The Decreasing White Majority in the US

[Tasthius]

Study asian history a bit and you will run into quite a lot of names of "universal geniuses"

How about naming one? Name a Korean that can be fairly compared to Newton or Leibniz or Euclid or Plato.

Also keep in mind that the person with the highest adult IQ alive today is Korean.

Although IQ is a good indicator of academic success and real world acheivement, it is hardly the only factor in defining something as elusive as genius. When I speak of genius, I speak of accomplishments recognized by the scientific and/or academic community as having changed the entire focus or direction of a certain discipline (In Newton's case, he changed the direction of several.) As I said above, name a Korean who has done more than simply knock the ceiling off of an IQ test.

You must also remember that for much of the Middle Ages, East Asians were AHEAD of Europeans in technology and development. Simply because whites pulled ahead 400 years ago does not mean they "submerge" every race.

Whites were far ahead before the Middle Ages ever began. All the talk you hear about "brilliant Arab mathematicians" after the Classical white civilizations declined is a bit misleading considering the Arabs borrowed their basic premises of algebra and trigonometry from the Greeks. Copernicus may have put forth the heliocentric model of the universe during the Enlightenment, but he simply rediscovered what Aristarchus and the Greek mathematicians and natural philosophers knew long, long ago. He even intentionally deleted the name of Aristarchus as a reference from his works so that he wouldn't have to give the Greek any credit, in a vain hope that few were familiar with Classical acheivement.

The fact that the heliocentric model was discovered by the Greeks (and probably the Babylonians and Persians too) yet forgotten by the intellectual heirs of the classical civlization (a la middle age Europe) shows just how cyclic civilization can be.

China was considered the most advanced civilization for hundreds of years. It certainly took creative geniuses to build such an empire.

Which century span are we talking here?

Many analysts expect China to become more powerful than either the US or the European Union.

With over a billion people shouldn't they be powerful? A billion people with Western bought nuclear technology and the advent of Western ideals of government.

Korea was having their own problems of constant invasion of both China and Japan. That peninsula has been invaded about 10,000 times. When you're busy trying to constantly fight out invaders, I assure you playing the piano like Mozart is the last thing you're worried about.

You seem to forget about all of the European internal conflicts as with Rome and the "barbarians", as well as the onslaught of the Huns, the Mongols, and the Moors (all of which were eventually defeated or at least driven out), not to mention the great plague (which killed 25% of all whites in Europe) and two world wars (this is not to mention all of the major internal wars that occurred during the Enlightenment and henceforth), yet Europe still preserveres and is still the most advanced continent on Earth. What continent has been more colonial than Europe? The sun never sat on the British empire. The Dutch had numerous outposts, as did the Belgians, and the Austrio-Hungarians and the Spanish (America) and the French (Americas)

Also you must remember that while Jews make up only 2% of the US population and 0.25% of the world population, they have won 25% of Nobel Prizes. 60% of Yale is Jewish. The odds of a person of Jewish descent is certainly about a 100 times more likely to win a Nobel Prize than any another person of White descent. If anything Jews would "submerge" any other race and/or group in creative genius. That 15 IQ points higher than Caucasians does have weight.

This is one of the few places where I might agree with you. I was going to mention the "Jews" in the previous post, but went the way of most anthropologists and lumped them into the 'caucasian" category. It is true that Jews make up less than 3% of the population and it is true that Jews have an inordinate amount of Nobel Prizes to their name, however, it is also true that the Jews have practiced what effectively amounts to eugenics for millennia, while Whites have usually practiced nothing but dysgenic trends. The Jews by their very nomadic nature are the epitomy of natural selection and "only the strong survive." It is also interesting to note that the average Jew has quite a large discrepency in verbal and performance IQ (with verbal being much higher). This data fit in well with the fact that Jews have primarily had to use verbal skills over the millennia to survive, as in their skillfull manner of buying and selling and trading which kept them afloat in Europe for millennia.

But I'll try it your way. If "whites" submerge every other race in geniuses, why do whites score lower than both asians and jews on academic tests?

