5 ms·

> And I'm not sure what you mean by East Asians having a higher but less creative IQ? See, when racists use "average IQ" as a weapon against blacks and mexican

> And I'm not sure what you mean by East Asians having a higher but less creative IQ? See, when racists use "average IQ" as a weapon against blacks and mexicans, they have to somehow justify their 2nd place to the Asians or else they will not feel comfortable using these "studies" as proof. They just say "oh, well they're less creative, so you know, white people are really still at the top", and everything is right again in the world. Did you see what they did there? They took valid objective metrics - statistics - and disqualified the positive outcome for a selected class of people with something totally subjective - creativity. This is classic racism. It's a nonsense argument posited by younger people who really haven't had much life experience, and have not met many people who aren't of their same race. Personally I don't believe in average anything when it comes to race, it's a totally meaningless metric that will get you absolutely nowhere when you deal with actual people and in some cases will handicap you with preconceived notions. I've conducted enough business with enough people in this economy to know that. Younger or less experienced people may have not. > but aren't Mexican's mostly of Spanish descent Racists never blame white Europeans for anything, especially not fundamentally flawed colonial systems like the Spaniards' that were devised by greedy people who were bent on raping native people and lands for as much wealth as possible in as little time as possible - actually, why should they blame them, it worked flawlessly, didn't it?

ryanwaggoner 18y ago
It's a nonsense argument posited by younger people who really haven't had much life experience, and have not met many people who aren't of their same race. Agree with everything you said except for this. Most of the most racist people I know are 40+. Sadly, I don't think life experience tempers prejudice...often it just reinforces it.
defen 18y ago
> Personally I don't believe in average anything when it comes to race, it's a totally meaningless metric that will get you absolutely nowhere when you deal with actual people and in some cases will handicap you with preconceived notions. I agree that you can't use race to judge individual people, but it's ridiculous to not "believe in average anything when it comes to race". Again, individuals must be judged on their own merits. But if only 20% of Hispanic students graduate college, versus 40% of white ones, you can't just automatically assume institutional racism. All human sub-populations are not equal. Check out this new book - http://the10000yearexplosion.com/ http://the10000yearexplosion.com/
- chiffonade 18y ago
  > All human sub-populations are not equal You look down on hispanics, do you think Asian Americans look down on you because your racial "subpopulation" is behind theirs in college degrees, graduate degrees, and median income?
  - defen 18y ago
    I don't "look down on" Hispanics - intelligence is not a moral value. And I've been around enough Chinese Americans to know that yes, a lot of them do look down on white Americans, for the aforementioned reasons as well as others.
    - chiffonade 18y ago
      > And I've been around enough Chinese Americans to know that yes, a lot of them do look down on white Americans, for the aforementioned reasons as well as others. Yeah, so you know it's bullshit logic.
      - defen 18y ago
        I feel like we're talking at cross purposes here. Here are my thoughts on the matter, as neatly as they can be summarized in a 1-minute forum posting: 1) We should allow & encourage more immigration of high-IQ, educated people. Said IQ would be determined by using IQ tests on individuals, not by racial/country of origin quotas. Exceptions would be made for people with outstanding achievement in some field - we shouldn't exclude a world-class dancer because he has an average IQ, for example, or a great programmer because he doesn't have a college degree. 2) We should discourage immigration by low-IQ people, regardless of how hard they are willing to work. Everyone would be assumed to be in the "low-IQ, uneducated" group until he has proven otherwise. Do you disagree with either of these points?
- biohacker42 18y ago
  All human sub-populations are not equal. That depends on how big your sub-population is. If your population is 1, then the difference between two populations, unless they happen to be maternal twins, will be HUGE. Statistically speaking. But as your population size grows the difference between populations begin to shrink. Statistics again. The reason for that is simple, humans are among a few species that happen to have very little genetic diversity. Approximately 80 thousands years ago, something (bad) happened and the totality of humans on earth was reduced to a terrifyingly small number. We don't know exactly how small but it could have been as little as a few hundred individuals. And of those only 4 or 5 (I forget) matrilineal lines survive today. Besides humans, cheetahs are one of the other species that is similarity genetically pure. Not that genetic purity is a good thing, quite the opposite, it makes us susceptible to extinction by disease. We could be wiped out by something like a more easily transmissible HIV. Even a single tribe of chimps has more genetic diversity then all of humanity. And that's why looking at the genetic difference of human populations is not very insightful. Take one of the most famous reproductively isolated human sub-populations - the Ashkenazi. DNA suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women. As is common in cases of the founder effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect A few genes that are very rare in a population, can be common in the population resulting from the few founders, if even just one of the founders had the rare genes. And the Ashkenazi appear to have a much higher incidence of genes responsible for neural diseases but perhaps also increased intelligence. So what happens if you pull a "Trading Places" trick, but with two babies instead of Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd? Nothing, remember humans sadly have a very shallow gene pool, so even an Inuit and an Ashkenazi could have more in common genetically with each other then the Ashkenazi with most other Ashkenazi. And that's why talking about DNA in human populations, is like talking about the gold plating in Monster audio cables. The people who do, aren't very smart about the subject they're ranting about.

