Total posts: 516
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
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.
True. I didn't provide a great example, due to the confounding variables you listed.
I'll provide a better argument now to support the idea that racial disliking/hatred of other races is, at least, somewhat innate.
My argument in short: Research shows that people who like others who have closer similarity to themselves. Furthermore, as a trait becomes more heritable, the more important it becomes for friends/spouses/social groups etc. Therefore, people prefer the company of those people who are genetically more similar to them.
We consistently see that friends and spouses are more similar in many ways. Berscheid and Hatfield's (1969) performed social experiments with people to find that people are "more likely to desire a relationship with those that were seen to share attitudes. They found that the more important a shared attitude, the higher the attraction rating. For example, two people who both prefer the same type of toothpaste were not as attracted to each other as two people who shared the same religious beliefs." Similarity-Attraction Paradigm: Definition & Criticisms | Study.com
Bryne (1971) later steelmans this idea with his work, which unfortunately is behind a paywall The Attraction Paradigm - Donn Erwin Byrne - Google Books . However, we get glimpses at his work with a key result from one of his earlier works: the attraction paradigm byrne - Bing images , and a defense in 1986 of his work against criticism: (PDF) The Attraction Hypothesis. Do Similar Attitudes Affect Anything? (researchgate.net) .
Specifically for spouses, Luo and Klohen (2005) showed that newlyweds had substantial similarity in attitudes (although, interestingly, only a "little" on personality). Moreover, this similarity mattered greatly in more important things like religion (which echoes Bercheid and Hatfield's claim) psp-882304.pdf (apa.org) . Caspi and Herbener (1990) also found that, "Consistent with other research, the results point to homogamy as a basic norm in marriage," but this study also seems to be locked behind a paywall Continuity and change: Assortative marriage and the consistency of personality in adulthood. - PsycNET (apa.org) .
We can attribute at least some of these preferences for beliefs to genes, and then argue that people like other people with similar genes to them.
Christakis and Fowler (2013) produced a jargon-heavy, somewhat mathematically dense read (at least I found it difficult to read) that says: "More than any other species, humans form social ties to individuals who are neither
kin nor mates, and these ties tend to be with similar people. Here, we show that this
similarity extends to genotypes." Microsoft Word - FANS v3.4.docx (arxiv.org) . It should be noted that this study suggests genomic homophily only correlates to likeability (i.e. isn't causation). A specific example involves the fact that "friends tend to have genotypes that yield similar senses of smell", in that in "the 174 most homophilic genes (top 1% [of what they tested]), olfactory transduction pathway [was] significantly overrepresented". In plain English: your sense of smell is quite important in the friends you select (something I would have disagreed with before reading this paper).
As for spouses being genetically similar, we have Domingue et al (2014) which found that "spouses are more genetically similar than two individuals chose at random" Genetic and educational assortative mating among US adults | PNAS . It should be noted that this effect is only one-third the magnitude of "educational similarity", which shows that genomic similarity absolutely does not account for the only reason why people like each other (at least according to all this research).
We can then show that human races are genetically different, and therefore conclude that, at best, people who are more genetically different won't like each other as much (i.e. becoming indifferent), and may be disliking or hateful of those dissimilar to themselves, depending on how important the difference is.
So, people of the same race are more likely to be genetically similar to people of differing races, according to Witherspoon et al 2007. Moreover, if enough of the genome is measured, the likelihood that people of the same race will be genetically similar, when compared to people of a different race, approaches 100% (but doesn't reach it) genet67355 351..359 (nih.gov) .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Poor grades do not mean that you are “not smart”, and for similar reasons, having a high IQ does not mean that you “are smart”. Being smart can assist you in getting good grades, but it’s not as simple as that.
I.Q. is a proxy for intelligence, specifically the 'g' factor. If you have a high I.Q., your 'g' factor (i.e. intelligence), due to extremely heavy correlation, is extremely likely to be high. In other words, it's not that having a high I.Q. makes you highly intelligent, but having a high I.Q. makes it extremely likely that you are highly intelligent.
With the above in mind, I.Q. correlates with SAT results (a graded test) at 0.86, which is almost what I.Q. correlates with itself (0.88). Due to I.Q. correlating with itself at roughly 0.88, this number takes into consideration moods, apathy and other factors which could influence your ability to perform on an I.Q. test. The fact SAT results correlate with I.Q. at almost this number, tells us that yes, I.Q. does not wholly determine grades, but it does determine most of your grades. BCUzler.png (423×377) (imgur.com) taken from: IQs of Races in the United States – The Alternative Hypothesis
Furthermore emotion plays a very big role in how you do on tests or exams.If you are depressed or someone you know died you are probably going to get a worse grade this doesn't make you stupid.
