Why do people cling so tightly to racism?

[Zero]

There are tons of threads on this board in which people try to "scientifically" justify racism? Why is it so important to them? I just don't get it, I don't see what non-racist purpose it serves, and I'd like someone to explain it to me.

 

[Njorl]

There are a lot of reasons. Here are some:

Reconciling life-long beliefs - Nobody wants to admit to being wrong their whole life. By basing racism on a scientific basis, they can excuse their racial hatred as an immature form of recognizing their "racial superiority".

Excuses - If they consider themselves failures, they may use science to show that their failure is because they were unfairly victimized by reverse racism.

Self-esteem - Being highly regarded produces some of the most powerful feelings of well-being. If they have done nothing else in life, they can still feel good about the color of their skin.

Alleviating guilt - It is easier to live with a mind-set that others are doing poorly because they are inferior, than to live with the knowledge that you benefit from a prejudicial society.

And, just to ensure I'm being scientific. There is always that slim chance that they are right. It is, however, the least likely explanation as far as I'm concerned.



What gets me is they never question the agenda of the researchers. All research is done with an agenda; sometimes it is just to know, sometimes it is to obtain useful information. Nobody is doing racial studies "just to know". These studies are done to produce information that can be used. In most research, useful information is put to the test. A product works or it doesn't. Money is made or lost. With the racial propaganda research, this is not the case. The research is never tested. While it may be submitted to peer review journals, all that means is their statistical analysis methods, and their aquisition methods are scrutinized. It is inadequate for hypothesis verification. No disinterested party ever duplicates the experiments from the ground up. It is too pointless an endeavor for most researchers to waste money on it. Only the racial propagandists seem to have funds for this purpose.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

Well, considering the flawed nature of every racist propaganda "study" I have come across, it does seem awfully likely that there is no motive besides putting a scholarly cover on a racist agenda. It is still disturbing, at least to me, that otherwise intelligent people put their faith in this sort of thing, without objectively looking at the methods and motives of the people doing this sort of "research".

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Njorl
Alleviating guilt - It is easier to live with a mind-set that others are doing poorly because they are inferior, than to live with the knowledge that you benefit from a prejudicial society.

This is the only one I really haven't seen much of. In my experience, people tend to be pretty unapologetic of prejudices of all types. I guess it could still be some psychological front though.

I tend to see mostly the first two.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
This is the only one I really haven't seen much of. In my experience, people tend to be pretty unapologetic of prejudices of all types. I guess it could still be some psychological front though.

I tend to see mostly the first two.

I think that there is a flip-side to it that might make a little more sense to you. I've always had the idea that it is among some people the idea that if you can blame people for their problems, then there is no social or ethical responsibility to do anything about it. Sort of like saying that rape victims deserve it, so you don't have to feel anything towards them except contempt.

 

[Nachtwolf]

There are tons of threads on this board in which people try to "scientifically" justify racism? Why is it so important to them? I just don't get it, I don't see what non-racist purpose it serves, and I'd like someone to explain it to me.

I can explain it to you, although I doubt you'll like the explanation. You fail to understand the apparent purpose of these evil racist threads because you understand them as evil racist threads and impugn those who post on them with evil racism.

There is no racism. It's just a bunch of facts. Why get worked up over the fact that Hydrogen atoms have fewer protons than Argon atoms? Yes, East Asians have bigger brains and score better on IQ tests than Africans; why get worked so up over it? This entire board is dedicated to the social sciences, and discussion on psychometrics falls well within the social sciences. It's only the insistent anti-racist denial of well established scientific facts which makes these issues an argument at all.

In other words, a far better title for this thread would have been "Why do people cling so tightly to bioegalitarianism?" After all, the very creation of this thread springs from a fundamental inability to refute the facts combined with an equally fundamental inability to accept those facts.


--Mark

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
I can explain it to you, although I doubt you'll like the explanation. You fail to understand the apparent purpose of these evil racist threads because you understand them as evil racist threads and impugn those who post on them with evil racism.

There is no racism. It's just a bunch of facts. Why get worked up over the fact that Hydrogen atoms have fewer protons than Argon atoms? Yes, East Asians have bigger brains and score better on IQ tests than Africans; why get worked so up over it? This entire board is dedicated to the social sciences, and discussion on psychometrics falls well within the social sciences. It's only the insistent anti-racist denial of well established scientific facts which makes these issues an argument at all.

In other words, a far better title for this thread would have been "Why do people cling so tightly to bioegalitarianism?" After all, the very creation of this thread springs from a fundamental inability to refute the facts combined with an equally fundamental inability to accept those facts.


--Mark

Sounds like racist propaganda to me. You know, like selectively skewing "facts" in order to make fraudulent claims for ulterior motives?
Why are you so eager to be a racist? What's in it for you?

 

[Nachtwolf]

Sounds like racist propaganda to me.

This is because, as I have already stated, you have a fundamental inability to understand simple facts. I'm sure that Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection sounds like atheist propoganda to fundamentalist Christians.

You know, like selectively skewing "facts" in order to make fraudulent claims for ulterior motives?

Find me

1. One single brain size study which finds blacks have larger brains than either whites or East Asians.

2. One single IQ study showing that blacks have higher IQs than either whites or East Asians.

Lacking one single study showing these things, your belief in our selectively skewing the facts is baseless fantasy.

Why are you so eager to be a racist?