ryanwaggoner 18y ago

It's a nonsense argument posited by younger people who really haven't had much life experience, and have not met many people who aren't of their same race. Agree with everything you said except for this. Most of the most racist people I know are 40+. Sadly, I don't think life experience tempers prejudice...often it just reinforces it.

defen 18y ago

> Personally I don't believe in average anything when it comes to race, it's a totally meaningless metric that will get you absolutely nowhere when you deal with actual people and in some cases will handicap you with preconceived notions. I agree that you can't use race to judge individual people, but it's ridiculous to not "believe in average anything when it comes to race". Again, individuals must be judged on their own merits. But if only 20% of Hispanic students graduate college, versus 40% of white ones, you can't just automatically assume institutional racism. All human sub-populations are not equal. Check out this new book - http://the10000yearexplosion.com/ http://the10000yearexplosion.com/

chiffonade 18y ago
> All human sub-populations are not equal You look down on hispanics, do you think Asian Americans look down on you because your racial "subpopulation" is behind theirs in college degrees, graduate degrees, and median income?
- defen 18y ago
  I don't "look down on" Hispanics - intelligence is not a moral value. And I've been around enough Chinese Americans to know that yes, a lot of them do look down on white Americans, for the aforementioned reasons as well as others.
  - chiffonade 18y ago
    > And I've been around enough Chinese Americans to know that yes, a lot of them do look down on white Americans, for the aforementioned reasons as well as others. Yeah, so you know it's bullshit logic.
    - defen 18y ago
      I feel like we're talking at cross purposes here. Here are my thoughts on the matter, as neatly as they can be summarized in a 1-minute forum posting: 1) We should allow & encourage more immigration of high-IQ, educated people. Said IQ would be determined by using IQ tests on individuals, not by racial/country of origin quotas. Exceptions would be made for people with outstanding achievement in some field - we shouldn't exclude a world-class dancer because he has an average IQ, for example, or a great programmer because he doesn't have a college degree. 2) We should discourage immigration by low-IQ people, regardless of how hard they are willing to work. Everyone would be assumed to be in the "low-IQ, uneducated" group until he has proven otherwise. Do you disagree with either of these points?
biohacker42 18y ago
All human sub-populations are not equal. That depends on how big your sub-population is. If your population is 1, then the difference between two populations, unless they happen to be maternal twins, will be HUGE. Statistically speaking. But as your population size grows the difference between populations begin to shrink. Statistics again. The reason for that is simple, humans are among a few species that happen to have very little genetic diversity. Approximately 80 thousands years ago, something (bad) happened and the totality of humans on earth was reduced to a terrifyingly small number. We don't know exactly how small but it could have been as little as a few hundred individuals. And of those only 4 or 5 (I forget) matrilineal lines survive today. Besides humans, cheetahs are one of the other species that is similarity genetically pure. Not that genetic purity is a good thing, quite the opposite, it makes us susceptible to extinction by disease. We could be wiped out by something like a more easily transmissible HIV. Even a single tribe of chimps has more genetic diversity then all of humanity. And that's why looking at the genetic difference of human populations is not very insightful. Take one of the most famous reproductively isolated human sub-populations - the Ashkenazi. DNA suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women. As is common in cases of the founder effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect A few genes that are very rare in a population, can be common in the population resulting from the few founders, if even just one of the founders had the rare genes. And the Ashkenazi appear to have a much higher incidence of genes responsible for neural diseases but perhaps also increased intelligence. So what happens if you pull a "Trading Places" trick, but with two babies instead of Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd? Nothing, remember humans sadly have a very shallow gene pool, so even an Inuit and an Ashkenazi could have more in common genetically with each other then the Ashkenazi with most other Ashkenazi. And that's why talking about DNA in human populations, is like talking about the gold plating in Monster audio cables. The people who do, aren't very smart about the subject they're ranting about.