Academic test scores does not a genius make, hence why genius is a rather elusive term and transcends mere academic potential. I do not agree with defining genius based on psychometric test results alone. There are many extremely high IQed people (Savant comes to mind) who will not be rememberd much beyond their lifetime. No, there is something else intangible about a Newton, more than a mere high IQ.

Why do both asians and jews have higher rates of college degrees than whites?

There are intangibles in obtaining a college degree such as perserverence, study habits, means of paying tuition, family life, job situation etc.. Though IQ is important, I think it has been shown in more than one study that about 25% of all high school drop-outs have superior IQ's. Many "super high IQ" people currently living in America today do not have any academic degrees whatsoever. Academic degrees, while perhaps good for comparing groups on a wide scale, are not very good for determining what individuals might have the highest intellectual potential. Up to about IQ 150, the frequency of academic degrees may follow a curve, but beyond that it is interesting to note that the incidence of academic degrees falls off dramatically.

It is also interesting to note how very bright people have a difficult time adjusting to standard life. Lewis Terman in his study of the gifted, found that when his Termites became adults, the degree of their http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html " to society was directly proportional to their measured IQ. Basically, the smarter the person, the more screwed up their life had become. He found that the most successful people were no more than about 150 IQ, while the 150+ crowd tended to be extremely maladjusted (especially when one climbs up the ladder to four sigma scores and beyond). In essence it appears that literally one can be too smart to achieve very much.

Please click on the above link and read Mr. Towers excellent article concerning this topic. I think anyone interested in "genius" or psychometrics will find it worth their while.

Why are whites significantly less likely to win a Nobel Prize than jews? Why have the mathematical abilities of asian countries been considered unrivaled compared to the Western World?

I wouldn't say the mathematical abilities of the Orient have been unrivaled. See the Greeks with Euclid, or perhaps the Enlightenment with Gauss, Descartes, Pascal, Reimann, Euler, or the modern day with folks such as Ed Witten (superstring theorist who happens to be Jewish).

 

[Tasthius]

I repeat that only less than one percent of Whites were the great geniuses that White Nationalists use as examples to "prove" that ALL whites are great. I meet average white people everyday and they are not intelligent, not rational, not creative, they are just intellectually mediocre "mindless" sheep, who in my opinion have no reason to be alive. perhaps we can take all the one percent of white geniuses and then clone them millions of times over or something similar.

No one I have seen here on these boards has proclaimed that "all Whites are great." I certainly don't think so. However, to suggest that since it is apparent that only a small proportion of Whites contribute anything significant to society, therefore the world would be better off if they perished is akin to suggesting that the Wright brothers should have given up on flight since the vast majority of their early models were failures.

The fact is genius is rather capricious and can evince itself in children who have rather mediocre parents. Thus the reason for the continuation of white people.

It is also rather idiotic to suggest that the majority of the White populace is worthless, as if the same doesn't hold true for Asians or Africans or Indians.

 

[BlackVision]

http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/units/research/archive/taller.htm

Interesting. But it still does not refute what I have stated.

 

[BlackVision]

How about naming one? Name a Korean that can be fairly compared to Newton or Leibniz or Euclid or Plato.

King Sejong. While he may not appear in Western History books, I assure you he exists in every Korean History Book and is proclaimed as an absolute genius.

Although IQ is a good indicator of academic success and real world acheivement, it is hardly the only factor in defining something as elusive as genius. When I speak of genius, I speak of accomplishments recognized by the scientific and/or academic community as having changed the entire focus or direction of a certain discipline (In Newton's case, he changed the direction of several.)

The proper environmental setting is crucial in the full development of a "universal genius" Note that the US has won more Nobel prizes than the rest of the world combined. Is this because the US has more universal geniuses than the rest of the world combined? Or would the structure in the educational system contribute to this enormous surplus or scientific acheivements?

Whites were far ahead before the Middle Ages ever began.

Not true. Even Western History books will note the superb empires built by the Chinese. Europeans sent diplomats to China to exchange inventions and for trade, only for China to block themselves out because they viewed themselves as superior that did not need outside influence. The period of history in the heights of the Chinese empires surpass that of Europe.