I am not a racist. Racism is belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic stock. Even if intelligence were the sole criterion by which an ethnicity's "worth" could be judged, I do not belong to the ethnic group possessing the highest average IQ. If you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, you would realize how absurd these charges of racism are.

What's in it for you?

It helps spread knowledge related to eugenic issues, which is a minor bonus. But honestly, if some nut came up to you and began insisting that the Earth was flat, and called you a "roundist" for disagreeing with him, wouldn't you argue, if only for a bit?

You are the modern equivalent of a "flat-earther," Zero, and I argue with you because you amuse me.


--Mark

 

[Zero]

Right...you don't amuse me.

Your "facts" have been refuted dozens if not hundreds of times, often right here at PF...why do you continue to cling to those phony "facts"?

 

[Zero]

IOW...why is it that after eugenics has been so thoroughly discredited, people still look to it as though it were real science? What is the goal of using a debunked idea, if not for specifically racist goals?

I think part of it, actually, is a desire for some people to feel more intelligent than they really are, by defending a discredited idea. They get to feel like a "free-thinking, open-minded" person, while neither thinking, nor opening their mind to reality.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Right...you don't amuse me.

I never asked about your amusement.

Your "facts" have been refuted dozens if not hundreds of times, often right here at PF...

No, they have been attacked as "racist" by people like you, but they have not been refuted. Note the distinction between flinging a pathetic Ad Hominem and actually refuting a fact. If you want to refute these facts, again, you might want to show me one study - just one study! - which finds blacks outscore East Asians for IQ or have larger brains than East Asians. You won't, of course, because you can't.

why do you continue to cling to those phony "facts"?

Because I have the ability to think for myself rather than parrot what I've been told about how racists are evil and the Earth is flat.

IOW...why is it that after eugenics has been so thoroughly discredited

Again, I note that you can't make the distinction between discrediting a fact or scientific discipline, and equating it with "racism" or some other unpopular thing.

I think part of it, actually, is a desire for some people to feel more intelligent than they really are, by defending a discredited idea. They get to feel like a "free-thinking, open-minded" person, while neither thinking, nor opening their mind to reality.

Hahaha! Not bad, Mister Freud! You are quite right when you suggest that I believe myself to be more intelligent than you. Then again this is no great insight, as I have certainly made no effort to conceal my opinions about your intellectual acuity.

Well that's all for now, but write back soon - and don't forget to find me a study showing how brilliant Africans are, or how East Asians have tiny brains! Just one study, it should be no trouble for you at all, hahahahaha!


--Mark

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Well that's all for now, but write back soon - and don't forget to find me a study showing how brilliant Africans are, or how East Asians have tiny brains! Just one study, it should be no trouble for you at all, hahahahaha!

I'd like to see some studies that correlate brain size to intelligence. By your reckoning a person's I.Q. ought to be reflected in their brain size. Got any studies showing this?

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by Zero
There are tons of threads on this board in which people try to "scientifically" justify racism? Why is it so important to them? I just don't get it, I don't see what non-racist purpose it serves, and I'd like someone to explain it to me.

On the net there are two kinds of people:
1. Trolls
2. Fish who bite.

Please define "racism" and "justify" in the context of your post.

I will assume that you mean "the disparity in socio-economic status that correlates to an ethnic group" by racism, and "claim that an intrinsic and objectively measurable difference is the root cause of" for justify.

Alternative notions for justify could be "demonstrate that there is no need to redress", "demonstrate that an unbiased process results in."

Let's take a look at some of the things that might be considered 'fair'.

In the US, people who do not speak English have a harder time getting jobs than people who do. (I don't have studies to cite for this, but it if you like, I can research it. ) Does that mean that the US, in general is 'racist' against people who do not speak English? Is discriminiating against people who do not speak English justified?

Similarly people who are physically attractive have an easier time getting jobs. Once again, I must ask whether this is racism, and whether it is 'justified'.

People who dress appropriately for their job interviews are more likely to get hired. Is that racism? Is it 'justified'?

People who socialize effectively are more likely to get jobs. People with money tend to have an easier time getting jobs.

Pointing out that there is a disparity between the socio-economic status of blacks as a group, and whites as a group, and then claiming that that difference is the result of racial discrimination is difficult to justify without scientific testing.

What someone sees as the root cause of economic disparity between groups could either be unreasonable discrimination, or the result of efficient competition. In order to test the theories scientifically, there need to be falsifiable predictions. Realistically, there are also massive problems with sociology because of the stinging lack of control groups.

By the bye, I've got some rather fundamental questions about the word 'racism" and would suggest that it's not really the kind of word that is useful for a constructive discussion.

 

[hitssquad]

Brain size - IQ correlations

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I'd like to see some studies that correlate brain size to intelligence. By your reckoning a person's I.Q. ought to be reflected in their brain size. Got any studies showing this?

--
The physical characteristics correlated with g that are empirically best established are stature, head size, brain size, frequency of alpha brain waves, latency and amplitude of evoked brain potentials, rate of brain glucose metabolism, and general health. [/color]
--
The g Factor. Chapter 6: Biological Correlates of g. p137.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874



--
...the technology of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) now makes it possible to obtain a three-dimensional picture of the brain of a living person. A highly accurate measure of total brain volume (or the volume of any particular structure in the brain) can be obtained from the MRI pictures. Such quantitative data are now usually extracted from the MRI pictures by computer.

