Setanta wrote on Mar 8
th, 2018 at 11:07pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 8
th, 2018 at 10:53pm:
Setanta wrote on Mar 8
th, 2018 at 10:48pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8
th, 2018 at 10:40pm:
Setanta wrote on Mar 8
th, 2018 at 10:25pm:
We are no different to dogs in the diversity of our DNA and the traits that can arise or be brought out from it. Different human groups can be likened to different breeds, it's just you don't like that analogy.
I don't like that analogy because of the overtones of Eugenics in it. Eugenics was what was replaced by Genetics. Eugenics were used to create big, black, African-Americans (through the forced breeding of Slaves). Eugenics were used to justify the Holocaust by the Nazis. It was also used in South Africa and Australia to justify the treatment of the Indigenous peoples. As far as I am concerned, Eugenics is dead. Genetics has replaced it.
It's not a good enough reason though, is it? You are using your aversion to something, your emotions, to negate the idea there may well be and probably is differences as that's how DNA and pressures, artificial or natural, bring out.
There are life expectancy differences in different groups of humans. How do you account for this? Is it all diet or does DNA play a role like it does in dogs? A Bullterrier will be lucky to make it to 12, a Lab might make it to 18.
So are you implying that there is a connection between race and behaviour? Because that’s the ultimate question.
I don’t believe so. People of any race can learn or unlearn something.
No, I'm saying there are differences. This is neither good nor bad. I'm saying that to say there is no difference at all is wrong. I'm European yet Asians generally score higher in IQ than Europeans, it doesn't threaten me to acknowledge that. Or... White men can't jump... The differences have been selected for by nature/environment. We are not unequal, we are slightly different. Are there Africans that are smarter than Asian or Europeans? Sure. Are there all sorts of things you can pick that beats the other in smaller numbers, sure.
I beg to differ on Asians and IQ - there is a difference between demonstrable intelligence and the adage that genius is 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration. Asians are good at the 90% - not necessarily the 10%, in which they are demonstrably mainly followers rather than initiators.
There was a girl at my school in my class who did the 90% - she knew everything - she was shocked when the IQ test results came out and I had a higher IQ than she did.... I guess she never knew I was over a year younger than she was, too... meaning I was bumped up fast and she merely toiled. I had to battle with hunger, no clothes, hand-me-down worn-out shoes too large for my feet, no books, no nothing to aid study, no warm bedding at home and abuse and neglect to the max, while she had everything easy.
Amazing but true in 1960's Australia - and I'm not even Aboriginal..... both my parents were genius standard - my father's father was top of his profession, my father himself was #5 in the Fire Brigade seniority List and his brother a senior cop, my mother's brother was a top grade NRL referee etc, both my parents were insane...... the Army gave me my first good pair of shoes...... not a joke... at age 17, when I'd finished high school at 15.5 in the A class and final full year..... the Army paid me $10 a week and fed me...... in civilian life I could earn $4 a week at most.
So what exactly are we discussing here? Success in life/society or intelligence per se as the gauge for evaluating intelligence? You can teach monkeys to fly....... you can't teach them to design aircraft or fix a problem....
Huge difference.