You seem to forget about all of the European internal conflicts as with Rome and the "barbarians", as well as the onslaught of the Huns, the Mongols, and the Moors (all of which were eventually defeated or at least driven out), not to mention the great plague (which killed 25% of all whites in Europe) and two world wars (this is not to mention all of the major internal wars that occurred during the Enlightenment and henceforth), yet Europe still preserveres and is still the most advanced continent on Earth. What continent has been more colonial than Europe? The sun never sat on the British empire. The Dutch had numerous outposts, as did the Belgians, and the Austrio-Hungarians and the Spanish (America) and the French (Americas)

You cannot compare the invasions of Europe to the invasions of Korea. That is absolutely uncomparable. Korea has been invaded at least 100 times more often than any other country in Europe. War does halt technological progress.

I wouldn't say the mathematical abilities of the Orient have been unrivaled.

Notice that the top 5 ranked in mathematics is all asian.


TIMSS Mathematical Ranking by Country:

1. Singapore 604
2. South Korea 587
3. Taiwan 585
4. Hong Kong 582
5. Japan 579
6. Belgium-Flemish 558
7. Netherlands 540
8. Slovak Republic 534
9. Hungary 532
10. Canada 531
..
19. United States

Source: http://www.hobel.org/lwved/id51.htm

 

[hitssquad]

Carolus Linnaeus - how did he do it without knowing about DNA

population histories determine gene frequencies and population genetics.

Gene frequencies have nothing intrinsically to do with biological classification. Carolus Linnaeus published Systema Naturae in 1735 and Species Plantarum in 1753 without the aid of gene frequency survey counts.

in between all these population groups the differences can be large

Maybe Monique meant, "...within all these population groups..." Distances between general factors of phenotypic characteristics are largest between groups, not within groups. Differences in individual characteristics may have special significance, but not general significance.

Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, people who live in malaria-infested regions will.

Malaria is not common in the United States.

• J Natl Med Assoc. 2003 Sep;95(9):864-7, 872-4.
  
  HCV in sickle cell disease.[/size]
  
  Hassan M, Hasan S, Castro O, Giday S, Banks A, Smoot D.
  
  Division of Gastroenterology, Howard University Hospital, 2041 Georgia Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20060, USA.
  
  The sickle cell gene is common in the U.S. In fact 8% of African Americans are healthy carriers of the sickle cell trait (HbAS). People who are homozygous (HbSS) have severe disease. They have life-long anemia, chronic hemolysis, and also have at times hematological crises, which can worsen the anemia. Many patients require chronic transfusions and as a result, substantial proportions of sickle cell patients are at high risk for infection with blood-borne diseases-such as Hepatitis C Virus infection (HCV). The HCV antibody positivity is directly related to the number of transfusions given, and on average the prevalence rate in transfused patients is more than 10%. It is known that the combination of iron overload and HCV can lead to a more rapidly progressive liver disease. The treatment of HCV in sickle cell patients poses a challenge to clinicians. A novel approach described by some is the pre-treatment of these patients with hydroxyurea to increase the fetal hemoglobin, therefore decreasing the severity of Ribavirin-related hemolysis. Treatment with Peg-interferon alone has not been used to treat HCV in sickle cell patients, but in the setting of controlled clinical trials it would be feasible. This review explores the impact of HCV in sickle cell patients and the possible therapeutic options available to them.
  
  PMID: 14527056

Asians are not shorter, people with a diet lacking enough nutrients do.

• J Bone Miner Res. 1996 Oct;11(10):1545-56.
  
  Differences in bone mineral in young Asian and Caucasian Americans may reflect differences in bone size.[/size]
  
  Bhudhikanok GS, Wang MC, Eckert K, Matkin C, Marcus R, Bachrach LK.
  
  Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, USA.
  
