Aquamarine said:
You have failed to produce a single peer-reviewed study that shows that ethnocentrism by different races are genetic or that whites have low and Jews high. Books and articles that have theories are no evidence. In fact, you ignore the studies available that show that whites have high. These studies should be criticized and shows nothing about genetics, but they certainly do not support your theory.
You seem to fail to understand the scientific method. When you are in college, you read books, not research papers. Likewise, I rely on books, not as simplistic or biased as textbooks, but books that are produced from symposiums by researchers, who critique each other's research papers. I especially like books from the American Psychological Association where numerous researchers contribute to a subject, and all sides are heard. When you want to get the latest research, bound in a single source where you can see differences between researchers, rather than rely on one researchers position, it becomes far more reliable. Any one research paper is usually highly biased and flawed in some respects, whereas academically sponsored symposiums tend to be more unbiased because of divergent views. When a view cannot be supported, it is appended as an area requiring more research. I provided you with two books by numerous researchers, that believe that ethnocentrism is in fact a combination of genes and culture, you then reject these results from symposiums that are in fact a result of research papers, and feel somehow you have deflected an observation. I have seen this tactic used too many times. Mostly in the area of human differences like IQ, behavioral differences, when life begins, etc. These highly contentious areas are constantly being reported on by the media that uses single studies for a splash effect, only to find out that there are numerous studies that show just the opposite. Academically reviewed books are in fact much more reliable than research papers, especially books compiled by the leading researchers in an area of study.
Of course, there are some areas of study that are in fact being attacked for not being scientific at all. Social scientists and cultural anthropologists, as well as many postmodernist studies, have taken the positions of naïve environmentalism - they totally ignore any genetic component in their studies.
Now, for that research paper you wanted, I will provide you with a recent one on ethnocentrism show you why it is invalid. http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/6/749
Note first that it is from Sage Publications, and Sage is noted for taking the naïve environmental stance. In the paper, they use questions like "Do you think Blacks are less intelligent than other groups?" Of course, if Blacks are in fact less intelligent than other groups, which is the position of the APA and behavior geneticists, then it is not biased but truthful. But social scientists repeatedly use this technique to show bias, by assuming that there is no difference in average intelligence between races. That is, the research is flawed. This is the most common flaw on the part of the Left when it comes to research of this kind, genetic components are not only left out, they are assumed not to exist.
Now, in my original post "Understanding Jewish Influence III" by Kevin MacDonald, there are provided 450 references and endnotes. Some of them are Internet links and you are free to do what anyone does who needs to refute a position or attack the data. That is usually done not by amateurs, but by other academics who have access to large databases and the research staff to try and find flaws in the data. I am unaware of very many people who have these types of resources or time. Again, for me, I then rely on books by researchers, preferably very reputable ones. But a final note on ethnocentrism. I too find very little in the way of hard data showing how races differ. But that is only because this type of data is hard to collect. But the little data there is, seems to show what MacDonald has described as differences between Europeans and Semites. His 1994 book references the some of the same researchers who contributed to "Welfare, Ethnicity, and Altruism: New Findings and Evolutionary Theory" edited by Frank Salter, 2004. The book is based on over 40 years of research, and again it is far more substantial than relying on a couple of studies that may or may not be free of extreme bias.
Aquamarine said:
Neither have you shown any support for the theory that Jews make other people poorer. In fact, you have not answered to the historical examples given before in this thread that persecution have had the opposite effect.
I don't think I stated that "Jews make other people poorer." That assumption would be highly contingent on the place, time and circumstances. I would be far more inclined to think that Blacks in the U.S. make the average American poorer, by transferring funds from the well-off to the underclass. As a race, they seem to bring any economy down rather than improving it. On the other hand, I see little data on the influence of minorities impact on societies economic positions when those minorities have most of the wealth, like the East Asians in the Philippines.
Aquamarine said:
Nor can the theory about voluntary separation and selective breeding by the Jews explain why the 500 years that Jews lived in relative peace in the Ottoman empire (and much longer if also those who lived for a long time before that in Islamic Spain are counted), produced a much lower IQ than among the Jews who survived the persecutions in Europe. A much better explanation is that a harsher environment selected for a higher IQ, as it may have done in whites and East Asians who survived the ice age.
I agree. But in addition, culture as well as natural ecologies can have selection pressures. I just saw a documentary on the Amish. Apparently they are allowed to do what ever they like when they turn 16, and must return to the church and make a full commitment to conform to the ways of the church or leave it altogether. The Amish also try to under educate their children, believing hard work is far more useful than academic studies. It then becomes extremely difficult for the young to leave their communities, they are not equipped educationally. However, the most intelligent (and less religious) probably do leave proportionately more than the others, and over time, this will have a genetic impact on those left behind.
If you want to understand these cultural impacts of breeding patterns, you have to consider the population group as a coevolving one, where many factors are taken into consideration. MacDonald has done this in greater depth, using mostly Jewish resources and references, to explain the high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jews. For ethnocentrism, we need to do similar studies.
I will say that indoctrination does have a significant impact on ethnocentrism. Whites seem to be highly tolerant of other races in the last fifty plus years because of the medias impact on our culture. That is, we are highly indoctrinated into naïve environmentalists positions of looking at people, believing in the blank slate, all races are equal, etc. That is starting to erode now with our increasing understanding of genetic influences, but it is slow to trickle down to the masses. For example, I have not seen even one even minor insinuation that the No Child Left Behind disparities between races might be due to genetic differences. Every story I have read conveniently leaves out any reference to genetic differences, even though it is firmly established within academic circles that dare to look at the data, including the APA.
Aquamarine said:
More anecdotes: Living in a very sparsely populated area will not automatically make people more altruistic. The Yanomami indians in the Amazonas live in a very sparsely populated area but no one would describe them as altruistic:
http://www.crystalinks.com/yanomami.html
This again is why I do not like to rely on a single researcher's position. Chagnon's work was the first to reveal the violent nature of the Yanomamon people, but then his research was attacked by others as highly flawed. It was asserted that Chagnon actually supplied them with weapons and encouraged them to fight. If I remember right, Chagnon was finally vindicated. However, it is just as likely that the Yanomamon people fight not because of dense populations and a lack of resources, but it is more a "sexy son" phenomenon like the peacock's tail. Tribal men, individuals, who kill other men have more mates and leave more children, thus selecting for brutality. That is, it may have evolved into an arms race. Once started, it escalates on its own. The females preferably mate with those who murder others. This may not be anything like ethnocentrism, because they are just as happy killing one of their own - just like Blacks in the hood.
