6 ms·

Wait, I'm confused. There are genetically different subpopulations (e.g., Asian Americans, African Americans) which have large disparities in "power" [1]. Rem

Wait, I'm confused. There are genetically different subpopulations (e.g., Asian Americans, African Americans) which have large disparities in "power" [1]. Remember, I asked you how the world would be different if theories you disagree with were true, not the same. If a theory correctly predicts the world, that's evidence in favor of it. [1] You've claimed in the past that various racial groups - i.e. genetically similar groups - have different levels of power. I'm just taking your claims as given without actually having a coherent definition of "power" - it's more or less moot to this question.

pron 11y ago
That's exactly what I said. The world would be radically different. The average inter-race genetic difference in pertinent qualities (say intelligence, body strength etc) is positively tiny compared to intra-group variance[1]. Those "genetically different subpopulations" are not that genetically different in any significant way in any quality that we would presume to matter. Unless skin color directly causes the power disparity (which, of course, it does because of racism) there is nothing else to explain the difference. If genetics were a very central cause of power difference, you would not see such severe power differences among groups. There is absolutely nothing in the observations to even suggest genetics differences could be a meaningful contributor to power differences among groups, especially when you consider history. For example, the Arab culture was for centuries much superior to the European culture. Has there been some genetic catastrophe in the Arab world? European power superiority is a very recent change (roughly 600-500 years). That power was gained very quickly -- in the course of a few decades between 1450-1520[2] -- in what is known as the European miracle. Genetics don't behave like that. If we were having this discussion as recently as 700 years ago, I guess you would naturally assume that Europeans have some inborn defect that makes them so inferior. Also, we do not see any innate ability difference that in a measure that is even close to the levels of power disparity. No one is a hundred times smarter or stronger or faster than the average population. Yet you see both individuals and localized groups (at almost any size) that are easily a hundred (or a thousand) times more powerful than other individuals or localized groups. You cannot explain that without treating social forces as the leading cause. Also, there is no need to write power in quotes. When discussing physics you don't write energy or force or charge in quotes, right? No need to disrespect other serious disciplines. Power is a well-established, well-accepted concept -- even if for some reason you've convinced yourself it isn't -- so show just an inkling of respect for other researchers. [1]: Reading my previous comment again, I wrote exactly that. Are you intentionally trying not to understand again? Or are you just assuming there are large genetic differences because people look different? [2]: In those few decades, the Byzantine empire fell (after a long decline), Europe started enjoying a remarkable recovery after the Black Death epidemic that had peaked a hundred years prior, America was discovered, print invented, and Christianity fractured. While at the same time, the Ottomans rejected print (for religious reasons).
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  You postulated that if there were a hidden genetic factor in power acquisition, some genetically determined subgroups would have more power than others. This is exactly what is observed. In this post you seem to also be assuming that if genetically different subpopulations differed in any way that we presume to matter, we would have strong direct measurements of it. Of course, if modern genetics is not as advanced as you seem to think it is, then that claim would be false - such a genetic trait might exist but we simply haven't figured out which SNPs are relevant to it yet. You also seem to be assuming that it's somehow directly correlated with overall genetic distance, and that it obeys a specific linear relation. You've demonstrated fairly well that if genetics cause power, it doesn't do so in one very specific way. This is not explaining how the world would be different if the general theory of genetics -> power were true, it's merely explaining how the world would be different if one specific straw man were true. This is like saying "particles fall at a non-constant speed, therefore a gravitation theory with a constant rate of motion is false, therefore gravity must not exist". No one is a hundred times smarter or stronger or faster than the average population. Yet you see both individuals and localized groups (at almost any size) that are easily a hundred (or a thousand) times more powerful than other individuals or localized groups. Wow. Last time you tried to define power, the best you could cook up was a graph - A can influence the actions of B, so A has power over B. (I.e. pretty much everyone has power over everyone else.) Now you've somehow cardinally quantified power? What are it's units?
  - pron 11y ago
    > This is exactly what is observed Not on this planet. Power distribution does not behave like anything that could be explained by any reasonable theory of genetic traits, extant or future. It doesn't explain the extremely sudden acquisition of power by Europeans, nor the extremely sudden decline in power of Arabs (or other groups, but I chose Arabs because they had a clear technological and scientific advantage[1]). And I don't know about future theories, but nothing we know so far even hints at large genetic inter-race differences between races. Everything we know suggests pertinent genetic differences among races are minuscule, virtually nil, compared to intra-group variance. The biggest differences are literally superficial. In order to explain power with genetics you 1) have to discard current genetic findings of little relative inter-race variance, 2) explain the revolutionary and sudden acquisitions and losses of power -- at extreme magnitudes -- in history. To me that seems like a lot of theoretical effort with zero evidence to back it (and plenty of evidence to explain its appeal, in spite of demonstrated falsehood[2]). There could theoretically be some as-of-yet-ununderstood genetic contribution, but absolutely nothing we see so far gives us any reason to believe that is so. > ... Now you've somehow cardinally quantified power? What are it's units? I am not saying power is a cardinal quantity, nor have I ever had any difficulty explaining it. What's the difference, though? Do you also put sickness, violence and many other well-defined concepts in quotes when you write? One thing is certain: race is much less well defined (and less quantifiable) than power, yet I don't see you putting that word in quotes. [1]: European teachers even dressed as Muslims to appear smarter and culturally superior. [2]: A good friend of mine is just now doing experiments on ingroup/outgroup allegiance in children. You'll be amazed at the ease (matter of minutes) in which boys (though not girls!) develop allegiance to an imaginary "blue group" or "orange group" and start believing in innate superiority.