This is a worthwhile caveat, as I showed with the Hattie (2018) study I cited responding to other people 2018-updated-hattie-ranking-hatties-list-of-influences-effect-sizes-achievement-rangliste.png (826×5604) (visible-learning.org) Depression or having a traumatic life experience does have a significant impact on academic performance.
However, the 0.86 correlation has this fact built into it, and given that not everyone is experiencing depression or traumatic life experiences when they take a test, we can see that I.Q. (a proxy for intelligence) does largely impact your grades, on average.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I think a good instructor lives in the language of the learner. She knows what skills are required to adequately stimulate the class at any given moment. She equally prioritizes both research and teaching. For example, I had a philosophy professor who often teaches with a strong passion. None in the class dared to mention to him that class was supposed to end 5-10 minutes ago because the class really wants to hear more from him.I think a terrible instructor is the exact opposite of what I just said. I still believe it takes a lot of effort to stimulate my attention adequately. I appreciate those that do so effectively. However, I've had terrible instructors where they make no effort at all. Some even played podcasts. My go-to interaction as a student is to leave the class right away. If you don't care to teach properly, then I don't care to leave politely. I'll leave in the middle of the class session without caring whether it's rude or disruptive.
I largely agree with everything you wrote here.
The only point I'd question is whether the passionate teacher is actually being effective. If he's lecturing the whole/most/half the time, he's not being effective, because there is a whole host of student-centric impacts (feedback, self-scoring etc.) that are not being engaged. He might be interesting to listen to, and there is certainly time for direct instruction, but that doesn't mean the students are learning as much as they could.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Body positivity is something that has been floating around with females and how you should feel comfortable in your own skin. The message itself was started by third of fourth wave feminism which I actually think is a good message.
This is probably wrong. If you feel badly about your body, chances are it is because your body isn't healthy (too thin or too big).
If you feel badly about your body because you're comparing it to all the fakes or top 0.01% bodies on TikTok or Insta, then what you're saying should apply.
Frankly, not everyone should feel good about their body because there's a good chance your body is unhealthy.
Being happy with yourself and your own skin makes you succeed more in life, as various studies conducted by experts in mental health have proven this. The message they created is a great message, but the problem then becomes the double standard.
This is putting the cart before the horse. People feel good about their bodies *because* it actually is healthy. No one in their right mind would feel good about having a 45 BMI body. The exception is when social media gives you a warped hyperreality
When I was a male, I struggled with the same love for myself that women do, hating my weight and myself for it. I decided to lose weight so I could love myself again. This standard of body positivity could be applied to men as well (men who don't have toned abs, dark hair or blonde hair, etc.), but modern feminists yet again demean men for their weight while trying to hold us to the standard they want without holding themselves accountable as well.
We know this isn't a good argument from feminists. Just ignore and avoid people who are that irrational.
The lack of holding themselves to the same standards they want for others goes to prove that modern feminism is nothing more than the defamation of men so that women can be superior to their male counterparts, only proving that the ideas shared of this feminism are extremely dangerous, and how the ideas they share are double standards for themselves, but hey, since the Democrats run everything, you might as well just push the nonsensical bullshit legislation going on.
They are entitled to have these double standards, and you're entitled to avoid and ignore them. There are plenty of abject losers in life not worth a second of your life. The only shame is that we don't know who these people are without spending more than a second listening to them.
Created:
Posted in:
"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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
Yes, ADHD has one of the strongest negative effects (-0.90), in regards to educational achievement. It has a stronger negative impact than: Lack of sleep (-0.05), Student feeling disliked (-0.19), Depression (-0.36), Boredom (-0.49) and even deafness (-0.61) 2018-updated-hattie-ranking-hatties-list-of-influences-effect-sizes-achievement-rangliste.png (826×5604) (visible-learning.org)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
The class is only as good as the instructor makes it.
How do you define a "terrible" and "good" instructor?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
There are different kinds of intelligence, and grades only determine one of them.
Intelligence is academically denoted as the 'g' factor, and that's the only 'type' of intelligence I've seen defended.
Do you have evidence/proof of other types of intelligence?
Seeing that schools don't even teach you how to pay all kinds of taxes. I don't think financial intelligence can be measured through grades, unless you are in a top university studying economy.
This isn't 'financial intelligence' any more than it is just the product of intelligence (i.e. learning to become financially literate). Since, 'financial intelligence' is covered by 'intelligence' (in regards to learning it), this distinction from intelligence' is arbitrary and unsupported.
Created: