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

Are there intellectual differences among different races? Watch

    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by Zürich)
      I haven't defined a race...
      It seems to me that you're dancing around the issue. Do you believe that humans are as a matter of scientific fact divided into specific and identifiable so-called 'races'? That's a yes/no question btw.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Oswy)
      It seems to me that you're dancing around the issue. Do you believe that humans are as a matter of scientific fact divided into specific and identifiable so-called 'races'? That's a yes/no question btw.
      no.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whyumadtho)
      You will be similar in a number of dimensions and dissimilar in others.
      So if I find a guy who looks identical to me in every way, but has slightly bigger ears, what should I conclude?
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      Assuming you disagree with Weiss and Long (2009), I really do expect you to explain what the apparent parental populations/'races' are. Saying you don't know leaves me with no reason to even consider your position.

      (Original post by Jimbo1234)
      - You know albino is a disorder. Why bring it up? It is a disorder....
      The allele that codes for albinism is evolutionary. Just like the recessive allele that codes for blue eyes, it is a recessive allele that codes for no melanin production.

      - Ask a dermatologist. I'm sure they will tell you how many there are. Also are you saying different groups of people do not naturally have darker or lighter skin tones?
      As something that is heavily determined by the environment, there are as many skin tones as there are people, as nobody's environmental exposure is identical.

      - I'm not a geneticist so how would I know the figures? Just go with the figures which have clear different genetic markers.
      Which are? People around the world have varying heights/builds.

      - Derp, what about geography? You always play stupid with this part. Take a guess, and yes, to stop you playing the fool, I'll put all your credibility on your answer :giggle:
      Yes, what about geography?



      Divide it into 'racial' groups.

      - I know it is complex, hence why it has to be included.
      Justify the use of phylogeny in light of what I showed you.

      - Oh look, the only African you show is one who has a disorder. Now can you tell me what the geography and climate of all those people from there nations are?
      I asked you who is 'black' (assuming you consider this to be a 'race'), not who is African. 'Africa' is strictly geographical, but geography only acts as one of your criteria.

      Not race, breed
      Explain the difference.

      and a large variation in the genome.
      Barbujani and Belle (2006) have explained that there are no consistent and significant disjunctions in the human genome.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Zürich)
      So if I find a guy who looks identical to me in every way, but has slightly bigger ears, what should I conclude?
      It depends what you use as the basis of distinction. If it is ear size, you will be in different categories to each other; if it is based on the things you share, you will be in the same category as each other.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whyumadtho)
      It depends what you use as the basis of distinction. If it is ear size, you will be in different categories to each other; if it is based on the things you share, you will be in the same category as each other.
      You are willingly blind then. Common sense and human nature are more than sufficient to recognise someone biologically close to you.

      To you different brands of cars don't exist because all car models are different somehow.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Zürich)
      Are you a robot?
      Negative.

      What was wrong with my answer?
      Offline

      11
      ReputationRep:
      Consider this:
      Population of the UK: Approx. 62.6 Million
      Population of China : Approx. 1.33 Billion

      If the chance of having a Genius IQ is 1:1,000,000 then there are somewhere between 62 and 63 geniuses in the UK, while there are around 1334 geniuses in China. So if you randomly chose geniuses from around the world, they are 21x more likely to be Chinese than English. I think this is a reason why people are led to believe there are intellectual differences between different races.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by chapmouse)
      Consider this:
      Population of the UK: Approx. 62.6 Million
      Population of China : Approx. 1.33 Billion

      If the chance of having a Genius IQ is 1:1,000,000 then there are somewhere between 62 and 63 geniuses in the UK, while there are around 1334 geniuses in China. So if you randomly chose geniuses from around the world, they are 21x more likely to be Chinese than English. I think this is a reason why people are led to believe there are intellectual differences between different races.
      Jews have won 22 percent of all the Nobel Prizes ever awarded with a tiny proportion of the world population. Clearly you are wrong.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Zürich)
      You are willingly blind then. Common sense and human nature are more than sufficient to recognise someone biologically close to you.
      Reread Zagefka (2009).

      To you different brands of cars don't exist because all car models are different somehow.
      Not objectively, no, which is what Zagefka (2009) explained. We may arbitrarily declare they are in a particularly significant category based on a certain variable, but it doesn't mean that they are actually identical (which you have acknowledged). You said

      The purpose of science is surely unconditional truth.
      If they are only in the same category when viewed on the basis of arbitrarily selected variables, how can you claim they are objectively and unconditionally the same category of car? You have acknowledged there are differences, which means that their group membership cannot be "unconditional", as it is contingent on certain conditions (selecting specific shared traits).
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whyumadtho)
      Assuming you disagree with Weiss and Long (2009), I really do expect you to explain what the apparent parental populations/'races' are. Saying you don't know leaves me with no reason to even consider your position.

      The allele that codes for albinism is evolutionary. Just like the recessive allele that codes for blue eyes, it is a recessive allele that codes for no melanin production.

      As something that is heavily determined by the environment, there are as many skin tones as there are people, as nobody's environmental exposure is identical.

      Which are? People around the world have varying heights/builds.

      Yes, what about geography?



      Divide it into 'racial' groups.

      Justify the use of phylogeny in light of what I showed you.

      I asked you who is 'black' (assuming you consider this to be a 'race'), not who is African. 'Africa' is strictly geographical, but geography only acts as one of your criteria.

      Explain the difference.