pron 11y ago

That's exactly what I said. The world would be radically different. The average inter-race genetic difference in pertinent qualities (say intelligence, body strength etc) is positively tiny compared to intra-group variance[1]. Those "genetically different subpopulations" are not that genetically different in any significant way in any quality that we would presume to matter. Unless skin color directly causes the power disparity (which, of course, it does because of racism) there is nothing else to explain the difference. If genetics were a very central cause of power difference, you would not see such severe power differences among groups. There is absolutely nothing in the observations to even suggest genetics differences could be a meaningful contributor to power differences among groups, especially when you consider history. For example, the Arab culture was for centuries much superior to the European culture. Has there been some genetic catastrophe in the Arab world? European power superiority is a very recent change (roughly 600-500 years). That power was gained very quickly -- in the course of a few decades between 1450-1520[2] -- in what is known as the European miracle. Genetics don't behave like that. If we were having this discussion as recently as 700 years ago, I guess you would naturally assume that Europeans have some inborn defect that makes them so inferior. Also, we do not see any innate ability difference that in a measure that is even close to the levels of power disparity. No one is a hundred times smarter or stronger or faster than the average population. Yet you see both individuals and localized groups (at almost any size) that are easily a hundred (or a thousand) times more powerful than other individuals or localized groups. You cannot explain that without treating social forces as the leading cause. Also, there is no need to write power in quotes. When discussing physics you don't write energy or force or charge in quotes, right? No need to disrespect other serious disciplines. Power is a well-established, well-accepted concept -- even if for some reason you've convinced yourself it isn't -- so show just an inkling of respect for other researchers. [1]: Reading my previous comment again, I wrote exactly that. Are you intentionally trying not to understand again? Or are you just assuming there are large genetic differences because people look different? [2]: In those few decades, the Byzantine empire fell (after a long decline), Europe started enjoying a remarkable recovery after the Black Death epidemic that had peaked a hundred years prior, America was discovered, print invented, and Christianity fractured. While at the same time, the Ottomans rejected print (for religious reasons).

yummyfajitas 11y ago
You postulated that if there were a hidden genetic factor in power acquisition, some genetically determined subgroups would have more power than others. This is exactly what is observed. In this post you seem to also be assuming that if genetically different subpopulations differed in any way that we presume to matter, we would have strong direct measurements of it. Of course, if modern genetics is not as advanced as you seem to think it is, then that claim would be false - such a genetic trait might exist but we simply haven't figured out which SNPs are relevant to it yet. You also seem to be assuming that it's somehow directly correlated with overall genetic distance, and that it obeys a specific linear relation. You've demonstrated fairly well that if genetics cause power, it doesn't do so in one very specific way. This is not explaining how the world would be different if the general theory of genetics -> power were true, it's merely explaining how the world would be different if one specific straw man were true. This is like saying "particles fall at a non-constant speed, therefore a gravitation theory with a constant rate of motion is false, therefore gravity must not exist". No one is a hundred times smarter or stronger or faster than the average population. Yet you see both individuals and localized groups (at almost any size) that are easily a hundred (or a thousand) times more powerful than other individuals or localized groups. Wow. Last time you tried to define power, the best you could cook up was a graph - A can influence the actions of B, so A has power over B. (I.e. pretty much everyone has power over everyone else.) Now you've somehow cardinally quantified power? What are it's units?
- pron 11y ago
  > This is exactly what is observed Not on this planet. Power distribution does not behave like anything that could be explained by any reasonable theory of genetic traits, extant or future. It doesn't explain the extremely sudden acquisition of power by Europeans, nor the extremely sudden decline in power of Arabs (or other groups, but I chose Arabs because they had a clear technological and scientific advantage[1]). And I don't know about future theories, but nothing we know so far even hints at large genetic inter-race differences between races. Everything we know suggests pertinent genetic differences among races are minuscule, virtually nil, compared to intra-group variance. The biggest differences are literally superficial. In order to explain power with genetics you 1) have to discard current genetic findings of little relative inter-race variance, 2) explain the revolutionary and sudden acquisitions and losses of power -- at extreme magnitudes -- in history. To me that seems like a lot of theoretical effort with zero evidence to back it (and plenty of evidence to explain its appeal, in spite of demonstrated falsehood[2]). There could theoretically be some as-of-yet-ununderstood genetic contribution, but absolutely nothing we see so far gives us any reason to believe that is so. > ... Now you've somehow cardinally quantified power? What are it's units? I am not saying power is a cardinal quantity, nor have I ever had any difficulty explaining it. What's the difference, though? Do you also put sickness, violence and many other well-defined concepts in quotes when you write? One thing is certain: race is much less well defined (and less quantifiable) than power, yet I don't see you putting that word in quotes. [1]: European teachers even dressed as Muslims to appear smarter and culturally superior. [2]: A good friend of mine is just now doing experiments on ingroup/outgroup allegiance in children. You'll be amazed at the ease (matter of minutes) in which boys (though not girls!) develop allegiance to an imaginary "blue group" or "orange group" and start believing in innate superiority.