To date there are eight MRI studies ^{[10]} of the correlation between total brain volume and IQ in healthy children and young adults. In every study the correlations are significant and close to +.40 after removing variance due to differences in body size. (The correlation between body size and brain size in adult humans is between +.20 and +.25.) Large parts of the brain do not subserve cognitive processes, but govern sensory and motor functions, emotions, and autonomic regulation of physiological activity. Controlling body size removes to some extent the sensorimotor aspects of brain size from the correlation of overall brain size with IQ. But controlling body size in the brain × IQ correlation is somewhat problematic, because there may be some truly functional relationship between brain size and body size that includes the brain's cognitive functions. Therefore, controlling body size in the IQ × brain size correlation may be too conservative; it could result in overcorrecting the correlation. Moreover, the height and weight of the head constitute an appreciable proportion of the total body height and weight, so that controlling total body size could also contribute to overcorrection by removing some part of the variance in head and brain size along with variance in general body size. Two of the MRI studies used a battery of diverse cognitive tests, which permitted the use of correlated vectors to determine the relationship between the column vector of the various tests' g factor loadings and the column vector of the tests' correlations with total brain volume. In one study, ^{[10f]} based on twenty cognitive tests given to forty adult males sibling pairs, these vectors were correlated +.65. In the other study, ^{[10g]} based on eleven diverse cognitive tests, the vector of the tests' g loadings were correlated +.51 with the vector of the tests' correlations with total brain volume and +.66 with the vector of the tests' correlations with the volume of the brain's cortical gray matter...

Metabolically, the human brain is by far the most "expensive" organ in the whole body, and the body may have evolved to serve in part like a "power pack" for the brain, with a genetically larger brain being accommodated by a larger body. It has been determined experimentally, for example, that strains of rats that were selectively bred from a common stock exclusively to be either good or poor at maze learning were found to differ not only in brain size but also in body size. ^{[11]} Body size increased only about one-third as much as brain size as a result of the rats being selectively bred exclusively for good or poor maze-learning ability. There was, of course, no explicit selection for either brain size or body size, but only for maze-learning ability. Obviously, there is some intrinsic functional and genetic relationship between learning ability, brain size, and body size, at least in laboratory rats. Although it would be unwarranted to generalize this finding to humans, it does suggest the hypothesis that a similar relationship may exist in humans. It is known that body size has increased along with brain size in the course of human evolution. The observed correlations between brain size, body size, and mental ability in humans are consistent with these facts, but the nature and direction of the causal connections between these variables cannot be inferred without other kinds of evidence that is not yet available.

The IQ × head-size correlation is clearly intrinsic, as shown by significant correlations both between-families (r = +.20, p < .001) and within-families (r = +.11, p < .05) in a large sample of seven-year-old children, with head size measured only by circumference and IQ measured by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. ^{[12]} (Age, height, and weight were statistically controlled.) The same children at four years of age showed no significant correlation of head size with Stanford-Binet IQ, and in fact the WF correlation was even negative (-.04). This suggests that the correlation of IQ with head size (and, by inference, brain size) is a developmental phenomenon, increasing with age during childhood.

One of the unsolved mysteries regarding the relation of brain size to IQ is the seeming paradox that there is a considerable sex difference in brain size (the adult female brain being about 100 cm^3 smaller than the male) without there being a corresponding sex difference in IQ. ^{[13]} It has been argued that some IQ tests have purposely eliminated items that discriminate between the sexes or have balanced-out sex differences in items or subtests. This is not true, however, for many tests such as Raven's matrices, which is almost a pure measure of g, yet shows no consistent or significant sex difference. Also, the differing g loadings of the subscales of the Wechsler Intelligence Test are not correlated with the size of the sex difference on the various subtests. ^{[14]} The correlation between brain size and IQ is virtually the same for both sexes.The explanation for the well-established mean sex difference in brain size is still somewhat uncertain, although one hypothesis has been empirically tested, with positive results. Properly controlling (by regression) the sex difference in body size diminishes, but by no means eliminates, the sex difference in brain size. Three plausible hypotheses have been proposed to explain the sex difference (of about 8 percent) in average brain size between the sexes despite there being no sex difference in g:

• Possible sexual dimorphism in neural circuitry or in overall neural conduction velocity could cause the female brain to process information more efficiently.
  
• The brain size difference could be due to the one ability factor, independent of g, that unequivocally shows a large sex difference, namely, spatial visualization ability, in which only 25 percent of females exceed the male median. Spatial ability could well depend upon a large number of neurons, and males may have more of these "spatial ability" neurons than females, thereby increasing the volume of the male brain.
  
• Females have the same amount of functional neural tissue as males but there is greater "packing density" of the neurons in the female brain. While the two previous hypotheses remain purely speculative at present, there is recent direct evidence for a sex difference in the "packing density" of neurons. ^{[15]} In the cortical regions most directly related to cognitive ability, the autopsied brains of adult women possessed, on average, about 11 percent more neurons per unit volume than were found in the brain of adult men. The males and females were virtually equated on Wechsler Full Scale IQ (112.3 and 110.6, respectively). The male brains were about 12.5 percent heavier than the female brains. Hence the greater neuronal packing density in the female brain nearly balances the larger size of the male brain. Of course, further studies based on histological, MRI, and PET techniques will be needed to establish the packing density hypothesis as the definitive explanation for the seeming paradox of the two sexes differing in brain size but not differing in IQ despite a correlation of about +.40 between these variables within each sex group.

