4 ms·

I kind of disagree in this case. As a general rule I think ideas should be debated objectively and with facts, but when someone so clearly promotes the idea tha

I kind of disagree in this case. As a general rule I think ideas should be debated objectively and with facts, but when someone so clearly promotes the idea that there are human races that are genetically distinct and map onto traits like intelligence and success I just think of the legacy that this line of thinking has given us: death, torture, and poverty throughout human history on a scale that's impossible to comprehend. Slavery and the holocaust were both predicated on the simple idea that one kind of human was superior so I don't feel comfortable sitting around sipping tea and debating that.

ajamesm 10y ago
And you can find any number of analyses that all conclude, "yup, the link is completely spurious". The subject isn't debatable in polite company because it has been refuted so comprehensively that the only reason to still stick to it is an unwavering dedication to white nationalist ideology. On this topic, there is no good faith.
- garandus 10y ago
  Please stop saying this in various comments here. It isn't true. Someone linked you to the relevant Wikipedia article, which references a lot of good sources you should become familiar with.
- smhost 10y ago
  The fallacy propagated by racists is: genetics = race, therefore "genetic differences account for intelligence" implies "racial differences account for intelligence." Which is obviously not true, but you shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's actually an open secret among psychologists that genetics is moderately linked to intelligence and other things like workplace success, though no one that I know will admit even to entertaining the idea, because that would mean career suicide and death threats. But it's not a white supremacist thing. In fact, it can even be seen as the opposite. Race doesn't matter at all as long as you possess those genes for intelligence.
alpsgolden 10y ago
Slavery and the holocaust were both predicated on the simple idea that one kind of human was superior so I don't feel comfortable sitting around sipping tea and debating that. On the Holocaust I'd argue the opposite point -- it was the denial of Jews genetically having a higher IQ that helped lead to the Holocaust. Jews had a level of wealth and achievement disproportionate to their population. So if you don't believe they are smarter and don't believe they have earned it, then the explanation you are left with is that they are tricky and their gains were ill-begotten. And if you read Amy Chua's book World on Fire you'll see this pattern over and over again. A certain ethnic group (Jews, Chinese, etc) does better everywhere they go. But then get demonized by the local population for their overachievement, and pogroms result. Slavery and genocide have been around forever, since we were chimpanzees really. The Romans were enslaving Greeks and everyone else (who they respected for their intelligence). Slavery was not invented because of belief in racial differences. Slavery was invented because people like taking the sh*t of other people. The NY Times publishes hundreds of articles a year on racial disparities. If you're going to make it a big issue, then you need to fully explore the reasons for the disparities based on the facts. Otherwise you will get the wrong answers, and the wrong solutions.
- ajamesm 10y ago
  > A certain ethnic group (Jews, Chinese, etc) does better everywhere they go. How many Jewish populations have been dispersed or annihilated throughout history, and their story lost? Instead of arguing for scientific racism, would you consider the selection bias inherent in your assumptions.
  - alpsgolden 10y ago
    I believe that Chua was talking about the Ashkenazi Jews. I was convinced of the "scientific racism" explanation for their achievement based on the evidence presented in the book the 10,000 The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution Paperback by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending. Nicholas Wade, a long time writer for the New York Times also made the same arguments in his book A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History although I haven't read it.

ajamesm 10y ago

And you can find any number of analyses that all conclude, "yup, the link is completely spurious". The subject isn't debatable in polite company because it has been refuted so comprehensively that the only reason to still stick to it is an unwavering dedication to white nationalist ideology. On this topic, there is no good faith.

garandus 10y ago
Please stop saying this in various comments here. It isn't true. Someone linked you to the relevant Wikipedia article, which references a lot of good sources you should become familiar with.
smhost 10y ago
The fallacy propagated by racists is: genetics = race, therefore "genetic differences account for intelligence" implies "racial differences account for intelligence." Which is obviously not true, but you shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's actually an open secret among psychologists that genetics is moderately linked to intelligence and other things like workplace success, though no one that I know will admit even to entertaining the idea, because that would mean career suicide and death threats. But it's not a white supremacist thing. In fact, it can even be seen as the opposite. Race doesn't matter at all as long as you possess those genes for intelligence.

alpsgolden 10y ago

Slavery and the holocaust were both predicated on the simple idea that one kind of human was superior so I don't feel comfortable sitting around sipping tea and debating that. On the Holocaust I'd argue the opposite point -- it was the denial of Jews genetically having a higher IQ that helped lead to the Holocaust. Jews had a level of wealth and achievement disproportionate to their population. So if you don't believe they are smarter and don't believe they have earned it, then the explanation you are left with is that they are tricky and their gains were ill-begotten. And if you read Amy Chua's book World on Fire you'll see this pattern over and over again. A certain ethnic group (Jews, Chinese, etc) does better everywhere they go. But then get demonized by the local population for their overachievement, and pogroms result. Slavery and genocide have been around forever, since we were chimpanzees really. The Romans were enslaving Greeks and everyone else (who they respected for their intelligence). Slavery was not invented because of belief in racial differences. Slavery was invented because people like taking the sh*t of other people. The NY Times publishes hundreds of articles a year on racial disparities. If you're going to make it a big issue, then you need to fully explore the reasons for the disparities based on the facts. Otherwise you will get the wrong answers, and the wrong solutions.

ajamesm 10y ago
> A certain ethnic group (Jews, Chinese, etc) does better everywhere they go. How many Jewish populations have been dispersed or annihilated throughout history, and their story lost? Instead of arguing for scientific racism, would you consider the selection bias inherent in your assumptions.
- alpsgolden 10y ago
  I believe that Chua was talking about the Ashkenazi Jews. I was convinced of the "scientific racism" explanation for their achievement based on the evidence presented in the book the 10,000 The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution Paperback by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending. Nicholas Wade, a long time writer for the New York Times also made the same arguments in his book A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History although I haven't read it.