4 ms·

What if he is correct? Or what if it would be exactly the other way around? We simply don't know because no one is "allowed" to do that kind of research. We fou

by noxer 6y ago

What if he is correct? Or what if it would be exactly the other way around? We simply don't know because no one is "allowed" to do that kind of research. We found genetic reasons why some type of cancer are more common in some people. We see all kind of other differences that are genetically. Form hairs on the head to the foot shape and toes. Differences between people are obvious. So how likely is it actually that the brain is the same for all? It's only racist if you think people should be treated differently or have different rights. Its not racist if you find differences just like it isn't sexist if you find difference between man and woman.

chris1993 6y ago
There's no accepted definition of intelligence so how could he be correct [0]? He's using a culturally defined comparison which unsurprisingly places him on the winning side. If you make comparisons on the basis of race (which is a social construct[1]) where the result demonstrates "racial superiority" then it is racist. It's social and cultural influences all the way down. [0]http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/what-intelligence.html http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/what-intelligence.html [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
- noxer 6y ago
  He made the statements with the word "intelligence" but obviously meant IQ points as it is still the only way to measure something close to what we experience as intelligence. Away its not relevant I didn't talk about intelligence I specifically said "differences" because it removes the implicit rating. It should be up to everyone to decide whether it is good or bad or rather irrelevant or whats most likely, it has its pros and cons like almost all other known genetic differences. The whole "winning side" and "racial superiority" etc. is made up. He obvious could not choose his own race and even put "his own race" in the middle according to his definitions of intelligence. The "winning side" would have been some Asians and he is clearly is not Asian. He also never proclaimed any kind of race superiority. Pointing out a conclusion of his research can not be racists even if the facts turn out to be wrong because of an error. Or maybe the facts stay correct in case of the IQ differences but other research suggests that IQ points are horribly to measure intelligence. Either way you would need to find prejudice, discrimination or basis IN HIS RESEARCH not in his concussion to convict him of actually being racist. Errors or definition changes simply should lead to a new concision that would be that there is still a measurable difference in brains but it doesn't directly correlate to intelligence. In every other similar situation this would be common sense. For example people with Trisomy 21 have statistically significant lower IQs. Its just a fact. No one comes around and screams racism if you state that fact. Also no one who states that fact wants to express their superiority over these people. In fact people who research all this are on the front line to support these people because knowing the differences is what allows coexisting with maximal individual freedom. Denying differences does not help anyone. >It's social and cultural influences all the way down. Plenty of research suggests otherwise. Like I said in my previous post "how likely is it actually that the brain is the same for all?" While all the rest of the human body has differences. Its actually very very unlikely and reality is almost certainly a mix between social and cultural influences and genetic differences in the brain but also in the rest of the body that affects the brain in millions of different ways.
chris_wot 6y ago
They are allowed. They just aren’t supported because their work is absurd, easily disprovable and so obviously wrong it’s not worth considering. They are free to self publish, but no one should be forced to publish their work.
- noxer 6y ago
  Red post above the " " have a meaning too.
  - chris_wot 6y ago
    I've parsed this a few times, but cannot work out what you are trying to say.
lifeformed 6y ago
People are allowed to do that research, and it has been done before, and the conclusion was that no significant differences were found.
- noxer 6y ago
  I said "allowed" for a reason. You can of course research whatever but if you publish something either none cares because you are a nobody or you get canceled if it doesn't support the "current truth". People have better things to do than destroying their reputation for zero reward. The rest is just a lie. There are plenty known significant differences especially difference in risk for diseases that are linked to genetic differences. And that's about the only place where research is done today because if you literally are the person who tries to cure cancer you are apparently whitelisted ehm... I mean allowlisted from seeing genetic differences.
  - lifeformed 6y ago
    Of course there are health differences, I meant there aren't intelligence differences.

by noxer 6y ago

chris1993 6y ago

There's no accepted definition of intelligence so how could he be correct [0]? He's using a culturally defined comparison which unsurprisingly places him on the winning side. If you make comparisons on the basis of race (which is a social construct[1]) where the result demonstrates "racial superiority" then it is racist. It's social and cultural influences all the way down. [0]http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/what-intelligence.html http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/what-intelligence.html [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

noxer 6y ago
He made the statements with the word "intelligence" but obviously meant IQ points as it is still the only way to measure something close to what we experience as intelligence. Away its not relevant I didn't talk about intelligence I specifically said "differences" because it removes the implicit rating. It should be up to everyone to decide whether it is good or bad or rather irrelevant or whats most likely, it has its pros and cons like almost all other known genetic differences. The whole "winning side" and "racial superiority" etc. is made up. He obvious could not choose his own race and even put "his own race" in the middle according to his definitions of intelligence. The "winning side" would have been some Asians and he is clearly is not Asian. He also never proclaimed any kind of race superiority. Pointing out a conclusion of his research can not be racists even if the facts turn out to be wrong because of an error. Or maybe the facts stay correct in case of the IQ differences but other research suggests that IQ points are horribly to measure intelligence. Either way you would need to find prejudice, discrimination or basis IN HIS RESEARCH not in his concussion to convict him of actually being racist. Errors or definition changes simply should lead to a new concision that would be that there is still a measurable difference in brains but it doesn't directly correlate to intelligence. In every other similar situation this would be common sense. For example people with Trisomy 21 have statistically significant lower IQs. Its just a fact. No one comes around and screams racism if you state that fact. Also no one who states that fact wants to express their superiority over these people. In fact people who research all this are on the front line to support these people because knowing the differences is what allows coexisting with maximal individual freedom. Denying differences does not help anyone. >It's social and cultural influences all the way down. Plenty of research suggests otherwise. Like I said in my previous post "how likely is it actually that the brain is the same for all?" While all the rest of the human body has differences. Its actually very very unlikely and reality is almost certainly a mix between social and cultural influences and genetic differences in the brain but also in the rest of the body that affects the brain in millions of different ways.

chris_wot 6y ago

They are allowed. They just aren’t supported because their work is absurd, easily disprovable and so obviously wrong it’s not worth considering. They are free to self publish, but no one should be forced to publish their work.

noxer 6y ago
Red post above the " " have a meaning too.
- chris_wot 6y ago
  I've parsed this a few times, but cannot work out what you are trying to say.

lifeformed 6y ago

People are allowed to do that research, and it has been done before, and the conclusion was that no significant differences were found.

noxer 6y ago
I said "allowed" for a reason. You can of course research whatever but if you publish something either none cares because you are a nobody or you get canceled if it doesn't support the "current truth". People have better things to do than destroying their reputation for zero reward. The rest is just a lie. There are plenty known significant differences especially difference in risk for diseases that are linked to genetic differences. And that's about the only place where research is done today because if you literally are the person who tries to cure cancer you are apparently whitelisted ehm... I mean allowlisted from seeing genetic differences.
- lifeformed 6y ago
  Of course there are health differences, I meant there aren't intelligence differences.