[/color]--
The g Factor. pp147-149.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874



--

• (a) Andreasen et al., 1993; (b) Egan et al., 1994; (c) Raz Torres, et al., 1993; (d) Wickett at al., 1994; (e) Willerman et al., 1991; (f) Wickett et al., 1996; (g) Schoenemann , 1997.
  
• Hamilton, 1935.
  
• Jensen & Johnson, 1994; also see Johnson, 1991, for additional evidence of a within-families correlation between head size and IQ.
  
• Ankney, 1992.
  
• Jensen, 1980a, pp. 622-627. This chapter affords a fairly comprehensive review of sex differences in mental abilities and references to much of the literature prior to 1980.
  
• Wittelson et al., 1995.

[/color]--
The g Factor. p167.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874




(References in next message[/color])
[Edit: format adjusted][/color]


-Chris

 

[hitssquad]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I'd like to see some studies that correlate brain size to intelligence. By your reckoning a person's I.Q. ought to be reflected in their brain size. Got any studies showing this?

(References for previous message[/color])





Andreasen N. C., Flaum M., Swayze V. II, O'Leary D. S., Alliger R., Cohen G., Ehrhardt J. & Youh W. T. C. (1993). Intelligence and brain structure in normal individuals. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 130-134.

Ankney C. D. (1992). Sex differences in relative brain size: The mismeasure of woman, too? Intelligence, 16, 329-336.

Egan V., Chiswick A., Santosh C., Naidu K., Rimmington. J. E. & Best J. J. K. (1994). Size isn't everything: A study of brain volume, intelligence and auditory evoked potentials. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 357-367.

Hamilton J. A. (1935). The association between brain size and maze ability in the white rat. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Jensen A. R. (1980a). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.

Jensen A. R. & Johnson F. W. (1994). Race and sex differences in head size and IQ. Intelligence, 18, 309-333.

Raz N., Torres I. J., Spencer W. D., Millman D., Baertschi J. C. & Sarpel G. (1993). "Neuroanatomical correlates of age-sensitive and age-invariant cognitive abilities: An in vivo MRI investigation". Intelligence, 17, 407-422.

Schoenemann P. T. (1997). The evolution of the human brain and its relationship to behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Berkeley: University of California.

Wickett J. C., Vernon P. A. & Lee D. H. (1994). In vivo brain size, head perimeter, and intelligence in a sample of healthy adult females. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 831-838.

Wickett J. C., Vernon P. A. & Lee D. H. (1996). General intelligence and brain volume in a sample of healthy adult male siblings. International Journal of Psychology, 31, 238-239. (Abstract).

Willerman L., Rutledge J. N. & Bigler E. D. (1991). In vivo brain size and intelligence. Intelligence, 15, 223-228.

Wittelson S. F., Glezer I. I. & Kigar D. L. (1995). Women have greater density of neurons in posterior temporal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 3418-3428.





Reference list compiled from The g Factor.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874




-Chris

 

[zoobyshoe]

Hitsquad

Could you please delete the enormous gap you left between the end of your quote and the end of your post. Makes it extremely difficult to scroll.

 

[Zero]

Something I was wondering...how many tens of millions of dollars were used to measure IQ of a large enough population sample to be relevant. I mean, the costs must be staggering, if you were going to do it correctly. I mean, training IQ testers in the dozens of different languages must have been a staggering feat. Then you have to translate the IQ test instructions and the test themselves, and run a study on each translated IQ test, to guarantee an accurate translation. And, of course, how do you properly randomize your samples? Wow, any study of IQ and race must have taken a team of hundreds, if not thousands of researchers a few decades...



...why do I think none of that happened? Someone needs to show me HOW those studies were done, instead of just their dubious "results".

Oh, and BTW, why not come up with the reverse conclusion, that poverty leads to poor test scores, instead of the other way around? Here in America, economic status seems to be the leading indicator of school performance, not some sort of arbitrary racial division. Why should we not assume the same worldwide, and see any IQ results to be caused by economic factors, instead of going straight for the discredited racist idea that poor countries are filled to the top with sub-humans(which is the assumption of "eugenics", racism by a fancy name)

Oh, wait, I know why...not only can you be racist and not feel bad, but you can also pretend to be more "enlightened"...

Because I have the ability to think for myself rather than parrot what I've been told about how racists are evil and the Earth is flat.

Allowing racists to do your thinking for you isn't thinking for yourself.

 

[Njorl]

The biggest problem with the "scientific evidence" for genetic racial disparity is that it is collected by people with an agenda. Many researchers may want to know the truth, but they are not willing to spend the money on such a trivial exercise. Only those with an agenda are willing to do this work. Racial propagandists can sell their results if the results support their theories. The same is not true for refutation of those theories. Essentially, even if their thesis is right, it is unprovable, because it is not negatable by objective research. Until such a time that it becomes negatable - when the research can be done cheaply by a financially disinterested researcher - it can not be accepted as good science.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Njorl
The biggest problem with the "scientific evidence" for genetic racial disparity is that it is collected by people with an agenda. Many researchers may want to know the truth, but they are not willing to spend the money on such a trivial exercise. Only those with an agenda are willing to do this work. Racial propagandists can sell their results if the results support their theories. The same is not true for refutation of those theories. Essentially, even if their thesis is right, it is unprovable, because it is not negatable by objective research. Until such a time that it becomes negatable - when the research can be done cheaply by a financially disinterested researcher - it can not be accepted as good science.