  Bone mineral content (BMC) and areal bone mineral density (BMD) have been reported to be lower in Asian than in Caucasian adults. To determine if racial differences in bone mass are present in younger subjects and whether they reflect differences in estimated volumetric bone density or in bone size, we compared measurements of bone mineral in healthy young Asian- and Caucasian-American males and females. Bone mineral was measured at the lumbar spine (L2-L4), femoral neck (FN), and whole body (WB) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in 99 Asians (49 females, 50 males) and 103 Caucasians (54 females, 49 males) ages 9-26 years. Results were expressed as BMC, BMD, and apparent density (BMAD), an estimate of volumetric bone density that reduces the effect of bone size. Subjects were compared on the basis of chronological age as well as by Tanner stage to correct for potential differences in the timing of puberty. Habitual dietary intake and physical activity were also assessed and correlated with bone mineral. The Asian and Caucasian cohorts differed in body size, diet, and physical activity. Asian females were shorter than the Caucasian females at all stages of puberty and weighed less at pre-/early puberty (p < 0.05). Asian males were older than Caucasians at midpuberty (p < 0.01) and weighed less than the Caucasian males at pubertal maturity (p = 0.001). Asian youths also consumed less calcium and reported less weight-bearing activity. Racial differences were most apparent when comparing BMC data. Asian males had greater spine BMC at midpuberty and lower WB BMC at maturity (p < 0.05). Asian females had lower FN BMC through midpuberty and lower WB BMC in pre-/early puberty (p < 0.05). WB BMD and WB BMC/height values were significantly lower in mature Asian versus Caucasian males. No significant racial differences in BMAD were observed. Multivariate regression analysis indicated that the differences in BMD and BMAD between Asian and Caucasian subjects were largely attributable to differences in weight and pubertal stage, and, at the FN, in weight-bearing activity. Further, the explanatory variables were less strongly associated with BMAD than with BMD. In summary, no significant differences in BMD were found between Asian and Caucasian youths through midpuberty; however, WB BMD and WB BMC/height values were lower in Asian males at sexual maturity. We conclude that observed differences in bone mineral between Asians and Caucasians may be partially attributed to the smaller bone size of Asians.
  
  PMID: 8889856

 

[Monique]

Gene frequencies have nothing intrinsically to do with biological classification. Carolus Linnaeus published Systema Naturae in 1735 and Species Plantarum in 1753 without the aid of gene frequency survey counts.

I never said it has anything to do with biological classification. Isolated populations can go through bottle necks or genetic drift will cause the frequencies of certain mutations to become different from other populations. A population that went through large population bottle necks will have a very homogeneous genepool. Knowing something about population genetics, migration and immigration, geological and social position can tell you something about underlying gene structure. Founder effect is a clear demonstration.

Maybe Monique meant, "...within all these population groups..." Distances between general factors of phenotypic characteristics are largest between groups, not within groups. Differences in individual characteristics may have special significance, but not general significance.

No. And after that you make no sense.. can you clarify?

Malaria is not common in the United States.

It is in africa.. where african americans come from :duhh:

Differences in bone mineral in young Asian and Caucasian Americans may reflect differences in bone size.

And why do they have low bone mineral? Because they don't have enough mineral intake in their diet?

 

[hitssquad]

Where malaria mosquitos are vs where Black American sickle-cell anemics are

Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, people who live in malaria-infested regions will.

Tell me, where do these blacks live suffering from sickle cell anemia.

Black Americans suffering from sickle cell anemia live in the United States.

Then tell me which regions of the world suffer from the malaria carrying mosquito.

Sub-Saharan Africa, for one.

Overlay these two maps and then tell me what you see.

I see zero crossover.

 

[hitssquad]

Do American Whites suffer from poor nutrition compared to American Blacks

Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, people who live in malaria-infested regions will.

Malaria is not common in the United States.

It is in africa.. where african americans come from

American Blacks, right now, live in the United States where there is no malaria, yet -- conversely to your statement that sickle cell anemia only expresses where there is malaria -- they suffer from sickle cell anemia at rates disproportional to their population representation.

And why do they have low bone mineral? Because they don't have enough mineral intake in their diet?

American Whites have low bone mineral compared to American Blacks because of a racial difference which expresses itself in the shared American environment. American Whites do not suffer from poor nutrition compared to American Blacks.

