Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Do you believe in a superior race?

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NB_ide)
    You are brilliant - want to make some bets with me?

    Bring plenty of cash.
    There are several variables involved that are subject to the individual's conscious agency.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by justmyopinions)
    No everyone is equal
    why did I get neg for this? I didn't mean everyone, I meant each race.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NB_ide)
    Why bother?
    Because everyone- including scientists- have their prejudices of the world. And it is from these prejudices that they develop their models and test their theories. Some might call them inklings, clues or hypotheses but until they are validated they are just prejudices. Sometimes these prejudices are validated by facts and elevated to the state of a scientific law, but other times the scientists have setup models that are so riven with prejudice that any experiment will validate their opinions. I believe this is the case with most of the literature on IQ tests and race.

    As I am no genetic scientist, I feel I may as well offer my own prejudices an opinions to bring to bear on the issue and persuade as many who are willing to listen.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    It's worth noting that this analogy deviates from the issue of 'race', as sex is a biological fact, whereas 'race' is a social construct.
    Yes, we've left that behind while we deal with your unique "nothing can be predicted about anyone" policy.

    I prioritise whoever is strongest based on their appearance, as strength is highly mutable. There are weak men and strong women, so I would choose on their individual traits.
    And if you couldn't inspect and trial each individual first? How would you choose, to have the very best chance of getting as many of the strongest people.

    For both intelligence and strength, I can't conceive a situation where you would have to judge the two on sex and ethnicity alone.
    Nor can I, but our answers to these hypothetical questions tell us what we think about the groups in question.

    I don't know if the women who have applied are physically superior or equal to the men who have applied, so I'll still have to judge individually.
    What are the chances of that, though? Is it likely? Unlikely? Impossible to say incaseyouoffendsomeone?

    This doesn't preclude women from attaining the strength required for an average strength-based job.
    That's not the issue, though - it's about how they compare to the men in the group, when you want to select the strongest individuals from it.

    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Because individuals are the central unit in this discussion.
    I don't think we have room for 7 billion anecdotes, unfortunately.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dont Tread On Me)
    I find it hard to believe that through evolution of humans the only thing that has changed is skin colour, and to a lesser extent, bone structures. Is it not plausible that the intellectual capacity of certain races has evolved beyond those of others, creating an intellectually superior race?
    Some questions and topics are just so irrelevant I don't think probing further would do any good to the progress of humankind.

    Let's say you quench your wild imagination and find out that one race is actually superior to another, chances are, you'll spend the rest of your life looking down on people of this race and would always think you are better than them.

    Typical White kid... Thinks he's better than everyone else. Admit it, in the back of your mind you probably think Whites are superior.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blutooth)
    Because everyone- including scientists- have their prejudices of the world. And it is from these prejudices that they develop their models and test their hypotheses. Some might call them inklings, clues or hypotheses but until they are validated they are just prejudices Sometimes these prejudices. Sometimes these prejudices are validated by facts and elevated to the state of a scientific law, but other times the scientists have setup models that are so riven with prejudice that any experiment will validate their opinions. I believe this is the case with most of the literature on IQ tests and race.

    As I am no genetic scientist, I feel I may as well offer my own prejudices an opinions to bring to bear on the issue and persuade as many who are willing to listen.
    A handful of heart-warming anecdotes will not, and should not, influence any scientifically-minded person's views of this sort of thin.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    Yes different races evolved with different attributes being more prevalent amongst their masses. It is pointless to argue which attributes favor which group because when such information is applied to the individual it means nothing.

    The inevitable truth is that as we mix our races more and more those lines will become blurred anyway. Ultimately it is for the better because if we do believe in evolution then we should believe that mixing races will ultimately select the most survivable traits from each race and combine them into the next "superior race".

    So to answer your question, the next superior race will be the mixed race.
    This. If we accept that evolution is responsible for different races, well then we can safely say intelligence does not increase as a result of evolution. The different environments humans live in the world (which favoured certain physical characteristics over others wouldn't have had any affect on "intelligence", which btw can be subjective (so for example knowing how to survive best in the homeland of each race would vary)
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Bitch Pleaseeeeeeee. Yesterday all my troubles seemed so far away. Sit down class, open your textbooks to page 42. Loveology. Steady down class, steady class, sit down! I'm sorryology. Believe in humanism and equality because it is good for your soul and will progress you through life. x
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NB_ide)
    A handful of heart-warming anecdotes will not, and should not, influence any scientifically-minded person's views of this sort of thin.
    I disagree. Anecdotes should not serve as evidence for theories, but neverthless a scientific person is motivated to conjecture some theory based on the inklings, clues and anecdotes they hear. For instance a scientist might check whether this strange green mould on his petri dish serves as a useful antibiotic because of what he has heard from another scientists/ laypeople before him- or indeed whether blacks have different IQs based on anecdotal experiences with a few members ofthat race. So anecdotes do influence the course of scientific discovery.