Njorl

Add to that, of course, that raw data on its own, without context, doesn't lead to any conclusions whatsoever. What factors are being left out? Which other factors are included unnecessarily? Where isthe researcher bias, and what steps have been taken to eliminate it? Where does peer review fit in, and what were the results?

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by NateTG
On the net there are two kinds of people:
1. Trolls
2. Fish who bite.

Which are you? Fool, or follower of Fool?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adam
Which are you? Fool, or follower of Fool?

Adam, if you can't play nicely, don't play at all.

 

[Adam]

Okay, I see I must translate for some.

It was stated:

On the net there are two kinds of people:
1. Trolls
2. Fish who bite.

To which I responded:

Which are you? Fool, or follower of Fool?

Now, watch closely:

• Troll = Fool.
• Those who stupidly respond to Fool = Followers of Fool.

To NateTG, there are only two types of people on the internet. Therefore, in NateTG's opinion, NateTG must be one of those two.

Understand?

Personally, I believe NateTG is wrong, and there are more types of people using the internet.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adam
Okay, I see I must translate for some.

It was stated:

To which I responded:

Now, watch closely:

• Troll = Fool.
• Those who stupidly respond to Fool = Followers of Fool.

To NateTG, there are only two types of people on the internet. Therefore, in NateTG's opinion, NateTG must be one of those two.

Understand?

Personally, I believe NateTG is wrong, and there are more types of people using the internet.

I think you need to move on, chum...you don't seem to have anything to contribute to the thread. If you have a personal beef with Nate, you can try a PM.

Otherwise, you could try posting something relevant to the thread.

 

[Adam]

Um, Zero... Are you half-asleep?

1) Since my post was built entirely around something previously posted in the thread, my post is relevant to the thread.

2) As I have already said, I disagree with NateTG's idea that there are only two types of people using the internet. Therefore, obviously, I do not necessarily believe NateTG is one of the two types he mentioned.

3) I have nothing whatsoever against NateTG. He seems an ok chap to me. I don't see the need to have a personal bias for or against a person in order to facilitate discussion of their ideas.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
You fail to understand the apparent purpose of these evil racist threads...

There is no racism. It's just a bunch of facts.

Nachtwolf, I must point out that you state that these threads have a purpose but you didn't provide one. If you don't, we are left with making our own judgements as to what the purpose might be. Frankly, I agree with Zero: taken at face value (facts or no facts - for the purpose of this discussion, I'll even stipulate to them), the purpose of these threads and research seems to be a justification of racism.

[edit:typo]

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Nachtwolf, I must point out that your state that these threads have a purpose but you didn't provide one. If you don't, we are left with making our own judgements as to what the purpose might be. Frankly, I agree with Zero: taken at face value (facts or no facts - for the purpose of this discussion, I'll even stipulate to them), the purpose of these threads and research seems to be a justification of racism.

This is like an endorsement from the pope to a Roman Catholic; given our history, the fact that you agree with me means that either a) I'm REALLY on to something here, or b) the next signs will be seas of blood and a plague of frogs.

Would you agree, Russ, that data alone doesn't create science?(I'm willing to make the same stipulation as you are, at least for the moment) Isn't that really the beginning of real study, not the end of it? It seems like some people found the data they liked, and matched it to their preconcieved notions about race, and called it a day.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by russ_watters
... the purpose of these threads and research seems to be a justification of racism.

You mean threads like https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13254 started not by Nachtwolf but by peonyu? A thread with an opening post which suggests not that racism is justified, but that it exists in higher education arenas in the USA.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adam
You mean threads like https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13254 started not by Nachtwolf but by peonyu? A thread with an opening post which suggests not that racism is justified, but that it exists in higher education arenas in the USA.

Boy, you have enough of a hard time understanding what is going on in THIS thread, don't you? Do you need to bring up other threads that you don't understand? I can't seem to find the justification of racism in the initial post of that other thread. Plus, of course, I can see your horror at the idea that racism might exist in universities, but I don't understand your surprise. After all, the racist eugenics folks include college professors, don't they?

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by Adam
Which are you? Fool, or follower of Fool?

I meant to suggest that this thread (at least the inital post) is a troll. Not necessarilty because of the topic, but because of the vauge way that it is phrased. That makes me one of the fish that's biting.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by NateTG
I meant to suggest that this thread (at least the inital post) is a troll. Not necessarilty because of the topic, but because of the vauge way that it is phrased. That makes me one of the fish that's biting.

Sorry you don't approve...you were more than welcome to move on, though. Have you got anything on topic to add?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zero
IOW...why is it that after eugenics has been so thoroughly discredited, people still look to it as though it were real science? What is the goal of using a debunked idea, if not for specifically racist goals?

Here, I think this better sums up my question. Can we stick to answering this question? Maybe dealing with what Russ pointed out would help as well, as far as someone providing a purpose for the research and threads.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Zero
Boy, you have enough of a hard time understanding what is going on in THIS thread, don't you? Do you need to bring up other threads that you don't understand? I can't seem to find the justification of racism in the initial post of that other thread. Plus, of course, I can see your horror at the idea that racism might exist in universities, but I don't understand your surprise. After all, the racist eugenics folks include college professors, don't they?

Okay, I will explain.