 

[Monique]

American Blacks, right now, live in the United States where there is no malaria, yet -- conversely to your statement that sickle cell anemia only expresses where there is malaria -- they suffer from sickle cell anemia at rates disproportional to their population representation.

No, sickle cell anemia is caused by a mutation in a gene. The carrier frequency will be higher in people coming from regions where the malaria incidence is high too. Thus, if a carrier frequency is high.. the disease frequency will be higher too.
What I meant to say (and what you should've understood) is that not only African Americans have sickle cell anemia, but populations that come from regions where there is malaria have an increased risk. Thus: Africa, mediterranean, India and the Middle East.
It is not related to skin color, since a mediterranean american and an african american both have an increased risk over an asian american or skandinavian american. THUS grouping people by skin color is not right.

American Whites have low bone mineral compared to American Blacks because of a racial difference which expresses itself in the shared American environment. American Whites do not suffer from poor nutrition compared to American Blacks.

You mean asians and not blacks. It would all depend who classifies as an asian american (first generation, second generation), I would have to read the article.

 

[shonagon53]

This all sounds so much like 19th century anthropometry.
Does anyone in here collect skulls and measures them? I wouldn't be surprized.


The development of sickle cell anemia in malaria areas is an evolutionary process which stretched over thousands and thousands of years. It's normal that people who live there and have it, but who travel to Greenland or Iceland and go live there, will still carry it and transmit it to the next generation if they mate with a person from that same original region with sickle cell. This is a senseless debate.

It's nice to see evolution being abused again. But by weaker minds. That much is certain.

 

[shonagon53]

Black Americans suffering from sickle cell anemia live in the United States.
Sub-Saharan Africa, for one.

I see zero crossover.

Hitsquad, that's hilarious!

Is this some kind of stand up comedian message board?

Blacks come from Africa! You brought them here in ships. Remember?

I DO see the crossover.

 

[plus]

No, sickle cell anemia is caused by a mutation in a gene. The carrier frequency will be higher in people coming from regions where the malaria incidence is high too. Thus, if a carrier frequency is high.. the disease frequency will be higher too.
What I meant to say (and what you should've understood) is that not only African Americans have sickle cell anemia, but populations that come from regions where there is malaria have an increased risk. Thus: Africa, mediterranean, India and the Middle East.
It is not related to skin color, since a mediterranean american and an african american both have an increased risk over an asian american or skandinavian american. THUS grouping people by skin color is not right.


You mean asians and not blacks. It would all depend who classifies as an asian american (first generation, second generation), I would have to read the article.

You should have expressed yourself better if this is what you meant to say, because it is pretty obvious that the american blacks do not come from a high malaria environment, just some of their ancestors did.

 

[Monique]

I quote myself:

Originally posted by Monique
Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, people who live in malaria-infested regions will.

Exactly where do I state that blacks are from America? This is an issue of comprehensive reading.

 

[hitssquad]

Racial classification by traits or by general factors of traits

Earlier in this thread, Monique wrote,

Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, people who live in malaria-infested regions will.

More recently, Monique wrote,

I meant to say ...[/color] that not only African Americans have sickle cell anemia, but populations that come from regions where there is malaria have an increased risk. Thus: Africa, mediterranean, India and the Middle East.
It is not related to skin color, since a mediterranean american and an african american both have an increased risk over an asian american or skandinavian american. THUS grouping people by skin color is not right.

Just as individual mental abilities do not define Spearman's g, individual heritable population traits -- such as mean and shape of skin-color distribution, mean and shape of susceptibility-to-disease distribution, and mean and shape of IQ distribution -- do not distinguish races. Races are distinguishable by their respective distinct general factors of individual heritable population traits.

Racial classification has nothing intrinsically to do with skin color, just as gravity has nothing intrinsically to do with falling bodies.

 

[Monique]

What do you mean to say? Susceptibility-to-disease distribution is also an individual heritable population trait.

I guess you mean to say that races may be classified upon traits that are either completely present or completely absent in a population. Norwegians are all white and Nigerians are all black.

You may have defined distinct populations, but it says nothing about the differences between Nigerians and Somalians or Norwegians and Irish. Why are the Irish not a different race than the Norwegians? There may be markers hidden deeper than the skin that distinguish them.