    We are also entering the domain of philosophy- with our questions. We must first ensure that the question of whether such a racial construct exists, what we mean by race, whether the current tests have been fair before we can conclude x or y. My anecdotes were questioning the latter assertion- whether the current tests were fair. But I have posted previous comments challenging the other assertions. I am suggesting that the prejudices are so entrenched in this subject that the scientific methods applied to answering this question have become corrupted- and that we are in need of fairer scientific tests.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    There is gene flow everywhere. Can you identify who is the 'purest' 'black', 'white' and 'Asian' person?
    These terms are not scientific. Science recognises five major racial stocks: Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Capoid and Australoid (Coon, 1962).

    You can be geographically ''Asian'', but a different race (Caucasoid, Mongoloid or Australoid). Furthermore ''white'', ''black'', ''yellow'' are outdated pigmentation terms used only during pre-18th century attempts at racial classification. Science has come a long way since then, as we now know of course skin colour is not the sole difference in races, in fact it is a completely useless marker because of pigmentation gradient overlap (some Mongoloids for example are lighter than some Caucasoids, yet no one of course would call a light skinned Oriental male a ''white man''). The features that don't overlap are mainly morphological (such as craniometrics) which is why a forensic scientist can just look at the skull of someone and determine its race with an accuracy of 100%.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pyramidologist)
    These terms are not scientific. Science recognises five major racial stocks: Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Capoid and Australoid (Coon, 1962).

    You can be geographically ''Asian'', but a different race (Caucasoid, Mongoloid or Australoid). Furthermore ''white'', ''black'', ''yellow'' are outdated pigmentation terms used only during pre-18th century attempts at racial classification. Science has come a long way since then, as we now know of course skin colour is not the sole difference in races, in fact it is a completely useless marker because of pigmentation gradient overlap (some Mongoloids for example are lighter than some Caucasoids, yet no one of course would call a light skinned Oriental male a ''white man''). The features that don't overlap are mainly morphological (such as craniometrics) which is why a forensic scientist can just look at the skull of someone and determine its race with an accuracy of 100%.
    source:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...t_othello.html


    Racial classification is an inexact science, if that's even the right word for it. Forensic anthropologists never make definitive ancestry pronouncements. They say a bone is "consistent with" European ancestry or "likely" of Asian ancestry. And practitioners say it takes years of experience to achieve mastery, since you have to see piles and piles of disembodied mandibles to be able to recognize the sometimes subtle differences among them. (Although one study (PDF) has suggested that the grizzled veterans of forensic anthropology are no better at surmising race than their bright-eyed protégés.)
    The practice of inferring race from bones is also somewhat controversial. While today's forensic anthropologists don't like to talk about it, the discipline has its roots in the pseudoscientific 19th-century practice of using skull measurements to prove Caucasian intellectual superiority. The methodology has improved since then. When researchers develop a hypothesis about racial variation, they conduct blind tests on hundreds or thousands of skulls of known ancestry to test its reliability. They also test their own consistency, looking at the same skulls several times in different orders to make sure they usually make the same call on its structures and shapes.

    There are people who think even the modern techniques are bunk. They argue that more physical variability exists between individuals of the same race than between races and point out that less than 15 percent of physical variation can be attributed to race. In addition, marriage between people of differing ancestries has become so common that forensic racial determinations can actually hinder an investigation. If someone had his mother's African jaw and his father's light skin, investigators would be sent out looking for the wrong person, since his neighbors might have considered him white.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karateworm)
    I'm saying that anyone with a basic grasp on evolution knows that the humans species has existed for a fragment of a second on the evolutionary scale. Biological differences are aesthetic, there is no such thing as race... only different combinations of physical characteristics.

    Your half-baked ramblings belong in a stupider time.
    :teehee:
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    So to answer your question, the next superior race will be the mixed race.
    The worst load of rubbish I have ever read.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    You realise any number of traits could be sought to seek an ever smaller population, don't you? Odokuma et al. (2010) identified cranial differences in Nigerian ethnic groups; i.e., morphology does exist as a gradient.
    There is physical diversity in all races. The point is though such diversity within races is minor. The races themselves are distinguished by the major differences. Minor diversity within races creates subraces, and then subraces are further split into microraces. Example:

    Caucasoid (Race) - Mediterranid (Subrace) - Atlanto-Mediterranid (Microrace)

    My own race is Caucasoid, my subrace is Mediterranid, while my Microrace is Atlantid.

    Everyone falls into three categories: Race, Subrace, Microrace.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pyramidologist)
    There is physical diversity in all races. The point is though such diversity within races is minor. The races themselves are distinguished by the major differences. Minor diversity within races creates subraces, and then subraces are further split into microraces. Example:

    Caucasoid (Race) - Mediterranid (Subrace) - Atlanto-Mediterranid (Microrace)

    My own race is Caucasoid, my subrace is Mediterranid, while my Microrace is Atlantid.