First we have the opening post of the thread, and I quote:

There are tons of threads on this board in which people try to "scientifically" justify racism? Why is it so important to them? I just don't get it, I don't see what non-racist purpose it serves, and I'd like someone to explain it to me.

Ignoring the problem that the first sentence is not quite a statement, not quite a question - or maybe a little of both - the topic of the thread is clearly other threads here about racism, particularly threads which attempt to justify racism. Write that down if it helps. "The topic of the thread is: threads which attempt to jusifty racism."

Second, we have my post which brought to attention another thread which attempted to show not a justification for racism, but that racism exists in universities and such. Hardly proof that people keep posting threads which attempt to justify racism. In short: evidence against the supposition of the opening post of this thread. Thus, not only is it related to the thread, it is also inherently related to the topic of the opening post and therefore indicates an understanding of the topic.

Third, I do not believe I have reacted with horror or surprise at anything presented here, ever. What on Earth are you talking about?

Fourth, on what basis do you suggest that I have misunderstood any thread here? Your ad hominems are tiresome. Get over it.

 

[Adam]

On the re-stated topic...

IOW...why is it that after eugenics has been so thoroughly discredited, people still look to it as though it were real science? What is the goal of using a debunked idea, if not for specifically racist goals?

State precisely what you mean by "Eugenics", to clarify your purpose.

 

[Zero]

Oops, I misread your post...not that it matters, since the point is unrelated to THIS thread. Finding one thread or a dozen that doesn't attempt to justify racism simply ignores the fact that there are threads that do. Those threads are the topic of THIS thread.

Why can't you discuss eugenics? You have a computer, look it up on Google, then check out the eugenics threads here, and let's talk about them. Can you do that? Are you willing to make an attempt at ANSWERING THE QUESTION I ASKED ABOUT EUGENICS?!?

Or are you going to waste time by attacking people in this thread, bringing up threads that have nothing to do with this topic, or other distractions? I am starting to suspect that there is a reason why you are trying to derail this thread, although I cannot make a guess at it.

So, eugenics in general, and PF eugenics threads specifically...what do you think about them, Adam?

 

[Adam]

Dude, since you feel the need to dictate how everything in this thread must be, it is up to you to define precisely what you think the topic is. Clearly, if I state my opinion regarding Eugenics, you will say either "you don't understand!" or "you're off-topic!". So, to avoid such nonsense, tell us what you think Eugenics is, and give us your opinion about it, then ask your questions from that basis.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adam
Dude, since you feel the need to dictate how everything in this thread must be, it is up to you to define precisely what you think the topic is. Clearly, if I state my opinion regarding Eugenics, you will say either "you don't understand!" or "you're off-topic!". So, to avoid such nonsense, tell us what you think Eugenics is, and give us your opinion about it, then ask your questions from that basis.

Ha! You know what eugenics is...both the dictionary definition, and its application in racist dogmas. But, since typing "http://www.google.com/" seems to be a sticking point for you, I'll do it for you. Broadly, "eugenics" is a human breeding program which hopes to "improve the stock". Specifically, as it is commonly used, it is "the selective prevention or encouragement of births for social, racial, or political ends." It is the second definition which seems to be prevalent, and the focus of this thread.

 

[Adam]

Okay, now that we all know exactly what you are talking about, I can supply further information.

1) Eugenics is the principle of weeding out the weak and combining the strong, to produce more strength, basically.

2) Eugenics has not in any way been "debunked" or "dismissed". Doctors all over the planet tend to recommend against people with very serious hereditary problems having their own kids. Often those possessing serious hereditary defects are proponents of Eugenics.

3) As for my personal opinion, I think it's a great idea. Do some genetic tinkering, get rid of Osteo Genesis Imperfecta and numerous other nasty problems. Tinker with people until we get rid of all such problems. Wipe out defects which result in humans living pain-filled lives of physical disadvantage.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Would you agree, Russ, that data alone doesn't create science?

Certainly. Even fullly developed theories have a broader purpose. That was my point.

I was thinking of an example as I wrote that post: AIDS research. A biologist might do a study of t-cell production in aids patients given different drugs. The data might or might not show something interesting, but regardless of the specifics of the study, the point of the research in the first place is to find a cure/vaccine for AIDS. It won't even say it in any specific paper, but there is no question that that's the purpose of the line of research.

In contrast, people doing race vs intelligence "research" often claim not to have a larger purpose in mind. Its as if we're expected to believe they just threw darts to choose an area to research and don't have any kind of reason for choosing it or broader purpose in mind.

(I'm willing to make the same stipulation as you are, at least for the moment) Isn't that really the beginning of real study, not the end of it? It seems like some people found the data they liked, and matched it to their preconcieved notions about race, and called it a day.

Also agreed (both parts).

You mean threads like https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread...;threadid=13254 started not by Nachtwolf but by peonyu? A thread with an opening post which suggests not that racism is justified, but that it exists in higher education arenas in the USA.

Not exactly relevant to this thread, but that's an example where the point/purpose is relatively clear: racism and sexism exist and something should be done to eradicate them.

Second, we have my post which brought to attention another thread which attempted to show not a justification for racism, but that racism exists in universities and such. Hardly proof that people keep posting threads which attempt to justify racism. In short: evidence against the supposition of the opening post of this thread. Thus, not only is it related to the thread, it is also inherently related to the topic of the opening post and therefore indicates an understanding of the topic.