Population is the word to be used, not race.

 

[hitssquad]

The difference between populations and races

Races are distinguishable by their respective distinct general factors of individual heritable population traits.

Racial classification has nothing intrinsically to do with skin color, just as gravity has nothing intrinsically to do with falling bodies.

What do you mean to say?

Both races and gravity are distinguishable by their respective general properties rather than by specific traits that may be associated with them.

individual heritable population traits ...[/color] such as ...[/color] susceptibility-to-disease distribution

Susceptibility-to-disease distribution is also an individual heritable population trait.

I guess you mean to say that races may be classified upon traits that are either completely present or completely absent in a population.

The http://www.tall.org/clubs/ny/tcnyc/ is such a population and, on the grounds that it is grouped based on a distinguishable trait rather than on a general factor of heritable traits, it is not a race. Mensa, for the same reason that it is grouped based on a distinguishable trait rather than on a general factor of heritable traits, is also a population which is not a race.

Norwegians are all white and Nigerians are all black.

Norwegians and Nigerians are classifiable as separate races, and this is because each possesses a distinguishable general factor of heritable traits.

You may have defined distinct populations, but it says nothing about the differences between Nigerians and Somalians or Norwegians and Irish.

The Nigerian, Somalian, Norwegian and Irish population are all classifiable as individually distinguishable races according to that definition of possessions of distinguishable general factors of heritable traits.

Why are the Irish not a different race than the Norwegians?

The Irish and Norwegian populations constitute distinguishable races, and this is because they differ in terms of general heritable population traits. The populations of eight-year-old students from two different given elementary schools and classified within the span of any given school year do not constitute different races, and this is at least partly because those two populations are not breeding and hence cannot be said to have heritable traits.

Racial classification has nothing intrinsically to do with skin color

There may be markers hidden deeper than the skin that distinguish them.

No matter how deep, traits as markers cannot distinguish races. Races are populations distinguishable by their respective general factors of heritable markers in comparison with those of other populations.

Population is the word to be used, not race.

Population describes groups of individuals that are not necessarily distinguishable by their general factors of heritable traits (and, hence, are only necessarily distinguishable by anything other than general factors of heritable traits such as locations in space and time; specific hair color; specific age or age range; specific hobbies or hobby range; specific hair color or hair color range; specific height or height range; etc.; i.e., the http://www.tall.org/clubs/ny/tcnyc/ does not constitute a race). Races are subsets of populations that are distinguishable by their respective general factors of heritable traits.

 

[Monique]

You are contradicting yourself multiple times hitssquad.. it gets confusing as to what you mean to say

Originally posted by hitssquad
[..] individual heritable population traits do not distinguish races. Races are distinguishable by their respective distinct general factors of individual heritable population traits.

So again, what's the difference between a "individual heritable population trait" and a "distinct general factor of individual heritable population trait"?

So what you are saying is that classifying races on skin color is not valid, since that is not a general factor of heritable trait? Your terms seem like hocus spocus. Why can't a marker be a 'general factor of heritable trait'? So what is it that makes the Norwegians and the Irish distinguishable by a 'general factor of heritable trait'?

 

[hitssquad]

Differences between factors and the variables they are derived from

what's the difference between a "individual heritable population trait" and a "distinct general factor of individual heritable population trait"?

("Traits," Monique.) Factors and the variables they are derived from are not the same things. Factors are derived from variables.

• Factor. The word "factor" has a number of dictionary definitions, but the term as used here has a very restricted, specialized meaning. A factor is a hypothetical variable that "underlies" an observed or measured variable. Thus a factor is also referred to as a latent variable. It is best thought of initially in terms of the mathematical operations by which we identify and measure it.
  
  Although a factor is identifiable and quantifiable, it is not directly observable. It is not a tangible "thing" or an observable event. So we have to be especially careful in talking about factors, lest someone think we believe that we are talking about "things" rather than hypothetical and mathematical constructs. But one can say the very same thing about the many constructs used in the physical sciences (gravitation, magnetism, heat, valence, and potential energy, to name a few). They are all constructs . This does not imply, however, that scientists cannot inquire about the relationship of a clearly defined construct to other phenomena or try to fathom its causal nature...
  
