1% of aggressive people in the world it will be mostly men. Thus, it is no surprise that men are placed in prison more often than women, this is expected on some level due to nature components.

A question that can be asked is if such nature components exist along other lines as well. Some studies link higher testosterone to higher aggression, and so groups with higher average testosterone may well be more aggressive on average and have higher representation in prison. Some studies suggest that Africans have higher average testosterone than other racial or ethnic categories. As such, there is a genuine question on if (assuming these studies are accurate for now) higher representation of Africans in prison in comparison to population levels in society is an expected outcome, if it is a sign of systemic racism, or some other component (or a mix of these).

Many on the left look at these statistics and say that it is proof of systemic racism as that is the only possible explanation, and they deny any nature component could be a factor as well.
There are many racists that try and use race realism to say that it is due entirely to nature.
I think there is a genuine question on how much could be due to nature, and thus, with that knowledge, have an easier time seeing how much of a role other factors are at play (whether cultural factors, systemic racism, etc.).
Maybe it is the case that there are no nature components, but the issue is that this type of information just isn't known. Funding of this type of research would almost certainly never happen in today's political climate. There are even academics that have gone on record saying that if such information was made aware to them that they would lie and say that such information doesn't exist in order to prevent racism from getting any level of justification.

My worry, and why I think race realism is important on some level, is because people are trying to change policy and law based on statistics with the assumption that race is entirely a social construct and that there are no nature components. If nature components are a factor in some of these statistics and we use legislation and policy to get as close to 'representation based on population' without factoring in these components, then we very well could be destroying equality of opportunity.
#30
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Can you be extremely clear on something, please.

Are you saying only that the scientific findings shouldn't be taboo or are you saying that stratifying society based on those findings shouldn't be taboo?

I agree to this:

the scientific findings shouldn't be taboo
but I extremely seldom find a scenario where that happens to be discussed where this isn't strongly led into:
stratifying society based on those findings
I am 100% against the latter, even against discussing it. That is racism and has always been racism. It masquerades as harmless discussion and rapidly mutates into brutally right-wing prejudiced agenda. This is why sometimes it's better to avoid the topic entirely. Sure, I concede there are genetic differences between the ethnicities of each and every race (they even differ to each other) and I would not support censoring that area of science entirely, the context where the findings are brought up matters a lot.