Not really, Adam. Interestingly enough, that's a good illustration of part of the problem we're analyzing here: people don't know what it means to provide evidence to support something. Evidence is generally a positive thing, not a negative thing. If you want to try to prove a negative, you need a whole truckload of failed attempts to find the evidence (see: ether vs relativity).

Linking one thread not relevant to Zero's point doesn't prove that there aren't other threads that are relevant to Zero's point - and there are probably a good dozen of them.

) As for my personal opinion [eugenics], I think it's a great idea.

The problem is the scope/scale. While it may sound like a good idea on the small scale, its often used as a justification for outlawing interracial marriage, or even genocide (Hitler: Jews are inferior - instead of just not allowing them to breed, let's be proactive and just kill all of them). Which takes me back to my point: its not important how Zero (or the dictionary) defines eugenics, what's important is how the people doing these studies and starting these threads define eugenics and how exactly they want to implement it.

 

[Adam]

Interestingly enough, that's a good illustration of part of the problem we're analyzing here: people don't know what it means to provide evidence to support something. Evidence is generally a positive thing, not a negative thing.

It's not "evidence for a negative" at all. Consider. Two opposing propositions. 1) Too many damn threads trying to justify racism! 2) Clealry there are threads which not only don't do that, but go the other way, complaining about racism. My link supports 2, which is not a negative at all.

In future, please refrain from Zero's oft-employed "you simply don't understand". It's just silly.

The problem is the scope/scale. While it may sound like a good idea on the small scale, its often used as a justification for outlawing interracial marriage, or even genocide (Hitler: Jews are inferior - instead of just not allowing them to breed, let's be proactive and just kill all of them). Which takes me back to my point: its not important how Zero (or the dictionary) defines eugenics, what's important is how the people doing these studies and starting these threads define eugenics and how exactly they want to implement it.

The larger the scale, the better. Eradicate hereditary disabilities globally. Eugenics is good stuff.

However, what you're talking about there is not Eugenics. You're talking about loony-toons whacko NAZI ideas which had nothing to do with Eugenics, although people applied the term.

The problem is not Eugenics. The problem is human fear, hatred, greed, mistrust, et cetera. Eugenics is simply an earlier version of "War On Terror". A label which has nothing to do with actual events taking place, but which will be thereafter tied to those events, regardless of merit.

 

[Zero]

Seems to me that someone was disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable...

And, Adam, since the "loony-toons whacko NAZI ideas" are generally included under the umbrella "eugenics" heading, that is what I called it. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[NateTG]

Something rather amusing about eugenics is that, as a result of eugenics laws, germans who attempt to marry U.S. citizens in germany have to be certified sane before they can legally marry.

The reason is that if a foreigner gets married in Germany, german law requires that all of the legal requirements for mariage in that person's country be met in addition to the german laws. The US has eugenics laws that prevent insane people from getting married, but although these laws are no longer enforced in the US the Germans want to make sure that the marriage is legal in the US.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Race, and ultimately, Eugenics

I'd like to see some studies that correlate brain size to intelligence. By your reckoning a person's I.Q. ought to be reflected in their brain size. Got any studies showing this?

Zoobyshoe, I hope hitsquad has answered this question to your satisfaction. If not, please let me know.

Nachtwolf, I must point out that you state that these threads have a purpose but you didn't provide one. If you don't, we are left with making our own judgements as to what the purpose might be. Frankly, I agree with Zero: taken at face value (facts or no facts - for the purpose of this discussion, I'll even stipulate to them), the purpose of these threads and research seems to be a justification of racism.

1. Gee Russ, I'm sorry if you expect me to provide a disclaimer at the start of every post stating that I'm not one of those evil racists (I'm just one of those evil eugenists). My views and motivations have been stated multiple times, and can be fairly easily learned by clicking the link in my sig. Here is probably the most relevant quote you can find there:

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm --> Race

As long as we avoid discussion on the very real differences which exist between ethnicities, we will continue to waste money on environmental programs designed to increase minority intelligence, whites will continue to be blamed for the intelligence disparities which refuse to go away, and minorities will continue to fail economically in our intelligence-dominated meritocracy.

It is important for us to ask ourselves whether we want to see social disparities continue forever. Do we want a society stratified by ethnic lines? I submit to you that it is only racial supremacists who draw satisfaction from the plight of other ethnic groups. The heritability and importance of these differences only strengthens the imperative to apply a eugenic solution. Our society is currently spending billions of dollars in an effort to reduce the IQ disparities with environmental intervention, but thus far very little has been effective. Why not use this money in a way which will actually do some good?

Why not consider eugenics?

Here it is spelled out for you, again. Happy?

2. Who the hell cares what my motivations are? What if my motivations were to breed East Asians with Blacks to create a super-race in order to dominate the world? Would that suddenly make Ashkenazi Jews score worse on measures of IQ than Australian Aboriginals? Would this suddenly cause the brain size disparity which exists between human groups to vanish? I shouldn't have to remind you that it wouldn't.

For some reason, PhysicForums posters seem incredibly interested in the people at the expense of the facts. Evo's offensive psychoanalysis of Carlos Hernandez and Zero's bumbling attempts to pin racism on me are utterly meaningless distractions, but many of you (especially Zero and Evo) can't perceive them as such. Zoobyshoe is the wisest poster on this thread - he shows no interest in my mother's maiden name or the price of Tea in China; he just wants to see relevant studies, and that's to his credit!