  Factors arise only from the reliable or nonchance correlation between [variables]... ...it should be possible in theory to devise ... tests in which the [variables] did not correlate more than could be expected by pure chance. Such a test could not be analyzed into factors. Its total variance would consist only of the sum of the separate item variances plus a little random error variance due to the small chance correlations among items.

(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. pp55-56.)


Thus, factors of traits exist in races because heritable pheonotypic traits covary within two or more given populations, and avoid covariance between two or more given populations, more than could be expected to occur by chance. In other words, races are distinguishable when general differences in terms of heritable traits between given populations, and general similarities in terms of heritable traits within the same given populations, occur reliably.

what you are saying is that classifying races on skin color is not valid, since that is not a general factor of heritable trait?

("Traits," Monique.) Racial classification based on skin color, or any given individual trait, is not internally consistent. Racial classification based on membership possession of individual traits is nonsensical since members of any given population have the potential to share any given trait or characteristic degree of trait variance with members of any other given population.

Why can't a marker be a 'general factor of heritable trait'?

("Traits," Monique.) There could not be any such thing as a 'general factor of heritable trait', singular. And do you mean 'trait' when you say 'marker'? If expression of multiple heritable traits are factor analyzed to expose their common variance, then, by definition, no single trait can load completely on any factor.

• Factors arise only from the reliable or nonchance correlation between [variables].

(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p56.)

what is it that makes the Norwegians and the Irish distinguishable by a 'general factor of heritable trait'?

("Traits," Monique.) The Norwegian and Irish populations are distinguishable by a 'general factor of heritable traits' when, in terms of general factors of heritable traits, individual members of those populations are more like their fellow population members than they are like the non-members of their respective populations. From the perspective of a statistical worldview, there is no threshold level of this disparity between in-group and out-group general heritable trait alikeness that can consistently rule out the classifiability of two or more populations into races. From the perspective of a statistical worldview, as long as any general difference in heritable traits exists between any two or more given populations, those populations are reliably classifiable into races.

 

[Monique]

("Traits," Monique.) Factors and the variables they are derived from are not the same things. Factors are derived from variables.

Thank you, I understand now. Factors can be viewed as different loci on the genome that each contribute to a phenotype. Only when these factors co-occur more frequently within a population than in between populations, can it be said they are racially different.

Racial classification based on skin color, or any given individual trait, is not internally consistent. Racial classification based on membership possession of individual traits is nonsensical since members of any given population have the potential to share any given trait or characteristic degree of trait variance with members of any other given population.

You are partially flawed in your reasoning. When a new population is settled through a founder-effect, or when a population size decreases rapidly and expands rapidly thereafter (bottleneck), can there be individual traits that are uniquely representative of the population as a whole and distinguish them from other populations. For a population to become 'racially' different its overall genetics needs to change significantly too, as you introduce the term general factor of heritable traits. So an individual heritable trait could, though not automatically, distinguish races.

The Norwegian and Irish populations are distinguishable by a 'general factor of heritable traits' when, in terms of general factors of heritable traits, individual members of those populations are more like their fellow population members than they are like the non-members of their respective populations. From the perspective of a statistical worldview, there is no threshold level of this disparity between in-group and out-group general heritable trait alikeness that can consistently rule out the classifiability of two or more populations into races. From the perspective of a statistical worldview, as long as any general difference in heritable traits exists between any two or more given populations, those populations are reliably classifiable into races.

I mostly agree, except for the fact that you propose to classify populations into races even though the perspective of a statistical worldview dictates that you cannot reliably do that. There are simply too many factors to consider and there is simply too much variance from person to person within the same classification. The best that can be done is construct distributions of factors to describe different populations.

 

[plus]

I quote myself:

Exactly where do I state that blacks are from America? This is an issue of comprehensive reading.

There are many blacks from America. You do not need to state this for this to be fact. These blacks are not from malaria infested regions therefore according to your statement they should not have a high prevelence of sickle cell disease.