      Barbujani and Belle (2006) have explained that there are no consistent and significant disjunctions in the human genome.
      :troll: harder

      I said that all your credibility lay on the answer to that question, and you seriously derped out.
      :congrats:

      When you stop playing the fool then we'll have a civil debate.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      1st July 2012:
      (Original post by Zürich)
      Races clearly exist. To pretend otherwise is ignorant, deceitful or both and is not constructive to any kind of reasonable debate.
      5th January 2013:
      (Original post by Zürich)
      no.
      Hooray for progress!
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whyumadtho)
      1st July 2012:


      5th January 2013:


      Hooray for progress!
      Its a matter of definition. If you take race to mean biological differences between certain groups of humans, then yes. If you take race to be some rigorous and universal scientific concept then no.

      You remain intellectually dishonest. The kind of person who couldn't call the sky blue.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whyumadtho)
      Not objectively, no, which is what Zagefka (2009) explained. We may arbitrarily declare they are in a particularly significant category based on a certain variable, but it doesn't mean that they are actually identical (which you have acknowledged). You said



      If they are only in the same category when viewed on the basis of arbitrarily selected variables, how can you claim they are objectively and unconditionally the same category of car? You have acknowledged there are differences, which means that their group membership cannot be "unconditional", as it is contingent on certain conditions (selecting specific shared traits).
      I never asked if they were identical. Does a BMW exist? Honda?

      I can't define a BMW since every model is different. But I know one when I see one. Perhaps I'd have to examine the engine but presumably you would stand gormlessly, genuinely baffled, trying to distinguish between a BMW 5 series and an Austin Martin DB5?
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Jimbo1234)
      :troll: harder

      I said that all your credibility lay on the answer to that question, and you seriously derped out.
      :congrats:

      When you stop playing the fool then we'll have a civil debate.
      Which geographical factors determine what you consider 'racial'? Temperature? Precipitation? Wind? Sunlight hours? Number of predators? Pedology? Altitude? Topography? Hydrology? Disease incidence? Other factors?

      Or is it all of them, which would mean everyone is 'racially' different, as everyone is impacted in a different way by the geographical processes active in any given location.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      Unlikely, but I originate from a developed country and at my university there is only around 20 people from my country across undergraduate, masters and PhD students

      Also, about the same-ish amount at Oxford. We're not really well known for being super clever. So, there may be some significant relationship (albeit probably weak) between nationality/race and intellectual ability :holmes:
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Zürich)
      Its a matter of definition. If you take race to mean biological differences between certain groups of humans, then yes. If you take race to be some rigorous and universal scientific concept then no.
      That distinction seems quite ethereal. There are biological differences everywhere; if any given category were objective, necessarily more important than any other categorisation system and consistent in its definition and delineation, it would fit the criteria of rigour and universality. In the absence of this, you must surely accept the subjective, arbitrary and inconsistent nature of any given biological 'group'.

      You remain intellectually dishonest. The kind of person who couldn't call the sky blue.
      Indeed.

      There is nothing intellectually dishonest about acknowledging many of the things we consider factual or objective are socially constructed.

      (Original post by Zürich)
      I never asked if they were identical. Does a BMW exist? Honda?
      As social constructs based on particular criteria. Porsche and Ruf, and Range Rover and Overfinch cars are similar in a number of dimensions, but they are given the status of "different brands" because this category's membership is based on whatever logo or lettering is placed on the car.

      I can't define a BMW since every model is different. But I know one when I see one. Perhaps I'd have to examine the engine but presumably you would stand gormlessly, genuinely baffled, trying to distinguish between a BMW 5 series and an Austin Martin DB5?
      No, as I understand in advance what the bases of the different categories are. I can then determine which car belongs to each category on the basis of these predetermined criteria.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whyumadtho)
      Which geographical factors determine what you consider 'racial'? Temperature? Precipitation? Wind? Sunlight hours? Number of predators? Pedology? Altitude? Topography? Hydrology? Disease incidence? Other factors?

      Or is it all of them, which would mean everyone is 'racially' different, as everyone is impacted in a different way by the geographical processes active in any given location.
      Well you would have to ask someone who specialises in living conditions, and then which factors also effect large parts of the genome and in what way. Making the problem so simple is absurd knowing how complex evolution is
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Jimbo1234)
      Well you would have to ask someone who specialises in living conditions, and then which factors also effect large parts of the genome and in what way. Making the problem so simple is absurd knowing how complex evolution is
      So complex that you believe it can be sorted into neat little 'races'? Interesting.

      Various geographical factors act as selective pressures for numerous different genetic traits in numerous different ways.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whyumadtho)
      That distinction seems quite ethereal. There are biological differences everywhere; if any given category were objective, necessarily more important than any other categorisation system and consistent in its definition and delineation, it would fit the criteria of rigour and universality. In the absence of this, you must surely accept the subjective, arbitrary and inconsistent nature of any given biological 'group'.

      Indeed.

      There is nothing intellectually dishonest about acknowledging many of the things we consider factual or objective are socially constructed.

      As social constructs based on particular criteria. Porsche and Ruf, and Range Rover and Overfinch cars are similar in a number of dimensions, but they are given the status of "different brands" because this category's membership is based on whatever logo or lettering is placed on the car.

      No, as I understand in advance what the bases of the different categories are. I can then determine which car belongs to each category on the basis of these predetermined criteria.
      I would prefer these groupings to a system whereby very real biological differences are simply defined away.

      So if I changed the badges on front of the cars, the properties of the cars would change? Or are the cars inherently different whatever badge is put on them?

      But every BMW model is different? How can they be part of the same group?
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.