Do some genetic tinkering, get rid of Osteo Genesis Imperfecta and numerous other nasty problems. Tinker with people until we get rid of all such problems. Wipe out defects which result in humans living pain-filled lives of physical disadvantage.

I'm a little squeamish about this, Adam. When people talk about wiping out alleles, they're suggesting that we should take a big risk. What if these alleles become important or necessary somewhere down the road? Doesn't Sickle-Cell provide immujnity to Malaria? Doesn't Cystic Fibrosis provide resistence to Cholera? I agree wholeheartedly that we should reduce the levels of these traits in the general population, but I disagree that wiping genes out is a wise move.

Which takes me back to my point: its not important how Zero (or the dictionary) defines eugenics, what's important is how the people doing these studies and starting these threads define eugenics and how exactly they want to implement it.

Oho, so you're learning! Here's what Francis galton, the Father of Eugenics, had to say.

http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/perl/local/psyc/makedoc?id=17&type=html

Individuals appear to me as partial detachments from the Infinite ocean of Being, and this world is a stage on which Evolution takes place, principally hitherto by means of Natural Selection, which achieves the good of the whole with scant regard to that of the individual. Man is gifted with pity and other kindly feelings; he has also to power of preventing many kinds of suffering. I conceive it to fall well within his province to replace Natural Selection by other processes that are more merciful and not less effective. This is precisely the aim of Eugenics. Its first object is to check the birth-rate of the Unfit, instead of allowing them to come into being, though doomed in large numbers to perish prematurely. The second object is the improvement of the race by furthering the productivity of the Fit by early marriages and healthful rearing of their children. Natural Selection rests upon excessive production and wholesale destruction; Eugenics on bringing no more individuals into the world than can be properly cared for, and those only of the best stock.


--Mark

P.S. Hey Zero, I'm sorry - I must have missed where you so carefully and thoughtfully posted your study showing that blacks have high IQs or that East Asians have small brains or whatever it was (I don't actually know what it says, but I'm looking forward to reading it). Please repost it so that the board will know that you aren't a mindless fool. Thanks!

 

[Zero]

In other words, you are a racist...did you need to cut and paste all your propaganda, when a simple admission would have done?

Hey, Russ, am I completely off base, but isn't this exactly the sort of thing we were talking about as being racist?

 

[Zero]

Ok, since we have established your position, call you tell us what drove you to support an idea which everyone considers racist?

 

[Nachtwolf]

Why don't you try to provide a source to contradict everything I've been saying, Zero? Your doomed search for such a source just might give you the understanding of me which you so inexplicably desire.

--Mark

 

[NateTG]

Zero:
Please define what you understand under the terms racist and racism.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Why don't you try to provide a source to contradict everything I've been saying, Zero? Your doomed search for such a source just might give you the understanding of me which you so inexplicably desire.

--Mark

You haven't really said much...again, what are the sources of YOUR views?

 

[Nereid]

But what is 'race'?

In the 2000 US Census, Q5 asked: "What is this person's race? Mark [X] one or more races to indicate what this person considers himself/herself to be." The choices given are (the layout has meaning too, but I can't reproduce that):
White
Black, African Am,. or Negro
American Indian or Alaska Native - print name of enrolled or principal tribe
Asian Indian
Japanese
Native Hawaiian
Chinese
Korean
Guamanian or Chammoro
Filipino
Vietnamese
Samoan
Other Asian - Print race
Other Pacific Islander - Print race
Some other race - Print race

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf is an 11-page Census Bureau publication which gives a summary of some of the results from analysis of answers to this question (and Q5, the 'Hispanic' question).

Since 'race' is clearly NOT a biological term - at least, not as used by the US Census Bureau - IQ studies, g studies, etc based on 'race' rest on a very fragile foundation. Further, using 'race' as an integral part of a eugenics program can't be scientific.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
If you want to refute these facts, again, you might want to show me one study - just one study! - which finds blacks outscore East Asians for IQ or have larger brains than East Asians. You won't, of course, because you can't.--Mark

What study are you referring to that shows that Asians have larger size brains than Africans? If you are referring to that unscientific, biased & debunked study by Rushton, that won't fly. What study (other than Rushton's) are you referring to?

Funny that the reason the African brain size was significantly smaller was due to the grossly disproportionate sampling of PYGMIES.

"This paper
contains the geographical means widely cited by Rushton, namely
that the mean cranial volume for 26 Asian societies was 1380 cc,
the mean volume for 10 European societies was 1362, and the mean
for 10 African societies was 1276. Notably, the African sample
contained 5 groups that are characterized by exceptionally small
body size (2 pygmy groups and 2 bushman groups). Indeed the Akka
pygmies (representing 1/10 of the whole African sample) had the
smallest cranial volume ever found in extant humans (1085 cc)."

http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/anthro-l/archive/november-1994/0088.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Zoobyshoe, I hope hitsquad has answered this question to your satisfaction. If not, please let me know.

Hitsquad left an enormous, space taking gap in his post that causes a huge delay in my scroll function on that page, and despite my request, has not corrected it. This makes his answer to my question irritating to try and study.

Zoobyshoe is the wisest poster on this thread - he shows no interest in my mother's maiden name or the price of Tea in China; he just wants to see relevant studies, and that's to his credit!

Zoobyshoe, in his wisdom, is also not interested in being sucked up to by someone in a ploy to split him off from other posters.