    Everyone falls into three categories: Race, Subrace, Microrace.
    What about mixed race people? Or what about people who look a bit Atlantid, but also look a bit Nordic. How can you know without a genetic test whether you are Atlantid, or are you basing these assertions on the way you look? Physical appearance only constitutes a small percentage of your genetic makeup- you are aware of this? You could easily be deceived by a hooked nose or green eyes, when most of your genetic markers are in line with pheno/genotype x or z.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blutooth)
    source:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...t_othello.html


    Racial classification is an inexact science, if that's even the right word for it. Forensic anthropologists never make definitive ancestry pronouncements. They say a bone is "consistent with" European ancestry or "likely" of Asian ancestry. And practitioners say it takes years of experience to achieve mastery, since you have to see piles and piles of disembodied mandibles to be able to recognize the sometimes subtle differences among them. (Although one study (PDF) has suggested that the grizzled veterans of forensic anthropology are no better at surmising race than their bright-eyed protégés.)
    The practice of inferring race from bones is also somewhat controversial. While today's forensic anthropologists don't like to talk about it, the discipline has its roots in the pseudoscientific 19th-century practice of using skull measurements to prove Caucasian intellectual superiority. The methodology has improved since then. When researchers develop a hypothesis about racial variation, they conduct blind tests on hundreds or thousands of skulls of known ancestry to test its reliability. They also test their own consistency, looking at the same skulls several times in different orders to make sure they usually make the same call on its structures and shapes.

    There are people who think even the modern techniques are bunk. They argue that more physical variability exists between individuals of the same race than between races and point out that less than 15 percent of physical variation can be attributed to race. In addition, marriage between people of differing ancestries has become so common that forensic racial determinations can actually hinder an investigation. If someone had his mother's African jaw and his father's light skin, investigators would be sent out looking for the wrong person, since his neighbors might have considered him white.
    An ignorant article. Leave science to the scientists. Within forensic anthropology there is no doubt race exists. You can identify the race based on crania or post-crania with a very high accuracy, the same for sex.

    Race denialism is mainly fueled by PC and ''anti-racist'' agendas. Politics should be kept out of science.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Asians are the superior race because of how good they are at video games.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pyramidologist)
    These terms are not scientific. Science recognises five major racial stocks: Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Capoid and Australoid (Coon, 1962).

    You can be geographically ''Asian'', but a different race (Caucasoid, Mongoloid or Australoid). Furthermore ''white'', ''black'', ''yellow'' are outdated pigmentation terms used only during pre-18th century attempts at racial classification. Science has come a long way since then, as we now know of course skin colour is not the sole difference in races, in fact it is a completely useless marker because of pigmentation gradient overlap (some Mongoloids for example are lighter than some Caucasoids, yet no one of course would call a light skinned Oriental male a ''white man''). The features that don't overlap are mainly morphological (such as craniometrics) which is why a forensic scientist can just look at the skull of someone and determine its race with an accuracy of 100%.
    Intentionally avoiding the question won't get you anywhere—you know exactly what I mean. Can you tell me what a 'pure' 'Caucasoid', 'Negroid', 'Mongoloid', 'Capoid' and 'Australoid' look like?

    (Original post by Pyramidologist)
    There is physical diversity in all races. The point is though such diversity within races is minor. The races themselves are distinguished by the major differences. Minor diversity within races creates subraces, and then subraces are further split into microraces. Example:

    Caucasoid (Race) - Mediterranid (Subrace) - Atlanto-Mediterranid (Microrace)

    My own race is Caucasoid, my subrace is Mediterranid, while my Microrace is Atlantid.

    Everyone falls into three categories: Race, Subrace, Microrace.
    There is physical diversity that exists on a gradient. You have not discredited this biological fact with your qualitative declaration of what is major and minor and attempt to categorise gradational physical features. People can be pinpointed to any amount of precision, which is why there is no logical reason to stop at the scale you desire.

    Cranial features are not coterminous, which indicates the various components of study exist on an overlapping gradient. Where people choose to slice this overlapping gradient is arbitrary, just like the entire notion of 'race' is.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pyramidologist)
    An ignorant article. Leave science to the scientists. Within forensic anthropology there is no doubt race exists. You can identify the race based on crania or post-crania with a very high accuracy, the same for sex.

    Race denialism is mainly fueled by PC and ''anti-racist'' agendas. Politics should be kept out of science.
    Likely geographic origin can be determined. The more markers that are used, the more precise one gets. You are using circular reasoning by saying, 'these races have this bone structure, so this bone structure indicates their race'.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blutooth)
    What about mixed race people? Or what about people who look a bit Atlantid, but also look a bit Nordic. How can you know without a genetic test whether you are Atlantid, or are you basing these assertions on the way you look? Physical appearance only constitutes a small percentage of your genetic makeup- you are aware of this? You could easily be deceived by a hooked nose or green eyes, when most of your genetic markers are in line with pheno/genotype x or z.
    Mixed race people are hybrids. They fit into no race.

    Microraces are only seperated and defined by very minor phenotype variations, for example pigmentation. The only difference for example between an Atlanto-Med and an Atlantid is eye colour. What this means is that most family members are a mixture of different microraces, based on the fact they are just local variants of subraces.
Updated: May 17, 2012
New on TSR

Talk about SQA results day

Join the chat ahead of grades coming out on Tuesday

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.