You should have said those descended from people living in malaria infested areas.

 

[plus]

Norwegians are all white and Nigerians are all black.

The norwegians are not all white. There are many black and brown skinned immigrants or offspring of immigrants.
The Nigerians are probably approaching a population all black but there will be some white europeans/asians there (for example working for shell).
The area which people live cannot be used to define a race as you could change race just by moving to a different area. This is ludicrous.

 

[Monique]

There are many blacks from America. You do not need to state this for this to be fact. These blacks are not from malaria infested regions therefore according to your statement they should not have a high prevelence of sickle cell disease.

You should have said those descended from people living in malaria infested areas.

OMG has this gotten off-track. There was someone, I don't know who, who stated that blacks have a higher case of sickle cell anemia. I stated that it is more correct to correlate it with geographical ancestry.

Having a higher incidence of a disease does not define race, but populations. Populations that lived in malaria infested regions, not races that lived in malaria infested regions.

I agree though, sickle cell anemia is the most common genetic disorder in Africans, but it is also enriched in the Indians or Mediteranians or other locations I mentioned.

 

[Monique]

Norwegians are all white and Nigerians are all black.

The norwegians are not all white. There are many black and brown skinned immigrants or offspring of immigrants.
The Nigerians are probably approaching a population all black but there will be some white europeans/asians there (for example working for shell).
The area which people live cannot be used to define a race as you could change race just by moving to a different area. This is ludicrous.

You really do not understand population genetics.

I used the example to illustrate a trait that can be either completely absent or present in a population and how that can be used to define races. It's hypothetical, that is how theories are simplified and tested.

Since whiteness is a trait of living near the pole circle and brownness is a trait of living near the equator it is not such a ludicrous idea to use skin tone to define geographical origin (note I wasn't describing the citizenship of countries).

Being a little less ignorent would help analytical discussions. Thirty percent of Amsterdam is allochtonous, if I want to find out something about the autochtonous Dutch I sure wouldn't sample from that 30%.

 

[Tasthius]

Since whiteness is a trait of living near the pole circle and brownness is a trait of living near the equator

Yeah the environment over genetics argument. Tell me, if whiteness is a trait obtained via living near the poles, explain blonde, red and brown hair, as well as eye color differential commonly only found in caucasian populations. What evolutionary utility does blonde hair play for cold environments?

 

[Monique]

Blonde hair lacks pigment, white skin lacks pigment. What evolutionary utility does white skin play for cold environments? It must be the black pigmented hair that has evolutionary utility, since it filters the solar rays before they hit the scalp. Since solar rays are less intense near the poles, the pigment is allowed to mutate to colors such as brown, red, or blonde.

 

[hitssquad]

Does white skin have competitive value in low-sunlight environments

Blonde hair lacks pigment, white skin lacks pigment. What evolutionary utility does white skin play for cold environments?

Got rickets?

• healthy, full-term infants from birth to six months who have adequate exposure to sunlight are not at risk for developing vitamin D deficiency or rickets

 

[Monique]

You're right dark-skinned people get VitD deficiency when light intensities are low. But could that have something to do with white hair too? Since in cold environments not much of the skin is exposed, it might just could.

 

[hitssquad]

What environmental pressures selected for blond hair

It has been theorized that blond hair was selected for by males who couldn't resist its eye-catching glint. Since females and males differ in terms of skin tone for other evolutionary reasons (the females of every race have lighter skin than the males), perhaps males became programmed to take lightness in general as a cue for femininity and thus applied attraction-to-lightness to hair color.

 

[Monique]

Wasn't that during the Renaissance, when having a toned skin equaled working out on the land and thus being a laborer? It carried through into slavery and the Indian caste system.

Is it really that females have lighter skin globally? I really never did notice a gender difference.

 

[Tasthius]

Wasn't that during the Renaissance, when having a toned skin equaled working out on the land and thus being a laborer? It carried through into slavery and the Indian caste system.

How does the Renaissance have anything to do with the Indian caste system, since they are separate events in history by about 3,000 years?